Strategies to Design an Effective Mentoring Program
Article Outline
- Roles and Responsibilities of the Mentor and Mentee
- Best Structure for Mentoring Programs
- Using Outcomes to Measure a Program's Effectiveness
- Table I.
- References
- Copyright
Mentoring is valued in academic medicine as a process to support and develop learners, trainees, and faculty. There is limited evidence available, however, that defines the key elements of effective mentoring or that provides a specific framework on which to structure a successful program.1 Varying models for mentoring programs have been described, but the lack of defined outcomes demonstrating success limits the ability to apply lessons learned from the efforts of others.2
With this in mind, we conducted workshops at the past 3 annual meetings of the Pediatric Academic Societies entitled, “The Mentoring Toolbox: How to Build a Better Mentor and Mentoring Program.” More than 100 attendees participated representing various types of mentoring programs. We write this article to provide insights gained through discussions with and by participants about the roles and responsibilities of the mentor and mentee in a relationship; the best ways to structure a mentoring program; and the use of an outcomes-based framework3 to measure the effectiveness of mentoring programs.4
Roles and Responsibilities of the Mentor and Mentee
Using reflection on personal experience, our workshop began with a brainstorming exercise to identify a list of the goals and expectations of mentors and mentees. From this list, we generated some key qualities for both parties in their role (Table I; available at www.jpeds.com). This list of characteristics, behaviors, and skills should help one understand his or her role on either “side” of the relationship. It can also help one to establish expectations for the partner in the relationship. Making these expectations explicit will help to ensure the most successful relationship possible for the 2 parties.5, 6, 7 As can be seen in Table I, some of the qualities are similar for both and others differ quite a bit.
Best Structure for Mentoring Programs
Focusing on the shared objective of creating successful mentoring programs, we embarked on a series of mock debates. All workshop participants were divided into groups and assigned to represent 1 unique aspect of a mentoring program. The extremely creative and animated conversations focused on 4 questions: (1) Should a mentoring program be structured formally with explicit parameters to ensure a standardized experience or less formally structured to better meet the needs of individual mentees?; (2) Should a mentoring program require mandatory or voluntary participation of mentors or mentees?; (3) Should mentees be assigned to mentors, or should mentees have a role in selecting their mentors?; and (4) Should there be tangible rewards and recognition established for mentors who participate, or is it enough to assume that mentors will continue to participate because of their commitment to foster the next generation of physicians/pediatricians?
In comparing notes from 4 series of debates, some key benefits were identified for each of the debated options (Table II). The following represents a consensus of the opinions reached by each audience through a vote taken at the end of the debate of the 4 questions: (1) A formal structured program with explicit expectations, a standardized approach, accountability of participants, and structured evaluation is more advantageous than an informal one; (2) programs should be voluntary for mentors but mandatory for mentees; (3) rather than uniformly decide whether mentors should be assigned or self-selected, each audience decided that flexibility here was critical to ensure a “good fit” and that mentees, even if assigned their first mentor, should be allowed to explore multiple mentors and to identify new mentors to meet new or different needs; and (4) mentoring must be formally recognized with tangible rewards that extend beyond salary support or financial incentives. This role must be recognized through awards and in the formal promotion process. Time to participate in mentoring, compensated through a reduction in clinical productivity expectations and subsidized by the medical school or hospital, was believed to be an important way to ensure not only participation but also sustainability of programs.
Table II. Mentoring program options and benefits
| Program structure |
 Formal |
| Sets clear expectations |
| Offers standardized approach/Organized |
| Enhances visibility/Shows institutional support |
| Encourages accountability |
| Allows training of mentors |
| Supports evaluation and feedback |
| Informal |
| Allows for choice |
| Allows flexibility |
| Less expensive |
| Less intimidating |
| Participation |
| Mandatory |
| Inclusive of all faculty |
| Shared responsibility |
| Allows quality improvement of program and of mentor skills/performance |
| Provides resources/Sustainable |
| Centralized support |
| Voluntary |
| Includes motivated mentors |
| Personal accountability |
| Promotes adult learning |
| Focus on mentee |
| Mentor Selection |
| Assigned |
| Allows for good fit through use of specific criteria |
| Uses established expectations for mentors |
| Allows for oversight |
| Distributes work fairly |
| Ensures all mentees are included |
| Easier to provide faculty development for all |
| Self-selected |
| Better chance of meaningful relationship |
| Promotes autonomy/responsibility |
| Allows flexibility |
| Increases commitment |
| Increases satisfaction |
| Rewards |
| Tangible |
| Attracts/retains mentors/Increases motivation |
| Promotes commitment/accountability |
| Encourages investment/increased productivity |
| Offers validation |
| Changes culture |
| Measures performance relative to expectations |
| Intangible |
| Affordable |
| Promotes professional responsibility |
| Focus remains on mentee |
| Sustainable/without cost |
Using Outcomes to Measure a Program's Effectiveness
The workshop participants recognized the importance of defining specific outcomes to be accomplished by and through mentoring. Participants agreed that evaluation must be focused on measurable outcomes to demonstrate a program's effectiveness.4 These data can also be used to improve the program in future iterations.6 The group also considered what tools or strategies would best measure the outcomes.
Each mentoring program could and should be structured to achieve the individualized specific goals for the department or institution's program, and therefore specific measures will vary; 1 outcome measure would not fit all mentoring programs. Some sample outcomes identified by workshop participants are included in Table III.
Table III. Sample outcome measures for mentoring programs
| Desired outcome | Measure/Tool |
|---|---|
| Job satisfaction for mentee | Self report Focus groups Retention data |
| Satisfaction with program | Self report (mentee/mentor) Faculty desire to continue to mentor/participate in the program as mentee or mentor Number of mentees working with each mentor |
| Vitality of mentor and mentee | Questionnaires (pre/post) Interview Years at institution and in program Retention data |
| Growth of program | Number of new/continuing participants |
| Knowledge and comfort with “academic skills” | Self-efficacy questionnaire completed by mentees (pre/post) |
| Academic career productivity and success (Mentee but also mentor with mentee) | Number of scholarly products Promotion data |
| National recognition of department/institution | New faculty recruited Retention data |
Although these discussions do not provide conclusive evidence in support of 1 specific way to structure a mentoring program, we hope that the conversations held with and between the participants in these workshops are helpful to those interested in developing their own mentoring programs. Successful programs should be planned with a structure that defines roles and expectations, yet also account for the individual needs of participants. Tacit and explicit support for the program and for participants is important to ensure ongoing participation. And, finally, success can only be demonstrated through measuring concrete outcomes of importance to faculty, as well as to the department/institution.
Table I.
Desirable qualities of mentors and mentees
| Mentor |
| Availability |
| Investment in relationship |
| Honesty |
| Trustworthiness |
| Willingness and skill to provide feedback |
| Supports mentee's vision |
| Allows failure/non-judgmental |
| Encourages mentee to remain focused |
| Holds mentee accountable/Motivating |
| Specific skill set |
| Supportive/Good Listener |
| History of successful mentoring |
| History of professional success |
| Willingness to share expertise/Generous |
| Passion/enthusiasm |
| Creativity |
| Mentee |
| Availability |
| Investment in relationship |
| Honesty |
| Trusting |
| Open to feedback |
| Has vision |
| Demonstrates positive approach to failure |
| Focused |
| Accountable |
| Goal-oriented |
| Responsible |
| Shows potential |
| Respectful |
| Willing to “stretch” |
References
- . Formal mentoring programmes for medical students and doctors-a review of the medline literature. Med Teach. 2006;28:248–257
- . Marušić, A. Mentoring in academic medicine. JAMA. 2006;296:1103–1115
- . Transferring learning to behavior: using the four levels to improve performance. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2005;
- . Functional mentoring: a practical approach with multilevel outcomes. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008;28:157–164
- . Anatomy of mentoring. J Pediatr. 2008;152:151–152
- . Twelve tips for developing effective mentors. Med Teach. 2006;28:404–408
- . Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees. Acad Med. 2009;84:140–144
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
PII: S0022-3476(09)01119-6
doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.11.012
© 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
