• Informal mentoring arising spontaneously, as individuals interact during normal professional activities.

Assumptions:

• Formalized mentoring may be detrimental as it adds to faculty workloads.

• Natural interactions allow junior faculty to seek out advice in accord with their individual needs.

• The department is available as the definitive source of information, opportunities and resources.

Mentors are not formally assigned. Instead, mentoring arises as people interact during:

• Committee meetings

• Collaborations in research or teaching

• Casual encounters: lunches, coffees, hallway conversations, and social gatherings.

• Ad hoc meetings are initiated by senior or junior faculty (“open-door” policy).

• Junior faculty solicit advice from senior faculty that they select.

• Junior faculty develop their own interaction networks.

• Junior faculty interact with one another, for peer support and networking.

• Junior faculty seek information and advice from Department sources.

• Mentoring relationships are not imposed; instead, they develop naturally.

• Faculty become self-sufficient and interact without suffering from imposed formal arrangements.

• Mentoring strategies are flexible and thus are adaptable to each department.

• The onus is largely on junior faculty to seek mentoring.

• Junior faculty may be reluctant to seek out senior colleagues.

• Junior faculty may not know their needs, be able to articulate their needs, or understand what resources are available to address their needs.

• Senior faculty may not view mentoring activity as an important component of their work or the department’s mission.

• Interactions may not develop naturally.

• The unique needs of special faculty groups may be overlooked.

• In this system, mentoring is formally established as a one-on-one relationship between junior and senior faculty.

• Terms are variable and may include:
• Long-term commitments
• One-year terms
• Rotating assignments changed at regular intervals

• The mentoring may incorporate individual or departmental reviews.

• The administration is committed to mentoring.

• A single mentor can best satisfy the needs of junior faculty.

• Senior faculty have the knowledge needed to serve as mentors.

• Junior faculty benefit from interactions with someone familiar with their work.

• Faculty have sufficient time to foster meaningful mentoring relationships.

• Mentors and mentees can find areas of compatibility.

• Both junior and senior faculty benefit from mentoring relationships.

• Formally assigned based on research interests.

• Junior faculty selects mentor.

• Senior faculty selects mentee.

• Meetings are regular and periodic.

• Issues are defined jointly or arise from either the mentee or the mentor.

• Junior faculty needs, timeframe, and expectations are discussed formally.

• Research and publications are discussed formally.

• The mentor oversees progress towards tenure.

• The mentor aids networking in the research field.

• The mentor facilitates participation in professional activities, grant writing, and reviewing.
  
  
• The mentor and mentee may collaborate in research and teaching.

• This system can lead to long-term professional relationships and friendships.

• Junior faculty may gain an ally and advocate.

• Senior faculty may become reenergized or more invested in the department.

• Dyads may be incompatible.

• Changing partners can be awkward.

• One mentor may not satisfy all needs.

• Time constraints may prevent regular interactions.

• Senior faculty may lack incentives to invest time in mentoring.

• Departments may have too few mentors who are knowledgeable and willing to serve.

• Competitiveness may hinder good mentoring.
  
  
• Interdisciplinary appointments can complicate mentoring arrangements.

• In this system, a group of senior faculty is formally assigned to each junior faculty member, to give advice on both personal and professional concerns.
  
  
• Mentees may meet with the entire committee, or with individuals.
  

 Assumptions:

• The administration is committed to mentoring.
  
  
• Senior faculty are preferred as mentors.
  
  
• Senior faculty may lack sufficient time to foster meaningful one-on-one interactions.
  
  
• No single individual possesses all the knowledge necessary for mentoring.
  
  
• Junior faculty need to receive multiple perspectives.
  
  
• Both junior and senior faculty benefit from mentoring relationships.
  
  
• Personal concerns can have an impact on professional development and are thus a valid issue for mentoring.

Implementation :

• The composition of the group may reflect the diverse needs of mentees.
  
  
• Committee members may be chosen based on research and teaching interests or other relevant experience.
  
  
• Assignments may be made yearly.
  
  
• Committees and junior faculty may be reviewed periodically.
  
  
  

 Activities:

• Meetings are regular and periodic.
  
  
• Meetings jointly define junior faculty needs, timeframe, and expectations.
  
  
• Research and publications are discussed.
  
  
• The committee oversees progress towards tenure.
  
  
• Committee members aid networking in the field and facilitate participation in professional activities.
  
  
• The mentors and mentee may collaborate in research and teaching.
  
  
• The committee addresses personal concerns such as balancing work and family obligations.
  
  
• The group serves as the gateway for unit, school/college, and university resources.

• Junior faculty can access the knowledge and resources of several senior faculty.
  
  
• The aggregate strengths and knowledge of several senior mentors provides a more holistic experience.
  
  
• Having multiple potential mentors makes it easier to schedule a one-on-one meeting with a mentor.
  
  
• If rapport is not established with one mentor, others are readily available.
  
  
• Group dynamics facilitate interactions that may enhance research and teaching of all committee members.

Issues:

• Senior faculty members may not interact well with one another.
  
  
• Conflicting advice may obscure what is important and confuse mentees.
  
  
• Oversight is needed to resolve conflicting advice.

Definition:

• In oversight mentoring, the chair (or unit director), perhaps in consultation with a committee, mentors junior faculty and monitors their progress.
  
  
• Mentoring focuses on tenure and promotion.
  
  
• Existing tenure and promotion criteria provide specific guidelines.

Assumptions:

• Administrative leadership symbolizes departmental interest in junior faculty development.
  
  
• Focusing on tenure and promotion is the most appropriate framework for mentoring.
  
  
• The chair is the most appropriate individual to mentor.
  
  
• The chair is the most accurate and relevant source of information for mentoring.
  
  
• Junior faculty benefit from ongoing interactions with the chair.
  
  
• Junior faculty can access campus resources as needed.

Ways of assigning mentors:

• The mentor is the unit chair.
  
  
• The chair may mentor in conjunction with a standing or ad hoc committee.
  

Activities:

• Meetings are regular and periodic.
  
  
• Research and publications are discussed.
  
  
• The chair and mentee jointly define junior faculty needs, timeframe, and expectations.
  
  
• The chair oversees progress towards tenure, grant writing and teaching.
  
  
• The chair aids networking in the field and facilitates participation in professional activities.
  
  
• The chair may provide assistance with personal concerns such as balancing work and family obligations.
  
  
• The chair serves as the gateway for unit, school/college, and university resources.

Benefits:

• Chairs are actively engaged in junior faculty development.
  
  
• Junior faculty receive feedback and information pertinent to their own unit.
  
  
• The emphasis on tenure and promotion keeps the mentee focused on activities that support professional development.

Issues:

• Linking mentoring to tenure and promotion could marginalize unassociated career development activities.
  
  
• Chairs may have a heavy burden if they are wholly responsible for the professional guidance of all junior faculty members.
  
  
• Other issues, such as personal concerns, may be ignored.

Definition:

• In network mentoring, the culture supports continuous mentoring, so that people within the unit serve as mutual resources for one another.
  
  
• This system blends administrative leadership, departmental involvement, and junior faculty initiative.
  
  
• This system is not an explicit mentoring program; instead, mentoring arises through ongoing academic work.

Assumptions:

• Junior faculty mentoring is a unit responsibility.
  
  
• No one individual possesses all the knowledge needed for mentoring.
  
  
• Senior faculty may have insufficient time to foster meaningful mentoring relationships on their own.
  
  
• Junior faculty are expected to take advantage of resources that are available.
  
  
• Senior faculty and administrators are expected to readily assist junior faculty.

Implementation:

• A collaborative system arises through normal departmental activities.
  
  
• Junior and senior faculty work together on projects, committee work, and in professional societies.
  
  
• Structures can be flexible:
• Particular faculty may be responsible for providing particular types of information.
• An “open-door” policy can facilitate junior faculty willingness to seek advice.
• Senior faculty can periodically check up on the progress of junior colleagues.
• Chairs and directors can oversee junior faculty progress.

Relationships:

• Interactions can range from traditional dyads to collaborative partnerships with multiple colleagues.
  
  
• This system also promotes peer support and interactions among junior faculty.
  
  
• This system seeks to build a culture that incorporates mentoring into natural departmental functions.

Benefits:

• Mentoring becomes viewed as a collective responsibility.
  
  
• This system fosters greater collegiality among all members.
  
  
• Junior faculty become socialized to embrace collegial development and to serve in turn as mentors.
  
  
• Junior faculty receive multiple perspectives on professional issues, rather than relying on a single individual or group for guidance.
  
  
• All faculty make connections across a broader spectrum of professional interests.

Issues:

• Junior faculty must be willing to initiate contact.
  
  
• Senior faculty and administrators must be committed to continually participate in mentoring.
  
  
• Senior faculty commitment may be hampered by a lack of incentives.
  
  
• Responsibility for tracking progress of junior faculty may become too diffused.