CFI Roundtable Discussion

Linda Hulton, RN, PhD

Professor of Nursing

BEST PRACTICES IN FORMAL FACULTY MENTORING PROGRAM

OUTCOMES OF TODAY’S ROUNDTABLE“THINK ABOUT; WRITE ABOUT; TALK ABOUT”

• Learn about an evidence-based model of formal mentoring program designed by faculty for faculty within a department

• Gain insights into the challenges and benefits of deploying a formal mentoring program

• Engage other faculty about ideas and possibilities for formalized mentoring within their own departments.

• Mentor provided important guidance for Telemachus and was portrayed as a wise advisor and consistent supporter.

• Faculty mentoring is a collaborative relationship that proceeds through purposeful stages over time. The goal is to help mentees acquire the essential competencies and constructive work relationships needed for their continued career vitality (Bland et al., 2009)

HOMER’S CLASSIC WORK “THE ODYSSEY”

For a friend with an understanding heart is worth no less than a brother” Homer, The Odyssey

MenteesScholarship Productivity

Job and career satisfaction, intention to stay

Socialization to a profession’s norms

Salary levels and promotion

Mentors

Personal satisfaction

Career rejuvenation

Professional Recognition

BENEFITS OF MENTORING

Organization

Higher levels of productivity

Higher levels of creativity

Higher levels of satisfaction

Increased commitment to the organization

Decreased turn-over and higher levels of retention

THE NEED• Nursing education will have to increase the number of new nurse graduates by

30% a year over the next decade to meet the growing demand for registered nurses (Council on Physician and Nurse Supply, 2010).

• One of the most important factors contributing to this crisis is insufficient numbers of qualified nursing faculty (Daly et al, 2008; Rukholm et al., 2009)

• In 2012, JMU Nursing doubled the size of it’s undergraduate class, expanded it’s master programs, and prepared to begin a doctoral program in nursing. Subsequently, the department added 11 new nursing faculty positions. The majority of the new faculty were “early career” nursing educators.

Summer 2012 Project Journey:

Design a Faculty Mentoring Program

MEETING THE NEEDS:EARLY CAREER, MID CAREER, LATE CAREER FACULTY

• Early Career: those within 1st 7 years of appointment to a faculty position or those who have not yet received tenure

• Mid-Career: Period starting from the end of probationary period until preparation for retirement

• Late-Career: Years in Academia; preparing for retirement

THINK ABOUT:

• What are the needs of Early Career Faculty?• What are the needs of Mid-Career Faculty• What are the needs of Late Career Faculty?• How are their needs different?

“ A man who has been through bitter experiences and

travelled far enjoys even his sufferings after a time.”

Homer, the Odyssey

Characteristics

• Relative stability, but “career recycling” (Super, 1986).

• Continually developing and reinventing themselves.

• Work life and activities are different than early career faculty (Baldwin, Lunceford, & Vanderlinden, 2005)

• Article productivity is higher in early/middle years

• Book productivity is higher in later career

Needs

• Motivation and satisfaction, stress, and retirement plans (Berberet et al., 2005).

• Intellectual stimulation in one’s discipline and opportunity to make an impact on one’s institution

• “ranked intellectual inquiry at the top, followed by desire for membership in a meaningful academic community, to have institutional impact, and to be recognized by one’s work” (p. 87)

Senior faculty would likely retire earlier than expected if they were dissatisfied with their work environment, not performing their job up to their expectations, feeling unappreciated by their department of colleagues, facing increased workload and productivity expectations at their institution.

NEEDS OF MIDCAREER AND LATE CAREER FACULTY

“SNOW ON THE ROOF – FIRE IN THE FURNACE”

MENTORING STRATEGIES FOR MIDCAREER AND SENIOR FACULTY

• Group mentoring

• Peer mentoring

• 4 questions (A. Rolfe, 2006) :

• Where am I now? (Current Reality)

• Where do I want to be? (Reflection)

• How do I get there? (Informed Decisions)

• How am I doing? (Action)

Adapted from Gaskill, 1993

Activities

• Needs assessment (Matching)

• Needs Assessment (Broader Faculty

Development)

Timeline

2 weeks before school starts

Faculty Development

Additions:• Peer mentoring• Group mentoring

• Pods• Book discussions(Planned after needs

assessment)

SeptemberApril

April/MayFaculty

DevelopmentSubcommittee on

mentoring

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, & EVALUATION

OF FORMAL MENTORING PROGRAMS

• Mentor/Mentee Interest/strengths inventory

• Partnership agreement (opt out policy)

• Mentoring process was reflected in the annual evaluation materials and credited as service to the department and profession

• Recommendations:

• Minimum of 3 meetings each semester: 1st to establish goals

• Contract was signed that outlined confidentiality, specific goals, skill development, and expectations

• Group mentoring by Department Head (once/semester)

• Evaluation procedure in place

NUTS/BOLTS

• Mentor/Mentee “Brown Bags”

• Ex: “Things you won’t find in the Faculty Handbook”

• “Celebrate Benner” Week Book Discussion

• Peer Orientation and Development Groups (PODS):

• Creative Clinical Conferencing

• Team-based Learning

• Using Clinical Apps on your smart technology

• Faculty Service Project “HARTs”

• Portfolio lockdowns for 1st year evaluations

• Creation of a Faculty Development space/library in Burruss Hall

NURSING FACULTY DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EVENTS

WRITE ABOUT:

WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE SOME ESSENTIALS OF SUCCESSFUL FACULTY MENTORING?

“Each man delights in the work that suits him best” Homer, The Odyssey

• Clearly stated purpose and goals

• Support of faculty and administrative leadership

• Positioned appropriately within the larger organization

• Program evaluation

• Program is linked and coordinated with other similar (no duplication)

• Needed resources are identified and acquired

• Program design

• Formal initiation and ending; Training; systematic contract

• Mechanism for matching mentor/mentees

• Clear expectations

• Mentoring agreement

• Activities to support mentor/mentees

PROGRAM ESSENTIALS (BLAND, 2009)

• IRB approval

• Mixed methods design

• Cross sectional online survey using Dillman method (2007).

• Data Collection occurred during the final month of Spring 2013 semester.

• Scale: Quality and Learning of Mentoring Relationships (Allen & Eby, 2003)

• 10 declarative statements incorporating 6 point Likert scale

• 2 Focus Groups

EVALUATION

Results of the Quality and Learning of Mentoring Relationships (Allen & Eby, 2003).

N = 21 (95% RESPONSE RATE) Mentee Mean Mentor Mean

1. My mentor/mentee and I enjoyed a high quality relationship. 5.33 4.73

2. Both my mentor/mentee and I benefited from the mentoring relationship. 5.0 4.6

3. I effectively utilized my mentor/mentee. 4.11 4.0

4. The mentoring relationship with my mentor/mentee was very effective. 4.89 4.45

5. I am very satisfied with the mentoring relationship developed with my mentor/mentee

5.0 4.73

6. I learned a lot from my mentor/mentee. 4.56 4.0

7. My mentor/mentee gave me a new perspective on many things. 5.0 3.73

8. My mentor/mentee and I were "co-learners" in the mentoring relationship. 4.67 4.0

9. There was reciprocal learning that took place between my mentor/mentee and I. 4.67 4.0

10. My mentor/mentee shared a lot of information with me that helped my own professional development.

4.89 3.45

The results of the focus groups are still being analyzed, but preliminary themes are:• 1). Challenges with matching up schedules, especially when mentor/mentee’s

offices were on different floors or teaching in different programs;

• 2). Slow start due to overwhelming schedules at the beginning of the year; mentee’s didn’t know what questions to ask

• 3) Many questions on Faculty Activity Reports/Faculty Anticipated Activity Reports and 1st semester evaluation processes;

• 4). Mentors didn’t always know what to do or how to help. They didn’t see how it benefitted them professionally. Felt that some mentee’s were resistant to needing mentored.

• 4). Ideas for quality improvements for year 2 of the program.

ANECDOTAL EVALUATION

Everybody stayed!

“Budget Neutral”

TALK ABOUT:SO WHAT NOW?

• Where are there holes in your current mentoring programs?

• What is your disciplinary lens of mentoring needs?

• Reflect on opportunities

“Urge him with truth to frame his fair replies; And surely he will; for wisdom never lies”

Homer, The Odyssey