Mentoring For Success: The Role Of The Department Chair: Provost’s Department Chairs Leadership Program

Provost’s Department Chairs Leadership Program

Mentoring for Success: The Role of the Department Chair

Becky L. Yust, Professor and Head Department of Design, Housing, and Apparel [DHA] August 20, 2009

Topics to be covered: § Definitions of mentoring § Research on mentoring: – Research-productive departments (Carol Bland et al.) – Mentoring of junior faculty at the UM (President’s Emerging Leadership program project, Douah et al.) – Additional research (Girves et al.; Johnson et al.)

§ Mentoring in Design, Housing, and Apparel: – Why we mentor – Why we changed our mentor process and how we do in now – Impacts of mentoring

Origination of mentoring § In Homer’s The Odyssey, when Odysseus goes off to the Trojan War, he asks Mentor to serve as the tutor for his son, Telemachus (as described in Bland et al., p. 64). § In 1699, François Fénelon used the term in the book, Les Aventures de Telemaque. The lead character is Mentor (Roberts as cited in Wikipedia)

Mentoring typically includes two broad functions (Kram, 1985; Maack & Passet, 1993) : § Career functions (coaching, protection, visibility, and resources) § Psychosocial functions (role modeling, acceptance, counseling, and friendship) § § Our mentor committees serve the career function, and within that, primarily coaching. – Coaching involves suggesting strategies for accomplishing work objectives, receiving recognition, and for achieving career aspirations. – The other career functions of protection, visibility, and resources may be served by a mentor committee but are not assumed to do so.

§ Psychosocial functions may be served by the mentor committee, but members are not obligated to serve in these aspects.

Study of highly researchproductive UM departments

(Bland et

al.)

§ 37 departments in the study § Mentoring models varied, e.g., – Every faculty member establishes their own academic development plan receiving feedback from assigned mentor and P&T committee – Two senior faculty mentors assigned by department chair, one within the area of expertise and one not – After meeting with each faculty member individually, new faculty member selects mentors in consultation with department chair

§ 9 departments were rated in the top 5% in their fields and they all had formal mentoring programs

Best practices based on PEL review of literature and research at UM (Douah et al.) § Structured mentoring efforts are most effective. § Departments should customize mentoring programs to be best suited for departmental culture and field. § Inter-disciplinary faculty mentoring should be explored. § Work/life issues should be addressed, but not necessarily within the context of a departmental faculty mentoring program. § Department chairs should check-in with the mentoring that probationary faculty receive. § §

PEL survey of UM department heads § Most common areas in which mentors provided guidance were with: – the tenure process – publications – learning departmental and institutional norms

§ Slightly lower numbers of departments reported that mentors assisted with: – grant writing and review – preparation of the tenure dossier

§ The least common area of mentoring was regarding work/life balance.

PEL interviews with department heads One department head mentioned a negative perspective 



“. . . mentoring can be affected by departmental politics. For example, the mentoring relationship may serve to enhance existing conflicts or strife among faculty by creating cliques, loyalties or alliances within the department.”

PEL recommendations for UM departments to enhance mentoring of junior faculty: § Department head training should include an overview of strategies and best practices for faculty mentoring. § Departments should explicitly define what role mentoring plays in the tenure process.

Recommendations from research (Girves et al.)

§ Systematic or structured mentoring works much better than spontaneous or natural mentoring. § Structured programs are more likely to involve people who are normally left out of the mentoring process.

Importance of formal program

(Girves

et al.)

“. . . since university cultures value competitiveness, independence, and autonomy, junior faculty may be reluctant to participate in a mentoring program fearing that it would be harmful to their careers if they admitted that they needed ‘extra help.’” (p. 472) 

Perspective of a mentee

(Johnson et

al.)

“I think that higher education, more than other professions, has a lot of hidden rules; many of the cultural things within the institution and the profession are never written down, if you are lucky, you will find a mentor to show you the way.” (p.35) 

Why DHA has formal mentoring § 5 disciplines in the department, but only one 7.12 statement § Department Head should not be the only conveyer of information § Committee members educate one another and the mentee § Enhances the sense of community of the department § Creates a climate of working for the success of new faculty members § Potential connections/collaboration for research, publishing, and teaching § Important in recruitment of new faculty

Previous DHA mentoring system § New faculty member and department head would discuss potential members § Department head made the ask § Members were to serve for entire probationary period § Chair of committee created draft evaluative summary statement and presented to faculty for probationary review

Issues that developed over time (ex. 1) § Some faculty refused to continue on a committee when mentee was not following their recommendations. – Mentors misinterpreted their roles as directive instead of advisory – Created awkward relationships among new and senior faculty – Faculty members were not asked to serve on new committees because of risk of future resignation from the committee

Issues (ex. 2) § Not all faculty were effective mentors and, over time, mentoring responsibilities were not equally shared in the department. For example, some faculty mentors: – would not familiarize themselves with the mentee’s work before meeting with him/her. – emphasized formatting of the vitae over the content. – would not be available for meetings. – did not draft the departmental statement well which negatively influenced other faculty opinions of candidates during review meetings.

Issues (ex. 3) § Mentors, particularly the committee chair, were perceived to be prejudiced advocates for mentees – mentors would respond defensively to questions posed by other faculty during review meeting discussions – mentor committee members sometimes argued among themselves when presenting the case for the rest of the faculty

How we mentor today We created explicit guidelines for: 1.Role, membership, and responsibilities of mentor committees 2.Roles and responsibilities of tenured faculty members 3.Review meetings process and procedures 

 

Documents can be found at: http://dha.design.umn.edu/intranet/



Purpose of the Mentor Committee § To advise candidate on choices that will reflect positive tenure and/or promotion decisions § To understand and clarify how candidate’s work meets tenure and/or promotion criteria § To provide encouragement and nurturing per UM 7.11 statement § To focus on mentoring, not assumed to be unconditionally supportive of the final tenure/promotion decision § To serve in an assistive role for probationary faculty, not advocacy

Responsibilities of the Mentor Committee § Assist with and review development of candidate’s academic vitae and philosophy statements § Meet at least annually with candidate to review performance, assist with communicating performance via academic vitae and statements, and advise candidate on choices § Understand candidate’s outcomes/accomplishments, i.e., the relative importance of teaching and scholarship, the reputation of venues (publications, exhibitions) § Communicate opinions and standards from others’ perspectives § Deal with content (Department Head deals with collegiality) § Not lead the discussion nor draft the department’s summary review statement

Membership of the Mentor Committee § Three faculty members constitute the committee § Maximum of one member from DHA undergraduate program (discipline) area § One member could be from outside of DHA § No close collaborator (prior to appointment) of the candidate on the committee for at least the first two years of probationary period § Membership changes during the probationary period: – to minimize the personal investment of the mentors, – for the candidate to hear diverse, but reinforcing comments, and – for mentor committee members and the candidate to learn from one another.

§ Term of two years §

Establishing the Mentor Committee § Names are discussed between the new faculty member and the department head § Department Head asks the individual faculty if he/she is willing to serve on the committee § Mentee sets meeting time with committee § Department Head meets with committee at first meeting § Mentee required to meet annually with committee

Scribe of the Mentor Committee (new) § One member of the committee volunteers to be the Scribe but the Scribe should not be: – the member within the discipline area, nor – a collaborator on scholarship

§ Compiles a summary of the mentor committee meetings; these become part of the candidate’s permanent file. § The summary is signed by the probationary faculty member that he/she received and understands the information in the summary §

Tenured Faculty Members’ General Responsibilities § Review UM 7.11 statement, DHA 7.12 criteria, and procedures relevant to decision to be made § Understand performance outcomes addressed by DHA 7.12 criteria and information that is and is not appropriate for consideration § Be prepared to ask questions for clarification of standards and procedures before discussion of candidates §

Tenured Faculty Members’ Responsibilities Specific to a Candidate’s Review § Responsible for thorough review of the candidate’s dossier with respect to the DHA 7.12 criteria § Review actual work—articles, artistic works, syllabi, etc. § By the 3rd year of the probationary review (of a normal 6 year review period), assess candidate’s dossier to determine if candidate is “getting up to speed,” i.e., is he/she developing a dossier that will eventually meet the expected outcomes of our post-tenure review standards §

Additional individual faculty responsibilities § The Department Head assigns (new): – one tenured faculty member to present the accomplishments of the faculty member being reviewed. – one faculty member to chair the fall series of review meetings (different chair each fall). § Note: we complete all reviews in the fall for tenure, promotion, and for probationary reviews. We have found that to do so keeps us focused on appropriate 7.12 expectations.

§

DHA Revised Review Process Covers: 1. 2. 5. 6. 9.

8.

Candidate responsibilities Department administration responsibilities Responsibilities of the Presenter Tenured faculty members’ responsibilities Tenured faculty meeting to review candidates § Basic premises § Chairperson § Sequence of meetings § Discussion protocol § Recording information during discussion

DHA Revised Process (con’t) e. 6. Voting process 7. 9. The faculty summary statement 10. 12.Meeting outcome dissemination 13. 15.Process for applying for promotion to full professor 

10.Additional issues to ensure a climate of cooperation 11.

Impacts of mentoring structure in DHA § New process requires a broader array of faculty to take part in the review process § Faculty have greater responsibility for learning about new faculty § Distribution of roles engages faculty (mentors, presenters, chairperson) § Successful tenure and promotion decisions!

References Bland, C., Weber-Main, A., Lund, S. & Finstad, D. (2005). The researchproductive department: Strategies from departments that excel. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Douah, R., Letawsky Shultz, N., Nackerud, S., Radcliffe, P., & Reubold, T. (2007). Faculty mentoring at the University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: President’s Emerging Leaders Program, University of Minnesota. Girves, J., Zepeda, Y., & Gwathmey, J. (2005). Mentoring in a post-affirmative action world. Journal of Social Issues, 61(3), 449-479. Johnson, K., Yust, B., & Fritchie, L. (2001). Views on mentoring by clothing and textiles faculty. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 19(1), 31-40. Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company. Maack, M., & Passet, J. (1993). Unwritten rules: Mentoring women faculty. Library and Information Science Research, 15(2), 117-142. Roberts, A. (1999, November). The origins of the term mentor. History of Education Society Bulletin, 64, 313-329 (as cited in Wikipedia, retrieved on December 31, 2008 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentor#cite_noteroberts_1999-2) 