Best Practices in Faculty
Mentoring
Diana Bilimoria, PhD
KeyBank Professor
Weatherhead School of Management
diana.bilimoria@case.edu
November 2011
Objectives
 Identify what is important to junior faculty and
senior faculty re: mentoring
 Recognize the benefits of different forms of
faculty mentoring
 Identify best practices in mentoring at CWRU and
other universities
 Determine next steps in implementing a
mentoring program in our department
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
2
Definition of a Mentor
One who facilitates professional and
personal growth in an individual by
sharing insights, providing
encouragement, and opening doors
“Mentor” dates back to ancient Greece when
Mentor, a wise teacher and trusted advisor,
was asked by his friend Odysseus to watch
over his son Telemachus, as he embarked on
the lengthy voyage to fight the Trojan war.
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
3
Mentoring Needs of Junior Faculty
January 2011 Focus group with Assistant Professors at WSOM for less than 3 years
 Career Success
 Input to work out a plan for key career evaluation points (e.g., 3rd
year review, tenure review)
 Timely feedback on early outputs (submissions, papers, grants)
 Academic Performance
 An independent advisor to provide perspective and guidance on
problems or concerns in the classroom, lab, or department
 Advice to help determine priorities and avoid pitfalls in research
 Networks
 Assistance in building networks at CWRU and in the discipline
 Institutional Navigation
 Tacit knowledge about School history, priorities, norms, structures,
practices, and resources
 Service – when to say “yes” or “no”, at what levels to participate
 A meaningful relationship, and a sense of inclusion
 Advocacy for the issues all junior faculty face
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
4
2011 Focus Groups of Women Faculty
Across the University
Source: Susan Freimark, Women Faculty Leadership Development Institute, CWRU
Assistant Professors

Tenure and Promotion
Associate Professors

 Getting department
specific help and

guidance from the chair

Grants and Publications
 0btaining more
administrative support
 Developing peer review
committees

Department Climate
 Overcoming silo climate
 Negotiation strategies
regarding work loads
and resources



Lack of clear guidelines
for advancement
Committee “fodder”
 Lack of time for
research
Getting credit for service
Mentoring
 How to find and use
mentors at this
career stage
Full Professors




Goals and plans for “life
at the top”
Lack of recognition and
rewards
 More recognition
outside the
university
Cumbersome university
system
Transparency in
appointments of
administrative positions
Mentoring
 How to find and use
external mentors
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
5
Desirable Mentor Attributes
Case School of Engineering Junior Faculty Survey (2010)
• Accessible
• Interested in helping
• Offering critical assessment
• Encouraging, open
• Knowledgeable, with wide contacts
• Able to offer experience, wisdom and advice
Source: Dwight Davy & Ica Manas-Zloczower, Presentation
to CWRU Department Chair Leadership Forum, 9-20-10
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
6
Roles
Mentor Roles








Listen patiently
Build a relationship
Nurture self-sufficiency
Establish protected time together
Share yourself
Provide introductions
Be constructive
Don’t be overbearing
Mentee Roles
 Listen patiently
 Have a positive attitude
 Share with your mentor reasons
for your decisions
 Be prepared to learn from your
mentor
 Actively seek advice from your
mentor and others both in and
out of your department
 Act on advice from your mentors
Source: “Advisor, Teacher, Role Model, Friend”, National Academy of Sciences
National Press, Washington DC
Need to discuss expectations and
balancing of these roles early on
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
7
Difficulties Sometimes Reported By
Mentors and Mentees
 Time challenges
 Mentor expects too much too soon and is disappointed that
mentee does not do exactly what the mentor says
 Mentee feels pressure or guilt
 Mentee feels that mentor does not prioritize meetings
 Mentor feels burdened with responsibility for mentee’s
success
 Finding the right balance of roles
 Department chair not closely involved
 Hidden agendas
 Inappropriate behavior and gendered expectations between
men and women
 Not knowing how to end a mentoring relationship
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
8
Mentoring Process Guidelines Sought
by Senior Faculty
Case School of Engineering Senior Faculty Survey (2010)
• Clearly stated goals for mentoring
• Mutual understanding of the process by mentor(s)
and mentee
• Having multiple mentors for each mentee
• Defined process for matching mentors and mentees
• Expected time commitment
• Rewards for mentors
• Means of measuring outcomes
Source: Dwight Davy & Ica Manas-Zloczower, Presentation
to CWRU Department Chair Leadership Forum, 9-20-10
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
9
Career Development Workshops
Complement One-On-One Mentoring
Case School of Engineering Targeted Workshops (2010-11)






Strategies for development of research resources
Strategies for teaching excellence
Targeted grant writing (NSF/NIH/DOD)
Developing a 3rd year review portfolio
Developing a tenure dossier
Networking and development of research
collaborations
Source: Dwight Davy & Ica Manas-Zloczower, Presentation
to CWRU Department Chair Leadership Forum, 9-20-10
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
10
A Spectrum of University Mentoring
Practices
Formal






Select senior faculty are chosen and
specifically trained in mentorship
All junior faculty are formally paired
with a senior faculty mentor
School-wide mentorship kick-off
dinner to start the relationship
Bi-annual mentorship gatherings for
discussion of career progress
Quarterly workshops on career
development, grant writing,
achieving tenure,
Protégés receive annual written
feedback from mentors
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
Informal
Chairs meet with junior
faculty and new faculty
to discuss their learning
needs
 Chairs then discuss
potential appropriate
mentors, and facilitate
appropriate connection
 Mentors and protégés
work out the details of
this relationship

11
A Spectrum of University Mentoring
Practices
Formal
Informal
 Administered centrally
 No administrative oversight
 Expectations shared and
 Expectations may be shared





monitored
More people participate in
the “matching”
Time-bound mentoring
Non-voluntary
Written feedback
Process and effectiveness
are evaluated
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011





informally
Fewer people participate in
the “matching”
Indefinite
Voluntary
Informal feedback
No formal evaluations
12
Forms of Mentoring
One-on-one mentoring
Committee mentoring
Zone mentoring (by area of expertise)
Peer mentoring
E-mentoring
Travel support to meet disciplinary mentor outside the
university
 Annual review meetings with chair and mentors
 Seminars, panel discussions, academic performance and
career development workshops
 Professional academic coaching – long and short term






D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
13
Selected Mentoring Best Practices at CWRU

School of Dental Medicine – 2011
 Each Assistant Professor in consultation with the Department Chair forms a
Mentoring Committee (MC) of at least two full time faculty members within
the first four months of a new appointment or promotion.
 Mentoring Committee guidelines developed
 Administrative oversight and annual program evaluation

Weatherhead School of Management – 2011
 Mentoring program for faculty under 3 years
 Junior faculty matched with one senior faculty outside their department –
with input from department chairs and junior faculty
 Goals – School orientation and navigation, career advice, relationship
building support
 Time bound (8-12 months) and voluntary
 Evaluation of mentoring process and effectiveness

Case School of Engineering – 2011
 Launch committee for each newly hired faculty member
 Operates for 1 year; transfer to a Mentoring Committee after first year
 Launch Committee consists of hiring advocate, Department Chair, and one
other search committee member
 Checklist of actions needed to be accomplished by the Launch Committee in
four areas: Lab space, funding, lab personnel and hiring, and integration in
the university.
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
14
Selected Mentoring Best Practices at
Other Universities

U Michigan –
 Dept. chair and new faculty member develop a mentoring plan addressing
teaching, graduate supervision, and research
 Chairs fill out a section on mentoring in their annual reports.
 Annual college-level meeting open to all tenure-track faculty to discuss the
requirements for tenure and promotion and the P&T process

U Penn –
 Each school designates a senior faculty person responsible for the
management of the faculty mentorship program
 Specific responsibilities and expectations of the mentor are clearly stated in
the school’s policy and distributed to the junior faculty member along with the
school’s promotion guidelines
 Faculty mentoring considered as one of the university citizenship criteria for
promoting senior faculty from Associate Professor to Full Professor

Stanford Medical School –
 Mentor assigned as soon as faculty member is hired; others may be added
later by the faculty; mentors meet every six months with mentees
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
15
Gender Related Insights from
Research on Mentoring
 Relational support within the department is twice as important
for job satisfaction of women faculty than men faculty (Bilimoria et
al, 2006)
 In a study of corporate high-performers:
Women mentees:
 Were mentored mostly about:
 Psycho-social support
(understanding themselves and
the ways they operate, navigating
politics, and work-life issues)
 Developmental advice (guidance
about ways to change themselves)
and extra work assignments
including extra travel and
meetings
 Had mentors with lower clout (midlevel managers), after controlling for
lower post-MBA starting position
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
(Ibarra, Carter, and Silva, 2010)
Men mentees:
 Were mentored mostly about:
 Career functions (planning next
moves, how to take charge in next
roles, and figuring out how to
achieve career goals)
 Received active sponsorship by the
mentor (advocacy, resources, visibility,
opportunities, network connections)
 Had mentors with higher clout
(executive team level)
16
Expectations for Cultivating the
Mentoring Relationship
1. Interact with respect and professionalism
2. Build trust by articulating and fulfilling
expectations
3. Engage in partnership building activities and
exchange of learning rather than one-way advice
4. Build mentee’s sense of self-efficacy
5. Time management
•
•
•
Set a schedule of meetings (e.g., monthly, twice a semester)
Co-develop an agenda for each meeting
Discuss a time frame for relationship closure/ renewal
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
17
Mentoring Challenges & Actions to Address Them

Time challenges: the best mentors are very busy; and mentees sometimes
don’t perceive their own time investment to be worthwhile
Action: Set a schedule of meetings and co-develop each agenda

Mentors and mentees to informally manage on their own
Actions: Establish guidelines and expectations, provide oversight of the
process, increase accountability

Perceptions and expectations of mentoring differ between senior and
junior faculty
Action: Discuss expectations early and often

Culture does not always support mentoring
Actions: Involve department chair and senior faculty throughout the
process; periodically discuss mentoring in dept. faculty meetings

Department size: sometimes just not enough senior faculty mentors
Action: Use a variety of mentoring practices

Associate to full professor mentoring often falls through the cracks
Action: Provide formal mentoring for associate professors
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
18
Some Conclusions about Best
Practices in Faculty Mentoring
 Research has shown that structured mentoring
efforts, where appropriate senior faculty are matched
with faculty mentees and there are established
guidelines and expectations, are effective.
 To maximize the effectiveness of faculty mentoring,
department chairs and a mentoring program
coordinator should be deeply involved and check in
with mentors and mentees periodically.
 Utilize an array of mentoring practices: one-on-one;
committee; peer group; zone; e-mentoring,
seminars, workshops and panel discussions; annual
review sessions with chair and mentors; travel
support; professional coaching.
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
19
Additional Readings
 A comprehensive source for readings and
resources on faculty mentoring, including by
discipline:
http://www.crlt.umich.edu/faculty/facment.php
 A detailed description of the department chair’s
role in faculty mentoring:
http://provost.asu.edu/academic_personnel/mentoring/
practices/departmentchair
D. Bilimoria, Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2011
20