Guide to Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring
Definitions, concepts, and practices of mentorship for university faculty vary considerably, but all place value on a relational structure that provides specific knowledge required for faculty to develop successful independent scholarship, as well as essential professional relationships that place faculty within the network of scholars in their discipline. These are often framed as career advancing or “instrumental” functions or as psychosocial or “expressive functions,” but they are closely related and overlapping (Zellers, Howard, & Barcic, 2008; Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Mott, 2002). Though most frequently conceptualized as a single, formalized, dyadic, hierarchical relationship between a senior and junior faculty member (Zellers, Howard, & Barcic, 2008), more recent concepts of mentoring would suggest that effective faculty mentoring should involve both formal and informal relationships with a broad array of professional colleagues (mentoring networks, constellations, distributed mentoring, partnerships) (Zellers et al., 2008; Pololi & Knight, 2005; De Janasz & Sullivan, 2004; Kram & Isabella, 1985; McClurken, 2009; Van Emmerik, 2004; Ibarra, 1993).
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Mentoring is commonly understood to imply a supportive relationship designed to guide the successful integration of new members into an organization and to enhance the subsequent ability of those members to add value to the organization (Bland et al., 2009; Mott, 2002; Zellers et al., 2008). In this context, we wish to precisely define the important principles of these types of relationships as they relate to university faculty:
1. Mentorship is a collaborative learning process that draws upon the knowledge of a variety of faculty who can provide guidance (senior faculty, near peers, and peers may all function as mentors) (Kram & Isabella, 1985) to new faculty entering the professoriate or to more senior faculty transitioning to new roles.
2. Mentoring should help junior faculty successfully acquire the key competencies (scholarly independence, educational skills, and preparation for academic advancement), as well as the constructive professional relationships (professional networks) within the institution and beyond needed to develop a productive career (Zellers et al., 2008; Bhagia & Joyce, 2000; Chao et al., 1992).
3. The traditional, hierarchical, dyadic mentoring relationships may be enriched by an additional network of individuals providing very specific guidance in areas of professional development that may not be addressed within a single dyadic relationship (Zellers et al., 2008; Kram & Isabella, 1985).
4. Mentoring need not be limited to junior faculty, as midlevel and senior faculty may wish to focus on career transitions and new directions. The structure of these relationships may be less formalized and more dependent on peer or near peer relationships; professional “coaching” and group taught skills acquisition, through facilitation by school/ department, may be useful.
5. Mentoring relationships should evolve over time and may focus on one or several elements required for career success depending upon the career stage of the mentee, the career goals to be met, the level of guidance required, and the nature of the input from mentors. Thus, they may
be enduring, long-term relationships that evolve over time into collegial rather than mentoring relationships, or they may be more transient relationships focused on specific areas of guidance at key career points.
Read the full guideline: Columbia University, Office of the Provost, Guide to Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring, 2016.