1 / 56

Faculty Mentoring Programs: Updates from the Field

Faculty Mentoring Programs: Updates from the Field. Jeffrey Morzinski PhD, MSW Dept of Family & Community Medicine. Problems in Academic Health Sciences / Higher Education. Instability Uncertainty Leadership gaps Poor morale Missed opportunities Isolation Unfulfilled careers.

yama
Download Presentation

Faculty Mentoring Programs: Updates from the Field

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty Mentoring Programs: Updates from the Field Jeffrey Morzinski PhD, MSW Dept of Family & Community Medicine

  2. Problems in Academic Health Sciences / Higher Education • Instability • Uncertainty • Leadership gaps • Poor morale • Missed opportunities • Isolation • Unfulfilled careers

  3. Mentoring: Hope & Challenge • Optimism / opportunity in mentoring / other forms of faculty development • Challenges include: Cultural fit, program design, cost, evaluation Greatness is not where we stand, but in what direction we are moving. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

  4. Session Objectives: • Describe five stages of mentoring program development • List and discuss several “lessons from the field”, based on experiences gained during a long-standing mentor program • Appreciate importance of a “colleague network” approach to optimize faculty development • Evaluate an emerging, four level categorization for mentoring programs • Discuss any & all mentoring program questions

  5. Session Activities • Introduction • Describe five stages of our mentoring program • Answer your questions (at three specific transitions / others as needed) • Report findings of a study on Fac Dev features that advance mentoring • Review “lessons from the field” • Integrate & discuss your plans for mentoring practice

  6. Speaker’s Interest and Setting • Biology + Social Welfare + Admin Leader • Rural Community Health + Faculty Dev + Mentoring, Evaluation & Leadership • Medical College of Wisconsin • Where we are • What we do

  7. Mentoring Overview • Odysseus from Homer’s Odyssey • Recruited Mentor to guide Telemachus • Athene sometimes speaks through Mentor • Developmental relationship / transitions • A Learning relationship aimed at helping the mentee progress toward mutually defined goals* • Risks • Exploitation, careerism, favoritism • Benefits • Advancement, learning, succession planning, vitality, networking * Zachary L “Creating a Mentoring Culture”

  8. Why Structured Mentoring? • Do mentors / proteges find each other? • Not frequent / not at right time • When it do - within social / cultural strata • Structured mentoring defined: A structure and series of processes designed to create effective mentoring relationships, guide the desired change of those involved, and evaluate the results for the protégé, the mentor and the organization. -- Murray & Owen

  9. Structured / Assigned Mentor Programs • Comparable outcomes as with non-assigned mentoring* • Research variables to look for • Individual characteristics & training • Context (e.g., leader support, other Fac Dev) • How matching occurs • Objectives, monitoring & summative eval * Chao, Walz & Gardner. Formal and informal mentorships…

  10. Published Mentor Program Outcomes (N=18)* * Morzinski & Fisher, Eval Practice

  11. Myths of Mentoring • Can’t be effective if “matched” by a 3rd party • Personalities must match • Gender-ethnic-discipline must match • Frequent in-person meetings • “Just right” timing • De-emphasize other relationships • Protégé will have less work to do

  12. Why Mentoring & Faculty Development • Isolation among junior faculty • Senior faculty - search for academic vitality • Rapid expansion and change in many fields (including my field in academic medicine) • Evidence that mentoring works

  13. Integrated with Fac Dev: MCW’s Five-stage mentoring Program • Organizational readiness • Visibility and recruitment • Matching and orientation • Ongoing seminars, support & structure • Evaluation

  14. Program Stages 1. Organizational readiness • Determine needs and interests • Gather input from leaders & Chair • Secure commitment of resources • Publicize goals • In our program, trainee / jr faculty goals are:* • Understand values, norms and expectations of academic medicine • Develop skills to proactively manage career • Develop / maintain a productive colleague network *Bland et al, Successful Faculty…

  15. Program Stages (cont) 2. Visibility and recruitment • Mentoring as part of the culture • Clarify purpose of two-year program • Confirm chair recommendations for mentors • Promote a norm of participation • “Short bridge” approach to recruiting

  16. Program Stages (cont) 3. Matching and orientation • Collect & distribute faculty biosketches • For any reason - is there anyoneyou could not work with? • Mentor approves match / gets 30 minute orientation • Inspirational reception • Mentor makes first 3-5 contacts

  17. Program Stages (cont) 4. Ongoing seminars, structure & support • Blend of group / individual activities • Recommend a minimum of 2 contacts / month • Coordinator reminds and monitors • Keep up contacts…meet at naturally-occurring events

  18. Program Stages (cont) 5. Evaluation & Reporting • Contact frequency and content • Social activities “count” • Public recognition at program end • Gather data to improve program and judge impact • Report results at appropriate venues

  19. Internal Summary 1 • Reviewed mentor background & myths • Presented mentoring’s evolution to structured programs • Detailed 5 development stages that both guided & emerged from our program experience

  20. Transition / Discussion • Mentoring Myths, Program Stages & Features • Q & A • Chat: Have you been “matched” in a mentoring program? Were you a… mentor… a protégé? • If you have been matched, name one factor that either helped the program’s effectiveness, or was a barrier to its overall effectiveness.

  21. Mentoring & Faculty Socialization at Other Schools • Mentoring, or mentoring plus…? • Inspired by research in business / management The popular press has done a disservice by implying that the key to career success is finding a mentor. This is an oversimplification of a complex web of work relationships that could be made available to individuals in organizational settings -- K Kram

  22. Colleagues in Academic Careers • Why Study / Foster Colleagues? • Individual benefits • Fac who often utilize C’s in res = 4 x pubs* • Increased creativity, happiness • Increased retention • Group benefits • Recruiting • Succession planning • If you were allowed only one line of inquiry to predict a faculty member’s future success… ** *Jones et al. J of Dental Ed **Hitchcock et al, Acad Med

  23. Colleague Relationships & Fac Dev • Instructional features of Fac Dev may be associated with CR gains* • Because CRs are valued, we wondered if / how professional training helps to develop mentors and other CRs? • No one had asked learners to describe training experiences that influenced CR development • No studies of a national sample of Fac Dev * Bland et al, Successful Faculty…

  24. Study Definitions • FDPs: 52 Health Professions schools received HRSA-BHPr FD grants* • FD Director: Each (52) identified in grant • Enrollee: Health professions faculty in FDP for at least 6 months. • Colleague Relationship (CR): career supportive relationships (e.g., mentors, peers) “initiated or strengthened” due to FDP participation. * See www.hrsa.gov

  25. Study Design* Mail Surveys: Two Phases (’99-00) • FD Directors provided program descriptions and enrollee rosters • Enrollees provided data on • CR gains, socialization, products and achievements • Two key Study Questions: • How many career supportive colleagues did you initiate or develop during your FDP? • What FDP features contributed to your developing CRs? * Morzinski JA, Fisher. A nation-wide study...

  26. Overview of Respondents • 37 of 52 (71%) FD directors • 351 of 543 (65%) enrollees • male 65%; non-white 16% • Average age at FDP start, • male 40; female 37 • Yrs as faculty at FDP start • male 4.5 years; female 2.7 years; non-white 1.9 years • Distribution from all 10 US regions

  27. Descriptions of Colleague Types • Mentors • Often in advanced career stages • Foster academic identity, advancement & goals • Link to new opportunities, people • Peers • Often similar career stage • Collaborate, informal feedback and friendship • Academic Consultants • Provide specialized help in activities and projects • Aid efficiency and quality

  28. Findings: Study Question 1* • Enrollees reported 9.1 CRs due to FDP enrollment • 2 mentors • 3 peers • 1 acad consultant • 3 “perceived” CRs • CRs were important to enrollees’ academic socialization and careers • Six CRs directly assisted with multiple career-important products / achievements • Three perceived to be “in the wings” if needed * Morzinski JA, Fisher. A nation-wide study on the influence of FDPs on colleague relationships. Acad Med.

  29. CR Totals and Types Peers Mentors Junior Faculty Academic Consult. Perceived CRs

  30. Details: FD Colleagues “Most Influential” • 74% were “well or very well connected” to a regional/national scholar network • 43% had primary affiliation external to subjects’ home institution • 41% had original meeting during training activities • 60% exchanged support & challenge • Stimulate avg of 2-3 products/achievements • Hands-on support most associated with products / achievements

  31. Study Question 2: FDP Features • “What faculty development program features contributed to your developing Colleague Relationships?” • 269 of 351 enrollees (66%) made 624 usable text responses • Template approach resulted in 16 sub-categories in 4 main categories* • Inter-rater agreement 88%; Cohen’s Kappa 83% *Crabtree & Miller; Constas.

  32. Sub-Analysis (continued) • We examined open-ended responses from FD enrollees with • Moderate to high CR gains • CRs important or very important • Final count of 335 text responses by 141 enrollees

  33. Results: 335 Entries in Four Main Categories • Concrete interaction (n=127; 38%)* • “Presented our teaching to one another for feedback” • “Learned by group participation” • Learning context (n=105; 31%) • “A safe group… mutual respect” • “Meeting away from home and “pagers” *Also see: Morzinski, “Influence of Academic Projects…” Family Medicine

  34. Results on FDP Features (cont) • Instructional Experiences (n=46; 14%) • “Frequently used participants’ programs to illustrate teaching points” • “Active instruction on learning styles” • Learners and Leaders (n=57; 17%) • “Being together with my peers at all the classes” • “Faculty were well-connected with national organizations”

  35. Internal Summary 2 • Mentoring is a Faculty Development method • From a national sample of FDP enrollees and programs, we learned: • Positive career-impact of three types of CRs • Power of instructional activities that include hands-on help, concrete interaction & a respectful learning context

  36. Transition Discussion • What about the study and its results? • Q & A: Colleague Relationships as extension of mentoring • Chat: If someone has a strong network of peers and acad consultants, do they still need one or more mentors? Why / why not?

  37. Lessons from the Field: For Organizations • Mentoring programs need objectives * • Mentoring can’t be “window dressing” – need appropriate learning context • Promote “Small m” mentoring • Establish a code of institutional expectations and support for mentoring *Zachary L. “Creating a Mentoring Culture”

  38. Lessons from the Field: For Mentors • Ok to start before you’re certain you are ready • Balance challenge with support** • Plan to be more directive / active early • Provide hands-on support** ** Bower, Diehr, Morzinski & Simpson.

  39. Lessons from the Field: For Proteges • Proteges need objectives • Be ready emotionally – suspend judgment • Avoid mentor envy • Seek diversity – up to six to eight active, career-support members

  40. Role of ColleaguesSupport and Challenge (Daloz) High Challenge Low High Support *Adopted from Daloz LA, Effective teaching and mentoring.

  41. Support/Challenge High RETREAT GROWTH Challenge STASIS CONFIRMATION Low High Support

  42. Support Types • Information. Aids decision-making; clarifies uncertainty; increases awareness of opportunities • Feedback. Fosters quality and confidence by offering comparisons or standards for judging the quality of projects, behaviors, performance.

  43. Support Types (cont) • Emotional support. Builds trust, friendship. Could reduce beliefs of personal competence • Hands-on support.* Direct work, often tangible and/or visible, that moves a project toward completion. *Strongest association with junior faculty products & achievements

  44. Examples of Challenge • Heat up dichotomies • Offer new language • Silence / give time • Dialogue on aims / purposes • Questions “Let’s assume..” / “What if…” • Set challenging tasks • Set and maintain high performance standards • Keep an eye on the clock / calendar

  45. Tool for Reviewing CR Networks • List your active, career-supportive CRs: • Mentors ___________, ___________. • Peers __________, ___________, __________. • Academic consultants __________, _________. • Plan for adding diversity/filling gaps______ ____________________________________ • Reflect on exchanges with existing CRs: • Support / challenge balance? • How to improve balance___________________

  46. Emerging Program Lesson: Levels of Formality • How Formal Should Y/our Program Be?

  47. Tuxedos to Blue Jeans: Four Mentoring Levels* • Formal mentoring includes matching / monitoring • Facilitated mentoring the dept still arranges meetings and monitors (does not match) • Intentional mentoring, where chairs or directors recommend individual action, with no / limited follow-up • Coincidental mentoring relies on luck At MCW… all levels represented * Morzinski JA. STFM Messenger.

  48. Internal Summary 3 • Lessons from the field • Mentors, protégé and organization • Support and challenge • Lesson for programs – mentoring level (formal, facilitated, intentional, coincidental) to fit different situations

More Related