[23.3.2005–12:09am] [5–11] L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME-002.3d

[Page No. 5] Journal of Veterinary

Featured Article

Mentors, Colleagues, and Successful Health Science Faculty: Lessons from the Field Jeffrey A. Morzinski INTRODUCTION Faculty members in medical and other professional schools are required to be fully functional soon after they begin employment. Regardless of their experience, they are expected to be productive in several areas related to clinical service and teaching. Most new faculty members are also expected to engage in some form of research and to perform leadership functions for their divisions, clinics, departments, schools, and communities. These faculty roles and functions require significant skill levels that are expected to be part of the new faculty member’s preparation. However, to be successful, new faculty also need to understand the social skills of their institution and their academic field. These skills involve much more than being sociable. They include managing one’s career, finding and retaining productive colleagues, and understanding the norms and values of academic medicine.1 Few schools offer new faculty members apprenticeships or other opportunities to develop these skills, which are often based on unwritten rules and expectations. For junior faculty, gaps in these skills can lead to isolation and loneliness as they adjust to increasing and diverse demands on their time while concurrently trying to learn what is expected of them. The problems are not limited to junior faculty. Mid-career faculty members may also struggle with little support or means to develop or maintain academic skills.2 Mid-career faculty may experience ruts or isolation and may feel they have little to offer their junior colleagues. Some mid-career faculty will form habits that limit their exposure to new ideas and the challenges they feel compelled to confront. The high personal, professional, and financial costs of faculty turnover make it irresponsible to ignore the challenges we may be able to meet in order to retain and develop dedicated and strong faculty members. My academic home is in family medicine, where for 14 years I have worked to design, implement, and evaluate faculty development and mentor programs. At my institution we are very familiar with the career stresses experienced by our clinician-educator colleagues. I often meet junior faculty members who are well prepared clinically but have very limited preparation in educational skills. These concerns are shared by veterinary medical education, where some are witnessing a loss of interest in teaching and ‘‘a demise of strong, teacher-based mentor programs to train new educators.’’3 To meet these important challenges, this article is organized to achieve three overlapping aims. First, I clarify themes related to faculty development and mentoring and describe research about those themes that my faculty development colleagues and I have found useful in our work. Next I JVME 32(1) ß 2005 AAVMC

summarize details of a nationwide study that clarifies the functions and benefits of colleague relationships on junior faculty member career success. Finally, I present characteristics of the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) mentor program and several lessons learned from our experience.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND MENTORING ‘‘Faculty development’’ is an umbrella term covering informal and formal experiences designed to energize and guide faculty to better perform their educational and leadership roles. These activities could be as simple as asking a colleague to observe one’s teaching and giving helpful feedback; they could also include attending seminars and workshops at professional meetings or even enrolling in a full-time faculty development fellowship culminating in an advanced degree. Formal faculty development activities for medical faculty began in the 1970s and have been offered at medical schools, training centers, and professional academic medicine societies. Support for these programs has come from federal, institutional, and private sources. Most faculty development programs are designed for junior faculty, but some focus on mid-career faculty. Since 1991 my institution has offered various types of formal faculty development programs of five months’ to two years’ duration. The association between medical faculty development and mentoring was clarified in the early 1990s. At that time a seminal text was published that recommended that mentoring be an integral part of medical faculty development.1 Since then, several medical schools have used mentoring as a formal or informal tool for faculty development. Mentoring One way in which institutions are meeting demands for a better-prepared workforce is through mentors. The term ‘‘mentor’’ has been around since the epic Greek poem The Odyssey of Homer. In this poem, Odysseus has a friend named Mentor and a son named Telemachus. Odysseus assigns Mentor to watch over and guide his son during his absence, which stretches to 10 years. Mentor assumes the roles of protector, counselor, and teacher. Mentor has the physical appearance of a man, but the goddess Athene—daughter of Zeus—often takes on Mentor’s appearance and guides Telemachus as well. Mentor often surfaces at transitional times in the young man’s life to encourage him to action. In the 1970s the term ‘‘mentor’’ was popularized as a verb, and ‘‘mentoring’’ became a strategy for human resource development and leader succession planning in business and industry. In the 1980s mentoring was written about 5

[23.3.2005–12:09am] [5–11] L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME-002.3d

[Page No. 6] Journal of Veterinary

in several educational texts, especially as a way to recruit and retain new teachers. In the early 1990s mentoring was introduced as a ‘‘formal’’ program offered for new medical school faculty.4 Mentoring continues to be recommended as a tool for development and retention. For example, a 2001 review article on dental faculty development emphasized the essential role of mentoring in guiding career choice and to ‘‘integrate the new educator with the faculty community.’’5 Functions and Benefits of Mentors ‘‘Mentoring’’ refers to a one-on-one relationship between a more experienced person and a less experienced person. The relationship has as its intended purpose the development or the improvement of the status or competence of the junior person.6 The roles and functions of a mentor can be very broad. Mentors may function as teachers, guides, and coaches; they might also act behind the scenes to protect their prote´ge´ or help sponsor their participation in a new venture. Sometimes mentors simply provide information and role modeling. The functions of effective workplace mentoring have coalesced around two overlapping categories: instrumental and psychosocial.7 Mentors fulfill instrumental career functions when they provide career advice, teach about work roles, or give feedback on work performance. Psychosocial functions include such things as emotional support, guidance on balancing work and personal responsibilities, and a willingness to listen actively and reflectively. Several mentoring studies report benefits to prote´ge´s. For example, in the fields of education and health care, mentors have been associated with improved prote´ge´ teaching evaluations,8 higher rates of academic productivity (such as published papers and grants),9 and sustained teaching careers.10 Studies on the psychosocial benefits of mentoring include improved perceptions of advocacy and support,11 departmental caring, and greater levels of self-confidence.12 These are samples of many studies and reports that link positive outcomes with the presence of mentors. In addition to these benefits, some concerns about mentoring have also surfaced. Concerns about Mentoring Since its popularity has risen, at least three types of concerns have surfaced about mentoring. First, mentoring doesn’t always turn out well, and caution is warranted for both mentors and prote´ge´s. Mentors need to watch for prote´ge´s who take a ‘‘careerist’’ approach to this relationship, attempting to use it simply as a means to get ahead.13 Several concerns also exist for prote´ge´s.14 Prote´ge´s need to watch for mentors who may exploit them. Exploitation can be subtle, as in the case where a mentor suggests he or she be included as a manuscript co-author when in fact his or her contribution was not sufficient to warrant it. Other forms of manipulation may involve sexual advances or threats to the prote´ge´’s career. Organizations also need to be watchful, as bad matches or perceived favoritism can diminish morale. While, in my experience, risks are rare and most are preventable, individuals and organizations must be aware of the possibility of their occurrence. 6

From a research perspective, the main concerns have been claims of mentoring’s effect when there are no accepted standards of who mentors are, how they are prepared for their roles, or what they do. According to an early review of mentoring, evidence supporting the benefits of mentors consisted largely of testimonials and opinions.15 A final concern about mentoring involves access to mentors. Early studies about the benefits of mentoring showed that for some people, access to mentors appeared to be limited, especially access to influential mentors. Well-founded concerns were voiced that the benefits of having a mentor were stratified within rather than across gender and racial lines.6, 16 Access may also be limited for reasons other than individual factors. As the field of family medicine was forming in the 1970s, some were concerned that mentors were unavailable to junior members of this new field. Research also shows that department chairs and junior faculty from the same departments could have very different perceptions about access to mentors. In one school of medicine, department chairs believed they were primary sources of mentoring and that core mentor functions were largely being fulfilled. Junior faculty members from the same institution perceived that many mentor functions were being unmet.17 These concerns have led to a more concerted effort to structure programs of mentoring. These structured or ‘‘facilitated’’ mentor programs attempt to control factors such as mentor identification, preparation, and monitoring. They often promise to ‘‘even the playing field’’ for prote´ge´ opportunities and to stimulate more rigorous study of mentoring’s effects. Facilitated Mentoring A long-held perception is that mentoring originates and develops informally, with mentors and prote´ge´s simply finding each other and then magically advancing each other’s development. However, this good luck and magic only rarely happen. And even when mentoring advances in this fashion, research indicates that it is more likely to occur between those with pre-existing social relationships, among those from similar cultural or ethnic backgrounds, and within rather than across genders.18 Instead of relying on chance, those wanting to increase the quantity or quality of mentoring need to turn to a more formal structure, what Murray calls facilitated mentoring: A structure and series of processes designed to create effective mentoring relationships, guide the desired behavioral change of those involved, and evaluate the results for the prote´ge´s, the mentors and the organization.6 For those considering a formal, facilitated approach to mentoring, evidence suggests that prote´ge´ benefits from facilitated mentoring are comparable to those from informal mentoring.18 Murray’s text provides several models for implementing mentor programs as well as a highly useful emphasis on assessing an organization’s needs and degree of readiness for pursuing such programs.6 JVME 32(1) ß 2005 AAVMC

[23.3.2005–12:09am] [5–11] L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME-002.3d

[Page No. 7] Journal of Veterinary

An important insight from our own literature review is that mentoring exists on a facilitation continuum.18 On one end of the continuum, for example, would be the fairly common situation in which a chair recommends that a new faculty member introduce him- or herself to an experienced faculty member who is working on an interesting project in the hopes that they will ‘‘hit it off.’’ Our experience is that, in the absence of additional facilitation, these recommended introductions alone are unlikely to result in positive outcomes. At the other end of the facilitation continuum are mentor programs that include participant orientations, systematic matching, staff time, materials such as workbooks and supportive Web sites, evaluations, and rewards. The program at the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) that I will discuss later includes several of these features of facilitation.

A Study of Colleague Types Found in Faculty Development In 2002, we reported on a nation-wide study on the outcomes of faculty development programs.19 I wanted to know the answers to two questions: How many and what type of career-helpful relationships emerged from participation in faculty development? and, What career benefits were associated with these colleague relationships?

The sections above have presented background information on faculty development and discussed main elements of mentoring in career development. I have discussed the key purpose of facilitated mentoring as a way to expand the opportunities of career-focused mentoring available to more of those who might benefit from it.

As mentioned above, formal faculty development programs are quite common in primary care medicine. I found that one of the main supporters of family medicine faculty development was the federal government, through the Health Resources Service Administration’s Bureau of Health Professions. This agency helped to support 52 faculty development programs across various US regions during the late 1990s. Upon request, they shared project directors’ names with me. I contacted faculty development directors and asked several questions about such topics as program duration and the size of trainee groups. I also asked if they offered mentor programs, made efforts to link their trainees to colleagues, or asked trainees to work jointly on academic projects. I then asked faculty development directors for permission to contact their enrollees.

A second strategy for establishing a sound foundation of career-helpful relationships was introduced in academic medicine in the mid-1990s. This strategy involves developing a diverse network of colleagues, including but not limited to mentors. I will explore that topic more fully in the next section.

In the survey of enrollees, I asked for the numbers and types of colleagues that they developed because of faculty development participation. I also asked for some of the career benefits enrollees experienced and the benefits they associated with developing colleagues through faculty development programs.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND COLLEAGUE RELATIONSHIPS

It was important that the types of colleagues I was looking for be clear, so I looked closely at studies in health care and corporate career development literature to arrive at three types of colleagues and their functions:7, 20, 21

Mentoring grew conceptually from a privileged set of actors in an epic poem to a vehicle for professional development. Because career-focused support is important for all of us, mentoring may be a crucial career development strategy. But what if mentors just don’t surface for us at the right time? Several authors and researchers have widened their interest from mentors to a broader network of colleague relationships. This interest has grown from the realization that not all have been blessed with access to or experience with a mentor. But on a daily basis we have experiences with colleagues that can be highly influential to our productivity and the success of our departments.1 In her seminal work on mentoring in organizational life, Kram reports that 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.7 It is one thing to say that mentors and colleagues are important—but it is equally important to know the empirical footing for various colleague types and to understand methods of stimulating the occurrence of these relationships. In the study summarized below, I define three key types of colleague relationship and discuss their association with important career benefits. These findings could help guide veterinary schools and other organizations wishing to promote colleague relationships in their settings. JVME 32(1) ß 2005 AAVMC

.

Mentors are often at an advanced career stage. They foster academic identity, confidence, and career advancement. Mentors might link you to new opportunities and people or advise on career goals.

.

Peers are often at a similar career stage. They provide informal feedback and friendship. With peers you might discuss difficult students or team-teach a CME workshop.

.

Academic consultants provide specialized help on activities and projects that aid efficiency and quality. Academic consultants might assist with data analysis or edit your meeting abstract.

Through piloting and test-retest studies, these categories were found to exceed criteria set for reliability and validity. Respondents entered the total number of people, for each colleague relationship type, with whom they had ‘‘initiated or strengthened a professionally helpful relationship directly because of faculty development program participation.’’ In addition to the above colleague relationship types where career support had already been received, respondents also entered a total number for faculty development program colleagues who had not yet provided career help but were perceived to be likely to do so ‘‘if asked in the coming year.’’ These perceived colleagues were included because psychosocial benefits have been attributed to their presence.19 Respondents were instructed to enter each faculty development program colleague in only one of the above categories. 7

[23.3.2005–12:09am] [5–11] L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME-002.3d

[Page No. 8] Journal of Veterinary

Those interested in looking more closely at the methods of this study are invited to do so.19 For this discussion, it is important to describe the respondents: from a final eligible population of 543 enrollees, a total of 351 usable instruments were returned, yielding a 65% response rate. The final study cohort was composed of 229 male (65%) and 122 female (35%) faculty whose mean age when starting their faculty development was 39. Respondents’ average number of years as faculty members before starting faculty development was 3.8, with women having an average of 2.7 years of faculty experience compared to men’s average of 4.4 years. Respondents consisted of 84% white, 5% Hispanic, 4% black, 4% Asian, and 3% described as having ‘‘other’’ racial/ethnic backgrounds. When analyzed as majority (white) compared to minority (all non-white ethnic/racial backgrounds), minority respondents averaged 1.9 years as faculty prior to beginning their faculty development program, while majority faculty averaged 4.2 years. All were family physician faculty members with both clinical and educational responsibilities. Findings on Colleagues, Productivity, and Hands-On Support Respondents in this study said they developed an average of nine academic ‘‘colleague relationships’’ in association with their enrollment in faculty development. Just over six of these colleague relationships provided actual career support (on average, three were categorized as peers, two as mentors, and one as an academic consultant). This finding lends support to the notion that peers and consultants help to ‘‘round out’’ the support provisions for clinician educators; it also supports a more concerted focus on one’s entire network—not only on mentors. On average, three additional colleagues were perceived as ‘‘likely to provide career support’’ if asked in the coming year. This is important because of research showing that these perceptions of support are associated to career satisfaction.19 I was surprised to find that there were no statistically significant differences in colleague types or totals by program duration. This suggests that longer exposure to potential network members does not influence one’s development of a network. I was also surprised by the lack of statistical differences in colleague relationship totals by enrollee racial/ethnic background or by gender. However, the lack of significant differences in colleague relationship totals found between men and women, as well as between minority and majority respondents, could be due to the quantitative research methods used in this study, which may not have revealed important colleague relationship differences that existed within and across these subgroups. I also wanted to know what career benefits were associated with the total number of colleague relationships respondents had established. The study showed a positive and significant association between colleague relationship totals and the social skills mentioned above. This means that if enrollees connected with one or two new colleagues during training, they had some increased skills. But if their gains were five or six new colleagues, then their social skills increased significantly more. However, social skill gains reached a plateau after about 10 such established ‘‘colleague relationships.’’ 8

Practically speaking, it was important to find out whether there were any tangible products associated with these relationships. I asked enrollees to describe their one or two most helpful colleague relationships and indicate what achievements, if any, were aided by them. For each ‘‘most helpful’’ colleague relationship, respondents described an average of two products or achievements (e.g., paper, improved administration, national presentation). I asked who these most helpful colleagues were and found that 43% had primary affiliations to institutions external to the respondent’s home institution, and 74% were reported to be very well or well connected to a regional or national network of scholars. One in four were program co-participants. Finally, I wanted to know what kind of support resulted in products and achievements. In other words, did enrollees get a special type of help from mentors and other colleague relationships that may have increased their productivity? Enrollees who said their colleague relationship provided ‘‘hands-on’’ support (as opposed to emotional or informational support) had almost twice as many products and achievements for each colleague relationship established as those who did not receive hands-on support. This study has several key points. First, mentors are one of at least three essential colleagues relationship types important to productive, satisfied faculty members. Second, faculty development programs are an important context that fosters the formation and development of productive colleague networks. Third, colleagues’ provision of hands-on support leads to higher rates of faculty productivity. My interest in researching the topic of colleague networks and their influence on faculty productivity grew from several years’ experience with faculty development and mentoring programs at my institution. The next and final section of this article presents details and lessons from that experience.

MENTORING PROGRAM STAGES AND LESSONS LEARNED At the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), we instituted faculty development in the early 1990s and embedded a mentoring program within it. There are clear distinctions between the programs. For example, goals were different, as the mentors are asked to assist with the social skills of academic medicine, while our faculty development program teaches skills in such areas as research and professional writing. Faculty development program instructors were different from the volunteer mentors, and evaluations were conducted separately. Mentor Program Stages The design and implementation of our program consists of five overlapping stages. More information about these stages can be found elsewhere,4 but the list below summarizes the stages and their key points: 1. Organizational readiness. Organizations must conduct a needs assessment and secure necessary fiscal and human resources. This stage can take several months; for our program, it took about one year. JVME 32(1) ß 2005 AAVMC

[23.3.2005–12:09am] [5–11] L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME-002.3d

[Page No. 9] Journal of Veterinary

2. Recruitment. Successful recruitment requires that goals and expectations be clearly articulated and recognized by the organization. Leaders must encourage participation and lead by example. 3. Matching and orientation. Matching should be systematic but not overly bureaucratic. Orientation contacts with all participants should emphasize program aims and practical tips for match success. Tips include how to get started and common stages of mentor–prote´ge´ relationships.6 4. Ongoing activities. An identified coordinator must communicate regularly with pairs. Planned group events should teach new skills and provide opportunities for facilitated discussion about mentoring strategies. 5. Evaluation. Based on unique program goals, evaluation data must be used to improve the program and help to justify its continuation. Evaluation of the MCW program has shown that prote´ge´s experience important benefits, mainly in the area of academic social skills. Prote´ge´s have also described improved professional communication, academic productivity, and career satisfaction. One unexpected benefit was the perception of a culture that supported academic mentoring.12 An example of this culture came to light when a prote´ge´ dissolved his match by mutual agreement six months after it began. I inquired quickly after hearing this news. The prote´ge´ reported that he had learned enough about mentoring through the program to seek out and resume a productive mentor relationship he had held years before but had interrupted due to family and distance. He genuinely thanked the program and his assigned mentor for helping him see the importance of picking up where he had left off. Lessons Learned in the Field Since putting this mentor program into place, we have found that certain factors seem particularly important to its success and to the overall success of our department’s faculty development efforts. This section describes lessons we have learned about the organizational context for mentoring, lessons that have held true for mentors and for prote´ge´s. Whether you are considering the feasibility of a facilitated mentor program or just considering how to develop organizational, mentor, and prote´ge´ resources and benefits, these lessons are presented in the hope that they will be valuable to you. The lessons are listed in Table 1, followed by short sections of anecdotes and explanation.

Lessons for Organizations Mentoring needs goals and objectives – One of our longstanding mentors said, ‘‘mentoring by itself isn’t much to talk about. But when you add an object or goal—then it can be fun . . . Mentoring has to be about something bigger than the people involved.’’ As organizations consider supporting mentors and mentoring, ask the question, Mentoring for what purpose? Organizational leaders need to be as thoughtful and detailed as possible to generate interest and support for mentoring.

Mentoring can’t be ‘‘window dressing’’ – Faculty development and mentoring need to be aligned with the priorities of the department and supported by those in leadership positions. Successful mentoring requires a supportive work environment. In this environment, mentors need to be volunteers (not draftees), and mentor programs need the investment of time and money.6 I recommend at least a 20% time coordinator who is well trained and positioned within the organization to arrange and lead regular meetings among planners and participants while also directing the program evaluation. Use a ‘‘small m’’ mentor approach – When we first began our mentor program, a respected but blunt prote´ge´ said, ‘‘You can’t expect me to believe that you are going to assign a true mentor to me. I’ve never had a mentor and I doubt that you will change that by match-making.’’ The term ‘‘mentor’’ can have varied and sometimes hidden meanings. We now use ‘‘small-m mentor’’ as our way of saying that planners have no aspirations that this match will have highly intense or lifelong implications. Instead, we describe this small-m mentor as a potentially important part of what we hope will be a growing, evolving cluster of career-helpful relationships. Facilitated mentoring is important and useful – Facilitated mentor programs produce multiple benefits that accrue to the prote´ge´ (career help), the mentor (vitality), and the organization (perceptions of support, satisfaction). But they must be planned and monitored skillfully, staffed with a dedicated and well-prepared coordinator, have a competent evaluation team, and have leaders that demonstrate care and active support for their success. Lessons for Mentors Start before you’re sure you’re ready – When I asked a recently promoted faculty member if she would mentor, she said, ‘‘I don’t really feel like I’m ready. It feels like I am the one who needs to be mentored . . . but I guess if I’d wait until I feel ready, I may never answer the call to mentor someone.’’ This faculty member has functioned extremely well as a mentor

Table 1: Lessons learned in mentoring for medical faculty For Organizations

For Mentors

´ ge ´s For Prote

Mentoring needs goals

OK to start before you’re certain you are ready

´ge ´s need objectives Prote

Mentoring can’t be ‘‘window dressing’’

Balance challenge with support

Be ready emotionally; suspend judgment

Promote ‘‘small m’’ mentoring

Be more directive/active early

Avoid mentor envy

Importance of formal mentor programs

Provide hands-on support

Seek diversity

JVME 32(1) ß 2005 AAVMC

9

[23.3.2005–12:09am] [5–11] L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME-002.3d

[Page No. 10] Journal of Veterinary

and has been ‘‘unconditionally recommended’’ by several prote´ge´s.

Mentors should be more active early – A reasonable balance of energy needs to be asserted by mentor and prote´ge´ in order to make the relationship work. In my interviews with mentors and prote´ge´s who were disappointed that their relationship didn’t live up to their expectations, one junior faculty member raised a common perception: he and his mentor had agreed to monthly contacts, but, he said, ‘‘we didn’t meet for a few months because our schedules were so full and I felt uncomfortable calling to ‘check in.’ Then when I could have used help, I didn’t feel like I could call.’’ For the first six to nine months of an assigned mentor relationship, I ask mentors to be more responsible for scheduling (and rescheduling) contacts and setting agendas. That relieves the prote´ge´’s discomfort, and it models integrity—that the mentor acts in accord with their agreement. Balance challenge with support – We conducted a study to determine what our most effective mentors—those whose prote´ge´s ‘‘unconditionally recommended’’ them to their junior colleagues—did differently from those who were not recommended or were conditionally recommended. First, our study showed that almost all mentors were regarded as supportive. All were ‘‘encouraging’’ and ‘‘told me I was doing a good job.’’ But the key quality of ‘‘unconditionally recommended’’ mentors was their ability to both support and challenge their prote´ge´s. These mentors did such things as ‘‘critiqued my project,’’ ‘‘challenged my assumptions,’’ and ‘‘made me self-evaluate.’’ This ability, to balance support with challenge, is a crucial characteristic of effective mentors.22 Provide hands-on help – In the study described above, I noted that hands-on support was associated with higher rates of prote´ge´ productivity, as measured by such products as peerreviewed papers, grants, and curricula. An evaluation of our mentor program also showed that the most effective mentors are those who demonstrate their support through hands-on help. Mentors reviewed abstracts, provided statistical advice, ‘‘role-played what I should say at my performance review meeting,’’ and ‘‘rearranged my CV for me.’’ One of our most respected mentors spent an evening fixing his prote´ge´’s pull-cart for her poster display at an out-of-town meeting. ´ ge ´s Lessons for Prote Objectives are extremely important – Objectives should be discussed and negotiated until they appear realistic in light of the prote´ge´’s resources and circumstances. The mentor should encourage regular review of objectives while helping his or her prote´ge´ see how work towards objectives promotes goal achievement.

Be ready emotionally; suspend judgment – One of the most challenging times I have had with a junior faculty member concerned a research fellow who believed that he could ‘‘go it alone’’ based on his strong history of clinical experience. In his judgment, working jointly with colleagues would slow him down. My advice was that joint projects do not replace good independent work, but they do require good communication, integrity, a small dose of humility, and patience. Ultimately, joint projects should speed faculty members’ progress and development. 10

Avoid mentor envy One of our junior faculty members was very anxious that we match him with one of the faculty who had a great reputation as a stand-up teacher. He was convinced that person would be the person to guide his early career. He couldn’t hide his disappointment when I told him that the person in question wouldn’t be available to mentor him in our program. We discussed at length the importance of his changing his perceptions that one person would be the answer for his career guidance. He was very disappointed and considered dropping out of the program. Seek diversity – We encourage healthy levels of ‘‘mentor promiscuity’’ among junior faculty. I would rather that a prote´ge´ go to several sources for the right kind of help. That doesn’t mean that they search until they find the answer they like. But we underscore that our faculty should use the agency they have to customize a diverse network that will work for them. During our mentor training we tell mentors that one measure of their success is the diversity of genuine colleague connections they can help their prote´ge´ develop.

CONCLUSION Left without needed supports or social skills, many new faculty struggle to manage their careers, drop out of academic medicine, or languish in the lower academic ranks. It is imperative that we understand the special needs of our new faculty members and then match those needs to appropriate resources. The topics of this article—mentoring, facilitated mentor programs, and colleague networks—are powerful resources that can improve the prospects for current faculty members and succeeding generations of faculty at our institutions. But thoughtful planning and resources must be committed to these activities. I believe that such a commitment will ultimately improve the stature of medical education in the eyes of the many communities, benefactors, families, and patients who rely on our care.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank the mentors at the Medical College of Wisconsin, who have given much time and expertise to benefit the institution and their junior colleagues.

REFERENCES 1 Bland CJ, Schmitz CC, Stritter FT, Henry RC, Aluise JJ. Successful Faculty in Academic Medicine. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990. 2 Simpson DE, Morzinski JA. An advanced faculty development program for academic physicians at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Fam Med 27:283, 1997. 3 Kincaid SA. In retrospect: Teaching is ‘‘dribbling and passing.’’ J Vet Med Educ 30:81–87, 2003 p87. 4 Morzinski JA, Simpson DE, Bower DJ, Diehr S. Faculty development through formal mentoring. Acad Med 69:267–269, 1994. 5 Shepherd KR, Nihill P, Botto RW, McCarthy MW. Factors influencing pursuit and satisfaction of academic JVME 32(1) ß 2005 AAVMC

[23.3.2005–12:09am] [5–11] L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME-002.3d

[Page No. 11] Journal of Veterinary

dentistry careers: Perceptions of new dental educators. J Dent Educ 65:841–848, 2001.

28th Annual Conference of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC. AAMC, 1989:15–19.

6 Murray M, Owen MA. Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring: How to Facilitate an Effective Mentoring Program. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991 p5.

18 Morzinski JA, Fisher JC. An evaluation of formal mentoring studies and a model for their improvement. Eval Pract 17:37–50, 1996.

7 Kram KE. Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 1985 p4.

19 Morzinski JA, Fisher JC. A nation-wide study on the influence of faculty development programs on colleague relationships. Acad Med 77:402–406, 2002.

8 Boice R. Mentoring new faculty: A program for implementation. J Staff Program Org Develop 3(8):143–160, 1990.

20 Balsmeyer B, Haubrich K, Quinn C. Defining collegiality within the academic setting. J Nurs Educ 35:264–267, 1996.

9 Jones JE, Preusz GC, Finkelstein SN. Factors associated with clinical dental faculty research productivity. J Dent Educ 53:638–645, 1989.

21 Hitchcock MA, Bland CJ, Hekelman FP, Blumenthal M. Professional networks: The influence of colleagues on the academic success of faculty. Acad Med 70:1108–1116, 1995.

10 Woods SE, Reid A, Arndt JE, Curtis P, Stritter FT. Collegial networking and faculty vitality. Fam Med 29:45–49, 1997. 11 Williams R, Blackburn RT. Mentoring and junior faculty productivity. J Nurs Educ 27:204–209, 1988. 12 Morzinski JA, Diehr S, Bower DJ, Simpson DE. A descriptive, cross-sectional study of formal mentoring for faculty. Fam Med 28:434–438, 1996. 13 Feldman DC, Weitz BA. From the invisible hand to the gladhand: Understanding a careerist orientation at work. Hum Resource Manage 30:237–257, 1991. 14 Eby LT, McManus SE, Simon SA, Russell JE. The prote´ge´’s perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. J Vocat Behav 57:1–21, 2000. 15 Bolton EB. A conceptual analysis of the mentor relationship in the career development of women. Adult Educ 50:195–207, 1980. 16 Thomas DA. The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harv Bus Rev April:100–107, 2001. 17 Granger NA, Stritter FT. A comparison of chair and faculty perceptions about mentoring. In Proceedings of the

JVME 32(1) ß 2005 AAVMC

22 Bower DJ, Diehr S, Morzinski JA, Simpson DE. Support, challenge, vision: A model for effective mentoring. Med Teach 20:595–597, 1998.

AUTHOR INFORMATION Jeffrey Morzinski, PhD, is in the Department of Family and Community Medicine of the Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Dr. Morzinski has focused his educational practice on medical faculty development, mentoring, and program evaluation since 1991. He directs the Department of Family and Community Medicine’s Professional Development Division, which combines faculty development, continuing medical education, and graduate education programs in leadership and systems-based medicine. Dr. Morzinski has directed evaluation and curricular components of numerous local and federal grants and has consulted on the implementation of several national initiatives on mentoring, the educator’s portfolio, and faculty development. He is past chair of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine’s Group on Faculty Development. His current research involves organizational change, colleague networks, and educational program evaluation.

11