Search results

This study aims to investigate the relationship between mentors’ paradox mindset and career mentoring directly and indirectly through self-efficacy and work engagement, drawing insights from attachment theory.

A serial mediation model was tested using survey data from 297 employees working in a bank company in China.

Paradox mindset had a significant indirect effect on career mentoring through self-efficacy and work engagement, self-efficacy had a significant indirect effect on career mentoring through work engagement, and paradox mindset had a significant indirect effect on career mentoring through self-efficacy and work engagement.

The results offer practical insights for human resource managers by investigating how mentors’ mindsets affect their psychological states and behaviors. By training and developing mentors’ paradox mindset, mentors can better deal with tensions with a high level of self-efficacy and work engagement in the increasingly changing and demanding work environment and foster functional mentoring relationships.

Findings of this study provide fresh insights into the relationship between individual differences and mentoring relationships by uncovering the critical role of paradox mindset in enhancing self-efficacy and work engagement. Moreover, the interaction of mentors’ paradox mindset and self-efficacy advances previous studies on attachment theory by investigating the underlying mechanisms of mentoring relationships involving affectionate or emotional factors.

The 50th anniversary of Fox's Beyond Contract and Man Mismanagement coincides with another vital contribution to the sociology of work from 1974: Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital. This article analyses these two scholars' complementary approaches to job design and the extent to which Fox's ideas influenced subsequent labour process thought.

The article's methodological approach is a historiographical reading of Fox and Braverman's thought in the context of their times and later scholarship.

The article demonstrates that despite some noteworthy overlap with Braverman concerning scientific management, Fox's insights were marginal to later iterations of labour process analysis. It delves into the reasons for this relative neglect, providing an understanding of the dynamics at play.

This paper's value lies in its combined industrial relations and labour process historiography. It offers a fresh perspective on Alan Fox's relationship to the latter field of study.