A Checklist For The Development Of Faculty Mentorship Programs

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
A Checklist for the Development of Faculty Mentorship Programs
Anandi V. Law, PhD, BPharm,a*
Michelle M. Bottenberg, PharmD,b
Anna H. Brozick, PharmD,c
Jay D. Currie, PharmD,d
Margarita V. DiVall, PharmD, MEd,e
Stuart T. Haines, PharmD,f
Christene Jolowsky, MS,g
Cynthia P. Koh-Knox, PharmD,h
Golda Anne Leonard, PhD,i
Stephanie J. Phelps, BSPharm, PharmD,j
Deepa Rao, PhD,k
Andrew Webster, PhD, BPharm,l
and Elizabeth Yablonskim
a
College of Pharmacy, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California
b
College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa
c
Irma Lerma Rangel College of Pharmacy, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Kingsville, Texas
d
Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
e
School of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts
f
School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
g
College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
h
College of Pharmacy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
i
College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas
j
College of Pharmacy, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee
k
School of Pharmacy, Pacific University, Hillsboro, Oregon
l
College of Pharmacy, Belmont University, Nashville, Tennessee
m
Feik School of Pharmacy, University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas
Submitted January 13, 2014; accepted March 11, 2014; published June 17, 2014.
Mentoring of junior faculty members continues to be a widespread need in academic pharmacy in both
new programs and established schools. The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP)
Joint Council Task Force on Mentoring was charged with gathering information from member colleges
and schools and from the literature to determine best practices that could be shared with the academy.
The task force summarized their findings regarding the needs and responsibilities for mentors and
protégés at all faculty levels; what mentoring pieces are in existence, which need improvement, and
which need to be created; and how effective mentoring is defined and could be measured. Based
on these findings, the task force developed several recommendations as well as the PAIRS Faculty
Mentorship Checklist. Academic institutions can benefit from the checklist whether they are planning
to implement a faculty mentorship program or are interested in modifying existing programs.
Keywords: mentor, faculty development
INTRODUCTION
Formal mentoring has been associated with im-
proved faculty job satisfaction, increased commitment,
reductions in faculty turnover, greater productivity, and
a favorable “departmental ethos.”1
Alternatively, lack of
mentoring has been associated with faculty isolation, stress,
burnout, and turnover.2
Traditionally, mentoring has been
focused at the junior faculty level where orientation to
academic life, career planning, and promotion are vital
elements. However, the need for mentoring has been
identified at every step of an academic career, including
for midlevel faculty members who are looking to expand
their portfolios and be promoted to professor; and senior
faculty members who may want to transition to academic
administration or rejuvenate their research profiles.3
There is also an identified need for mentoring based on
category of profile (teaching/scholarship/clinical service).
Hence, there is a definite need for a plan to incorporate
these different types and levels of mentoring.
The AACP Joint Councils Task Force on Mentoring
(2012-2013) was charged to determine: (1) the needs and
responsibilities for mentors and protégés at all faculty
levels; (2) what mentoring pieces are in existence, need
Corresponding Author: Anandi V. Law, BPharm, MS, PhD,
College of Pharmacy, Western University of Health Sciences,
309 E. Second Street, Pomona, CA 91766. Tel: 909-469-5645.
Fax: 909-469-5428. E-mail: alaw@westernu.edu
*Authors were members of the AACP Joint Councils Task
Force on Mentoring 2012-2013. Dr. Law served as Chair.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2014; 78 (5) Article 98.
1

improvement, or need to be created; and (3) how effective
mentoring is defined and could be measured. Given the
diversity of mentoring programs and levels previously
identified, a template for mentoring programs was needed.
This template evolved into a checklist for faculty mentor-
ing in academic pharmacy programs. A “cookie cutter”
approach to mentorship would not work in most cases
as all mentors and protégés are not the same in their goals
and approach. Thus, this checklist is intended to serve as
a resource to pharmacy colleges and schools that are
considering a faculty mentorship program, as well as
those who are interested in implementing a faculty men-
torship program and would like some resources, and
those who would like to modify an existing program.
The proposed checklist would need to be easily modifi-
able for different types and levels of mentoring. The
primary objectives of this paper are to present recom-
mendations based on findings from a comprehensive lit-
erature review and to describe the development of a
checklist that can be used to establish, implement, or
modify academic pharmacy mentoring programs.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Following a conference call to plan a strategy for
addressing the charges, 2-person teams of task force
members conducted independent literature reviews within
and outside of the pharmacy literature using PubMed and
ERIC databases to research the following: (1) definition
andareasofmentorship,(2)formalvsinformalmentorship,
(3) internal vs external mentors and multiple mentors,
(4) resources needed for mentoring programs, (5) stages
of mentoring, (6) criteria for assessment of mentoring
programs, and (7) best practices in existence of mentor-
ing programs. Keywords used for the searches included:
academic mentoring, mentoring mentorship, mentoring
program, formal mentorship outcomes, efficacy, evalua-
tion, assessment, tool, scale, measure, success, resource,
and best practices.
Each task force team then wrote a narrative on their
assigned area. The narrativeswere subsequentlyreviewed
by the entire task force for content, readability, and re-
dundancy. A summary of the narrative in each reviewed
category is presented, followed by a recommendation.
Based on their findings from the comprehensive lit-
erature review, the task force developed a checklist that
outlined the 5 steps for developing a mentorship program
in the order in which they typically are considered, ie,
intent, structure, process, resources, assessment and eval-
uation (Appendix 1). The 5 steps should not be considered
in isolation but rather all 5 are interrelated and should
inform the design of the program. To help users remember
these 5 steps, the authors used the first letter of each step
to form the acronym PAIRS, ie, Process, Assessment and
evaluation, Intent, Resources, Structure.
FINDINGS
Definition and Areas of Mentorship
The literature defines different academic areas fo-
cusing on the role and functions of mentors differently.
Most of these mentorship roles contained the same basic
elements. A mentor is someone who is usually a col-
league in the same work environment and who is more
advanced in the workforce. In an academic setting, a
mentor aids the protégé in setting and prioritizing his/her
short-term and long-term career goals, and helps with time
management.4-6
The mentor also serves as a cheerleader,
championing the fulfillment of goals, and believing firmly
in the abilities and worth of the protégé.5,6
This includes
being an advocate for the protégé in the workplace, protect-
ing the protégé against adverse situations (eg, too much
service), helping the protégé learn the skills of network-
ing, and introducing the protégé to senior scientists in
their area of expertise.5-7
The role of a mentor is different than that of a coach
or a friend. A coach helps someone practice and/or role-
play in order to achieve a particular task, job, etc.8
A
friend, in contrast, is someone who relates on a personal
level and can overlook or not comment on faults, prob-
lems, and deficiencies.9
In the areas of research, the mentor can help the
protégé develop grant-writing skills and attain fund-
ing.4,5,7,10,11
In teaching, the mentor can help the protégé
outline, organize, and deliver lecture/laboratory/clinical
content. The mentor can listen, critique, and give positive
reinforcement in these scholarly efforts.9,11
In clinical
settings, the mentor can be important in networking and
introducing the protégé to others.12
The mentor can help
the protégé with setting up a practice, teaching (precept-
ing), and setting goals for teaching, practice, and evalua-
tion in clinical areas. The mentor also can collaborate
with the protégé in the clinic.13
An overarching or career mentor can help in all
areas by serving as a guide and resource; he/she may
not be able to perform specific functions, but can serve
as a resource or redirect protégés to other individuals who
can directly help, or who know how the protégé should
approach others. The mentor can set a good example by
showing how to achieve a good personal/professional life
balance. The goal should be to “work smarter, not lon-
ger.”5,7
The mentor should be a confidant of the protégé,
allowing the protégé to honestly express positive and
negative feelings and helping the protégé learn to express
his/her thoughts and opinions, and deal with disappoint-
ments.5-7
The mentor should listen and offer advice, but
2

always encourage and champion the younger protégé.
The ultimate goal of the mentor is for the protégé to be-
come successful and self-sufficient in the workplace, with
appropriate recognition for scholarly activities, promo-
tion (ultimately to full-professor), achieving a national
and international reputation for good work, and ulti-
mately, for the protégé to pass on the mentor’s “legacy”
by mentoring others in turn.6,7,10
Recommendation 1. The mentor role should be de-
fined and discussed with the protégé at the initiation of
the program to set expectations.
Formal Versus Informal Mentorship
There is some discussion in the literature about
whether informal or formal mentorship is more benefi-
cial. Only about a quarter of universities in the United
States have formal mentorship programs, although the
predominant belief is that having a formal mentorship
program is vital.4
According to Pololi and Knight, “In-
formal mentoring occurs serendipitously when 2 individ-
uals are drawn together by mutual interests and appeal,
resulting in a kind of ’spontaneous or accidental mentor-
ing [that] almost always works.’11
Thus, it is advisable
for new faculty members to meet briefly with all other
faculty members in their department to see who might
be a natural fit as a mentor for them.12
Often informal
mentorship is more fruitful because the relationship is
established in a more spontaneous and organic way, of-
ten developing over time. However, that means an in-
formal mentorship requires more time initially to form
a relationship/bond. In addition, some new faculty mem-
bers may be uncomfortable with an informal mentoring
arrangement.13
Formal mentorship, on the other hand, is “planned,
often institutionally supported or mandated, and is some-
what reminiscent of a ‘blind date’ or ‘arranged mar-
riage.’”12
It involves the assignment of a protégé to a
mentor, with the intention of somehow fostering the qual-
ity and kind of relationship seen in informal mentoring.12
In a formalized mentorship program, each new faculty
member is ensured of having at least 1 mentor. Formal
mentorship may be the preferred method when dealing
with long-distance faculty members as they would not
have many opportunities to meet with other faculty mem-
bers and allow an informal mentorship to develop.14
From the standpoint of the mentor, formal mentorship
may be preferred as it is more structured: institutions
often give mentors outlines with specific topics that the
mentor needs to address with the protégé; mentoring
may take place during formal scheduled time slots and
mentors may be allowed to include these meeting as
faculty development time. Formal mentorship programs
may also require both parties to evaluate the process in
terms of objectives, communication, and outcomes. This
allows for better control of the process and allows the
facilitators of the program to make adjustments accord-
ingly.15
While formal mentorship programs may assign
mentor-protégé pairs in a time-limited manner (eg, 1 year),
most of the literature emphasizes formation of a more
permanent relationship. The cons of formal mentoring
are that the relationship may feel forced, may be mis-
matched and not evolve fruitfully, or may lead to differ-
ences of opinion as the mentor and protégé get to know
one another.16
Administrators of the mentorship program
should make it clear to the mentor and protégé that if the
relationship does not work out well, there will be no hard
feelings and a new mentor can be assigned.12
Recommendation 2. A formal, systematic approach
to mentoring should be instituted by colleges and schools
of pharmacy.
Internal Versus External Mentors
While the traditional dyad involves pairing a protégé
with a more senior or experienced faculty member at
his or her own institution (internal mentor) as his or her
mentor, recruiting a distance or external mentor some-
times may be necessary.17,18
The escalating number of
colleges and schools of pharmacy has increased the de-
mand for faculty members, which highlights the impor-
tance of mentoring for the professional development of
members of the academy. Unfortunately, new programs
may not possess an adequate number of senior faculty
members who are capable of mentoring.19
Regardless of
how established a college or school is, many do not have
enough existing faculty members with the experience,
interest, and/or expertise to mentor new or mid-career
faculty members.20
Likewise, faculty members who ad-
vance into leadership positions within a college may find
that they can no longer confide in other college or per-
haps university colleagues. While internal mentors are
generally preferred, an external mentor or coach may be
necessary for the successful development of a faculty
member or administrator.
There are a variety of advantages to having an in-
ternal mentor.21
These individuals have a working knowl-
edge of organizational history and an understanding of
the culture and internal politics of the college or school,
which are important in professional development and in-
tegrating with networks of influence at the institution.
However, if the mentorship pairing is not predicated on
similar values and interests, it may not result in a lasting
relationship.22,23
There are also concerns regarding the con-
sequences of dissolving the pairing. Further, if the pro-
tégé falters, the mentor may be tainted by the association.
3

Alternatively, judgment may be placed on the quality of
mentoring.
External mentors can support their mentees regard-
less of where they are located, given current advances and
advantages in technology (distance audiovisual commu-
nication) and social media. There are also many opportu-
nities for face-to-face sessions at professional meetings.24
The major advantage to external mentorships is that they
are usually formed as a result of deliberately seeking out
a mentor based on similar interests and values. The men-
tor usually has a willingness and desire to work with the
protégé, which helps establish trust. Also, external men-
tors may be more objective and unbiased as they may not
be conflicted by organizational relationships. This may
create a “safe” environment that allows for honest and
critical discussion of issues that the protégé faces, without
fear of retaliation or institutional gossip. It is easier to
discontinue an external mentorship should it prove inef-
fective or if the relationship is outgrown.
The disadvantages to external mentorship may be the
mentor’s lack of working knowledge of the politics, cul-
ture, and/or internal policies of the protégé’s institution
and lack of familiarity with the leadership and faculty.
The mentor can guide the protégé in decision-making
but may not know specific processes; thus, their advice
is dependent on the protégé’s representation of issues and
facts.
Recommendation 3. Internal mentors should be
used for junior faculty but external mentors should be
considered for mid-career and senior faculty members
making the transition to administrative roles.
Resources Needed for Mentoring Programs
The key resources needed for developing and sus-
taining a successful mentorship program include time,
money, and programmatic support. One of the major ob-
stacles to the success of a mentorship program is the time
commitment and lack of incentives for more senior fac-
ulty membersto engagein mentoringactivities. Strategies
such as rewarding mentors through formal recognition
programs as well as restructuring the annual evaluation,
promotion, and tenure process to acknowledge the com-
mitment of mentors can be potential solutions.25
In addi-
tion to a mentor’s time, programmatic time also needs to
be devoted to organizing the program, training mentors
and protégés, and identifying extramural funding to sup-
port the mentorship program.26,27
Funding for the mentoring program could be used to
hire support staff members; engage external trainers, con-
sultants, and mentors; and provide grant release time to
mentors. Such support has been shown to increase the
amount of extramural funding generated by the protégés,
and in the long run, may contribute to faculty retention.28
Programmatic support is also critical to the success of
a mentorship program and resources are often needed to
create formal structures. Programmatic support also in-
cludes administrative support in establishing a mentor-
ship culture. The evidence of a mentorship culture is
tangible by identifying and rewarding mentor commit-
ment, making protégés feel supported psychologically
by presenting clear expectations for progression at the
institution, providing trainers and physical facilities for
mentor-protégé meetings, and developing mentorship
programs for faculty members at different levels of ca-
reer progression.19, 21, 26, 29
Finally, with the advantages
of having external mentors and online/distance learning
programs, the need to extend mentorship beyond physi-
cal premises makes technology a key resource for the
mentoring toolkit.
Recommendation 4. Key resources that must be
secured in order to establish a successful mentoring pro-
gram include time, programmatic support, staff support,
and technology.
Stages of Mentoring
While the literature is filled with manuscripts on
mentoring entry-level professionals, women, and minor-
ities, there is a paucity of information on mentoring across
various career stages. In 2000, Peluchette investigated the
various sources of mentors used by professionals, how
they influenced professional success, and whether pro-
fessionals used different sources of mentors at different
stages of their careers.30
According to this study, assis-
tant professors with mentors in their professions, asso-
ciate professors with mentors outside the work place, and
professors with mentors within their organizations had
the highest levels of objective career success. When pro-
fessorial rank was linked to career stage, the results sug-
gested that the participants used different sources of
mentors at different stages of their careers.
In 2007, Wasserstein and colleagues investigated
faculty mentoringat aschool ofmedicine.They examined
the presence and structure of the mentoring relationship
in relation to faculty rank and focused on track and gender
differences; types of mentoring received; satisfaction
with mentoring; use of multiple mentors; and the relation-
ship between mentoring, overall job satisfaction, and
expected job stability.31
The high proportion of assistant
professors who reported having a mentor was largely a re-
sult of the requirement that mentors be assigned at the
time of appointment. Although there was no requirement
that a faculty member at the associate professor rank
have a mentor, the relatively low proportion with a men-
tor was surprising and could reflect reduced pressure for
4

promotion after attaining the associate professor rank.
There is a significant volume of material on succession
development in the management literature. In a 2006
paper, Groves indicated that best practice organizations
effectively integrate leadership development and suc-
cession planning systems by fully using managerial per-
sonnel in developing the organization’s mentor network,
identifying and codifying high potential employees,
developing high potentials via project-based learning
experiences and manager-facilitated workshops, estab-
lishing a flexible and fluid succession planning process,
creating organization-wide forums for exposing high-
potential employees to multiple stakeholders, and estab-
lishing a supportive organizational culture.32
Recommendation 5. Multiple mentors should be
considered at different stages of a faculty member’s ca-
reers and for different aspects of faculty life.
Assessment and Evaluation of Mentoring Programs
Annual or periodic assessment of a mentorship pro-
gram is key to its success. The assessment needs to be
conducted from the perspective of both protégé and men-
tor to understand gaps that can be addressed the following
year/period. Tools have been developed and validated
to measure mentoring relationship quality, commitment
to the organization, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy in
scholarship and research (Table 1). Meaningful data can
be obtained as early as 1-2 years post-implementation and
should be used to enhance mentor-protégé pairing, overall
program structure and support, as well as resource allo-
cation. Long-term measures such as faculty productivity,
time to and attainment of career advancement, and overall
faculty retention can be used to evaluate program success.
Recommendation 6. Data from periodic, formal
programmatic assessments should be obtained to deter-
mine the success of a mentorship program and used to
make changes in program structure and processes.
BEST PRACTICES
When identifying best practices in mentorship pro-
grams, the literature reveals a wide range of potential
structures and processes that includes both informal and
formal programs with internal and external mentors. Suc-
cessful mentoring programs consider the mentoring needs
of at all faculty ranks, from assistant to full professors.
Qualitative and quantitative outcome assessments should
be conducted periodically to measure the success of
mentoring programs; qualitative indicators include job
satisfaction, organization commitment, and worker self-
esteem, whereas quantitative outcomes include promo-
tions, research publications, and grant funding received.
The common themes of successful mentoring pro-
grams include formal mentor relationships with dedicated
time formentor andprotégé pairs to meet regularly, faculty
development opportunities for mentors to meet as a group,
flexibility to encourage informal or serendipitous mentor
relationships, and a systematic assessment process.43-45
For formal mentoring programs to succeed, both parties
require administrative support and time to develop the
relationship. Forced or assigned formal relationships
show less success than unassigned relationships; how-
ever, if a mentor is not assigned, some junior faculty
members may miss the opportunity to benefit from a
mentor early in their career when general guidance in
how to navigate the organization is helpful. Informal
mentoring programs result in higher self-esteem for the
protégé. Thus, when formal mentoring relationships are
assigned, administrators should make an effort to match
the personalities of the mentor and protégé, not necessarily
to match the content area. Many successful mentoring pro-
grams allow flexibility to terminate an assigned mentoring
relationship without retribution to either the mentor or pro-
tégé, as may be necessary when a protégé develops an in-
formal relationship with another mentor.
Time is needed for meetings in which the mentor and
protégé plan together to achieve specific goals. Time is
required not only for face-to-face meetings, but also for
support to attend national professional meetings and to
conduct internal development activities. Mentors should
be trained as one should not assume that those with ad-
vanced rank possess the skills to effectively mentor.
Finally, successful mentoring programs, regardless
of the structure, require participants to provide feedback
regarding the mentoring relationship. Through systematic
assessment process, each institution can adopt and make
Table 1. Validated Tools for Short-Term Assessment of
Mentoring Programs
Measure/Outcomes Validated Tools
Mentoring relationship
quality
Mentoring Functions Survey33
Mentoring Role Instrument34
Mentorship Effectiveness
Scale35
Mentor Profile Questionnaire35
Mentor Benefits36
Organizational
commitment/propensity
to leave
Organizational Commitment
Scale37
Propensity to Leave Scale38
Job satisfaction Work-role Stress39
Self-Esteem at Work40
Job Involvement Scale41
Self-efficacy
scholarship/research
FIT Program Evaluation
Questionnaire42
5

necessary adjustments to their mentoring program to fa-
cilitate development of their entire faculty.
The PAIRS Faculty Mentorship Checklist
The PAIRS checklist was developed as a guiding
framework following the Intent, Structure, Process, Re-
sources, and Assessment structure.46
Intent helps exam-
ine goals and purpose(s) of the proposed or ongoing
mentorship program for colleges and schools of phar-
macy. These goals could be faculty development, satis-
faction, retention, or a combination of these. Structure of
the program includes details of planning for program
oversight, the policy and procedure documents, and for-
mally outlining mentor eligibility and incentives. Process
lays out implementation steps including mentor protégé
pair matching, mentor orientation and training, protégé
orientation, and setting expectations of the pair. Finally,
assessment and evaluation involve tools and processes for
periodic assessments of mentoring relationship quality
and other metrics to determine programmatic success.
An earlier version of the checklist is available online on
the AACP website.47
The PAIRS checklist is the first attempt of its kind
in academic pharmacy, intended to serve as a framework
for developing or modifying mentoring programs. The
checklist is broad enough in its 5 categories that it can
be easily fitted for use in different types of mentorship
programs (formal/informal), mentors (internal/external),
area of academic profile (teaching/research/service/
combination), and stages of mentoring (junior/midlevel/
senior faculty). Future work can focus on testing the ease
of using the Faculty Development Checklist as a frame-
work.
CONCLUSION
Many factors contribute to a successful mentoring
program and there is not one prescriptive “one size fits
all approach.” It is necessary for academic institutions
to lay the groundwork to foster mentoring relationships
for all faculty members to ensure positive outcomes. The
PAIRS checklist captures the key factors that institutions
should consider when instituting or modifying a mentor-
ship program.
REFERENCES
1. Desselle SP, Peirce GL, Crabtree BL, et al. Special report on
pharmacy faculty workplace issues: findings from the 2009-2010
COD-COF Joint Task Force on Faculty Workforce. http://www.aacp.org/
governance/councildeans/Documents/WhitePaperonTaskForceIssues5.
pdf. Accessed February 14, 2014.
2. Chung CE, Kowalski S. Job stress, mentoring, psychological
empowerment, and job satisfaction among nursing faculty. J Nurs
Educ. 2012;51(7):381-388.
3. Rockquemore KA. Mid-career mentoring. http://www.insidehighered.
com/advice/2011/11/28/essay-need-tenured-faculty-members-have-
mentoring. Inside Higher Ed. November 28, 2011. Accessed February 12,
2014.
4. Kjeldsen K. A proficient mentor is a must when starting up with
research. Exp Clin Cardiol. 2006;11(3);243-245.
5. Haines ST. The mentor-protégé relationship. Am J Pharm Educ.
2003;67(3):Article 82.
6. Schrubbe KF. Mentorship: a critical component for professional
growth and academic success. J Dent Educ. 2004;68(3):324-328.
7. Cho CS, Ramanan RA, Feldman MD. Defining the ideal qualities
of mentorship: a qualitative analysis of the characteristics of
outstanding mentors. Am J Med. 2011;124(5):453-458.
8. Melanson MA The mentoring spectrum. US Army Med Dep J.
2009;Oct-Dec:37-39.
9. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. A systematic review of
qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring
in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(1):72-78.
10. Anderson L, Silet K, Fleming M. Evaluating and giving feedback
to mentors: new evidence-based approaches. Clin Transl Sci. 2012;
5(1):71-77.
11. Pololi L, Knight, S. Mentoring faculty in academic medicine.
A new paradigm? J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(9):866-870.
12. Jackson VA, Palepu A, Szalacha L, Caswell C, Carr PL, Inui T.
“Having the right chemistry:” a qualitative study of mentoring in
academic medicine. Acad Med. 2003;78(3):328-334.
13. Brent R, Felder R, Regan T, et al. Engineering faculty
development: a multicoalition perspective. Presented at: American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings;
June 2000; Washington, DC.
14. Owens BH, Herrick CA, Kelley JA. A prearranged mentorship
program: can it work long distance? J Prof Nurs. 1998;14(2):78-84.
15. Detsky AS, Baerlocher MO. Academic mentoring—how to give
it and how to get it. JAMA. 2007;297(19):2134-2136.
16. Balmer D, D’Alessandro D, Risko W, Gusic ME. How
mentoring relationships evolve: a longitudinal study of academic
pediatricians in a physician educator faculty development program.
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(2):81-86.
17. McNally JG. Students, schools and a matter of mentors. Int J
Educ Manag. 1998; 8(5):18-23.
18. Kashiwagi DT, Varkey P, Cook DA. Mentoring programs for
physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review. Acad Med.
2012;88(7):1029-1037.
19. Fuller K, Maniscalco-Feichtl M, Droege M. The role of the
mentor in retaining junior pharmacy faculty members. Am J Pharm
Educ. 2008;72(2):Article 41.
20. Metzger AH, Hardy YM, Jarvis C, et al. Essential elements for
a pharmacy practice mentoring program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;
77(2):Article 23.
21. Nick JM, Delahoyde TM, Del Prato D, et al. Best practices in
academic mentoring: a model for excellence. Nurs Res Pract.
2012;2012:937906.
22. Morzinski J, Simpson DE, Bower DJ, Diehr S. Faculty
development through formal mentoring. Acad Med. 1994;69
(4):267-269.
23. Dunham-Taylor J, Lynn CW, Moore P, McDaniel S, Walker JK.
What goes around comes around: improving faculty retention
through more effective mentoring. J Prof Nurs. 2008;24(6):337-346.
24. Carey EC, Weissman DE. Understanding and finding
mentorship: a review for junior faculty. J Palliat Med. 2010;
13(11):1373-1379.
6

25. Faculty Mentoring Guide. Virginia Commonwealth University
School of Medicine. http://www.medschool.vcu.edu/facultyaffairs/
career_dev/facultymentoringguide/. Accessed February 14, 2014.
26. Feldman MD, Arean PA, Marshall SJ, Lovett M, O’Sullivan P.
Does mentoring matter: results from a survey of faculty mentees at
a large health sciences university. Med Educ Online. 2010;15:10.
27. Goncalves Mde C, Bellodi PL. Mentors also need support:
a study on their difficulties and resources in medical schools.
Sao Paulo Med J. 2012;130(4):252-258.
28. Boyce EG, Burkiewicz JS, Haase MR, et al. ACCP white paper:
essential components of a faculty development program for
pharmacy practice faculty. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(1):127.
29. ADVANCE Faculty Mentoring Program. New Mexico State
University, Teaching Academy. http://teaching.nmsu.edu/advance/
advance-mentoring-program/. Accessed February 14, 2014.
30. Peluchette JV, Jeanquart S. Professionals’ use of different
mentor sources at various career stages: implications for career
success. J Soc Psychol. 2000;140(5):549-564.
31. Wasserstein AG, Quistberg DA, Shea JA. Mentoring at the
University of Pennsylvania. J Gen Intern Med. 207;22(2):210–214.
32. Groves KS. Integrating leadership development and succession
planning best practices. J Manag Dev. 2007;26(3):239-260.
33. Noe RA. An investigation of the determinants of successful
assigned mentoring relationships. Pers Psychol. 1988;41(3):457-479.
34. Ragins BR, McFarlin DB. Perceptions of mentor roles in
cross-gender mentoring relationships. J Vocat Behav. 1990;37(3):
321-339.
35. Berk RA, Berg J, Mortimer R, Walton-Moss B, Yeo TP.
Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships.
Acad Med. 2005;80(1):66-71.
36. Ragins BR, Scandura TA. Burden or blessing? Expected
costs and benefits of being a mentor. J Organ Behav. 1999;20(4):
493-509.
37. Balfour D, Wechsler B. Organizational commitment:
a reconceptualization and empirical test of public-private differences.
Rev Public Pers Admin. 1990;10(3):23-40.
38. Lyons TF. Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and
withdrawal. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1971;6:99-110.
39. Kahn RL, Wolfe DM, Quinn RP, Snoek JD, Rosenthal RA.
Organizational stress: studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Oxford,
England: John Wiley; 1964:470.
40. Quinn R, Shepard L. The 1972-73 Quality of Employment
Survey: Descriptive Statistics with Comparison Data from the
1969-70 Survey of Working Conditions. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for
Social Research, University of Michigan; 1974.
41. Kanungo RN. Measurement of job and work involvement. J Appl
Psychol. 1982;67(3):341-349.
42. Marinac JS, Gerkovich MM. Outcomes from a mentored
research boot camp: focused investigator training (FIT) program.
Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(9):792-798.
43. Egan TM, Song Z. Are facilitated mentoring programs
beneficial? A randomized experimental field study. J Vocat Behav.
2008;72(3):351-362.
44. Zeind CS, Zdanowicz M, MacDonald K, Pakhurst C, King C,
Wizwer P. Developing sustainable faculty mentoring program.
Am J Pharm Educ. 2005; 69(5):Article 10.
45. Pololi LH, Knight SM, Dennis K, Frankel RM. Helping medical
school faculty realize their dreams: an innovative, collaborative
mentoring program. Acad Med. 2002;77(5):377-384.
46. Faculty Mentoring Toolkit: UCSF Faculty Mentoring Program.
http://academicaffairs.ucsf.edu/ccfl/media/UCSF_Faculty_Mentoring_
Program_Toolkit.pdf. Accessed February 14, 2014.
47. Joint Councils Task Force. Faculty mentoring checklist for
academic pharmacy. http://www.aacp.org/governance/councilfaculties/
Documents/Joint%20CouncilsFacultyMentoringTask%20Force-
FacultyMentoringChecklistforAcademicPharmacy.pdf.
Accessed February 14, 2014.
48. Porter LW, Smith FJ. The etiology of organizational
commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at
Irvine; 1970.
49. Lodahl TM, Kejner M. The definition and measurement of job
involvement. J Appl Psychol. 1965;49:24-33.
7

Appendix 1. PAIRS Checklist
# Item Options Comments/Evidence/Resources
Intent
1 Examine goals and purpose(s) of
mentorship program for COP/SOP
Satisfaction; Retention; Development Depending on academic age and
experience of faculty
The goals and purposes should guide
the assessment and evaluation plan
Structure
2 Oversight of program Committee, a senior faculty member,
or an administrator
Various examples exist: best practice
may be an individual faculty who
directs, an individual who
coordinates with help from support
staff; and they report to a faculty
development committee.
3 Policy and Procedure document To lay out process and rationale Serves as a reminder and helps
streamline process and evaluation.
4 Who can be a mentor? Senior faculty (associate or higher
level).
Need to be ready willing and able to
mentor.
5 How can mentors be incentivized? Service credit in promotion and annual
evaluation; Travel funds;
Recognition and awards
Increases willingness to mentor
Process
6 Mentor protégé pair matching Matching mentor protégé pairs can be
done by department chairs.
Potential chemistry between mentor
and protégé is usually a prominent
factor in choice, in addition to
protégé career goals.
A form can be developed to help assist
the process – form can include
protégé career goals in each area
(teaching, research, service, etc).
A new mentor can take one protégé
and then add on one more if needed.
7 Formal mentorship assignment A formal agreement can be created that
is signed off by mentor and protégé
to formalize the process. The
agreement can be for a certain
duration (minimum of a year).
This agreement can help provide credit
for mentors for the service, as well
as help if there is need for renewal or
non-renewal of the pair.
8 Mentor orientation and training Orienting mentors to expectations
from mentorship, training them on
their roles and responsibilities.
Occurs once a year or for newly
assigned mentors usually over
a meal. Director of program needs to
be trained themselves and needs to
develop a manual for this training.
Do’s and Don’t’s of mentorship.
Helps reduce frustration and variability
in process.
9 Protégé orientation For new protégés to orient them to
expectations of mentorship
program. Occurs once when they are
newly assigned.
Helps protégés understand what to
expect and reduces frustration.
Do’s and Don’t’s of protégéship.
(Continued)
8

Appendix 1. (Continued)
10 Expectations of the pair Meeting periodically (at least once
a quarter).
Need to be laid down in the P&P
document.
Offering incentives such as funds for
lunch for the meetings.
Confidential discussions.
Resources
11 Time, money, programmatic support,
technology
Outlining each resource needed,
methods of obtaining resource,
allocation of resource and fall back
in case of lack of support.
Resources are an indicator or a culture
of support for mentorship.
Nature decide size of program and
factors that may help or hinder
growth or success of program.
Assessment and Evaluation
11 Periodic assessments of mentoring
relationship quality
Web-based confidential survey at mid
year and annually at to assess how
pairing is perceived by mentor and
protégé. Can obtain meaningful data
within 1-2 years of program
implementation
Helps decide if goals are being met and
whether modifications are needed in
program or if there is conflict in the
pairing.
Validated instruments include:
d Mentoring Functions
Survey (Noe 1988)33
d Mentoring Role Instrument
(Ragins & McFarlin 1990)34
d Mentorship Effectiveness Scale
(Berk 2005)35
d Mentor Profile Questionnaire
(Berk 2005)35
d Mentor Benefits (Ragins &
Scandura 1999)36
12 Annual assessment of mentoring
relationship renewal
Web-based confidential survey at end
of a year to assess if renewal is
appropriate / desired.
Non renewal needs to be conducted in
a delicate manner so as to facilitate
continued positive relationships.
13 Program assessment Measures should be selected based on
the goals of the decided upon
mentoring program.
CQI process; Validated instruments
include:
Possible measures of program
effectiveness:
Organizational Commitment / Propensity
to Leave:
d Mentoring relationship quality d Organizational Commitment
Scale (Balfour & Wechsler
1990)37
d Organizational Commitment /
Propensity to Leave
d Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (Porter & Smith
1970)48
d Job Satisfaction d Propensity to Leave Scale
(Lyons 1971)38
d Self-Efficacy Scholarship /
Research
(Continued)
9

Appendix 1. (Continued)
d Job Performance Measures Job satisfaction:
o Scholarly Productivity (# of
publications; # of grants
submitted /funded; funding
(dollars)
d Work-role Stress (Kahn et al.
1964)39
o Withdrawal Behaviors
(absences)
d Self-Esteem at Work (Quinn and
Shepard 1974)40
d Career Advancement
d Job Involvement Scale (Lodahl
and Kejner 1965)49
d Academic Rank Self-efficacy in scholarship/research
d Promotion Rate / Promotion Ve-
locity
d FIT Program Evaluation
Questionnaire (Marinac &
Gerkovich 2012)42
d Turn-over / Retention
10

A Checklist For The Development Of Faculty Mentorship Programs

More Related Content

Similar to A Checklist For The Development Of Faculty Mentorship Programs (20)

More from Nathan Mathis (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Checklist For The Development Of Faculty Mentorship Programs