Abstract
The human resources management literature offers considerable evidence that mentoring programs can positively influence a variety of measures of both individual and organizational performance. This study examines the use and effectiveness of faculty mentoring programs at business schools in the United States. A survey of 118 schools accredited by the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business found that mentoring programs are the exception rather than the rule. Moreover, many existing mentoring programs lack the strategic focus and structure that are critical to program success. Statistical results indicated that mentoring programs employing best practices achieved greater career and psychosocial benefits as predicted in the mentoring literature. The study offers insights that institutions can use in developing successful mentoring programs, and using them to more effectively leverage faculty resources.
As reported by The Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the number of academically qualified faculty available to fill open faculty positions in accredited schools of business is not sufficient:
Recurring shortages of new Ph.D.s, and the expectation that these shortages in academia will be an ongoing condition for business schools, threaten the essence of business scholarship as schools burden a shrinking number of research faculty to cope with growing demands in other professorial areas. (“Management Education at Risk,” 2002, p. 13)
The shortage of academically qualified faculty has created excess demand for scarce faculty resources. This has resulted in the bidding up of salaries and made it difficult for schools to recruit and retain qualified faculty. In recent years, economic circumstances have placed additional fiscal burdens on both private and public institutions, placing an even greater premium on expenditures on faculty recruitment and compensation (Gardner, 2011). In light of these challenges, the retention and development of existing faculty members takes on increased importance.
Given the resources devoted to training academic faculty in doctoral programs, along with the time and money spent on faculty recruitment/search processes, it would be prudent for schools of business to adopt organizational strategies that increase the likelihood of faculty satisfaction and success across all academic career stages. Studies regarding the faculty career have indicated that achieving success in all career stages can be ambiguous, stressful, and intimidating (Johnsrud & Heck, 1998; Wyer & Blood, 2006). Although not universal, the sink or swim mentality of the academy can be short-sighted and wasteful. The following faculty vignette 1 serves as an introduction to some of the issues to be addressed in this study.
The Case of the Informal Mentor
Dr. Newbody recently joined the faculty and took the office next to Professor Seasoned. During a formal orientation for new faculty members, Dr. Newbody was directed to the College’s Promotion and Tenure documentation, which outlined general scholarship expectations for retention and tenure. A productive faculty scholar, Dr. Newly Tenured, was assigned to mentor Dr. Newbody. While the mentoring relationship was formally established, no training was provided to either individual, nor was any effort made to establish expectations for the mentoring process or relationship.
At the end of his first semester, Dr. Newbody had a performance review with the Dean. Dr. Newbody was made aware that intellectual contributions were expected for retention and tenure, and made a commitment to be more proactive in establishing a research agenda. During his first semester Dr. Newbody had relied on the advice and direction of Dr. Seasoned, his office neighbor, who was no longer research active and who was teaching classes that had been prepped for more than 20 years.
Dr. Seasoned had served on the faculty for over 25 years, and was many years removed from going through the tenure and promotion process himself; however, he was eager to provide a wealth of advice on how to succeed at the university and in the academy. Dr. Seasoned also offered his opinions about the lack of experience and institutional knowledge of the recently hired Dean. Along with his colorful cultural influence, Dr. Seasoned suggested that refereed proceedings had counted toward tenure for many years, and advised Dr. Newbody accordingly.
During the annual review at the end of Dr. Newbody’s second year, the Dean made it clear that a refereed publication in the proceedings of a national meeting would not count with respect to the retention decision at the end of the third year. The Dean directed Dr. Newbody to focus on refereed journal publications, indicating that a record of success in refereed proceedings alone would not be acceptable. Dr. Newbody submitted one manuscript to a peer reviewed journal during the third year, but the manuscript was not accepted prior to the third year review.
The intent of this vignette is to paint a brief sketch of a plausible organizational environment at some schools of business, particularly with regard to faculty mentoring with the intent to introduce the need for formal faculty mentoring programs. The following sections will review best practices from the mentoring literature and detail our survey of the current state of faculty mentoring programs in AACSB schools of business in the United States. We will revisit the fate of Dr. Newbody in the discussion and conclusions section.
Faculty Mentoring Programs
Formal faculty mentoring programs 2 offer promise for improving faculty performance and retention. Evidence from the literature indicates that mentoring can enhance academic career and psychosocial outcomes and that business schools can improve faculty retention by implementing well-designed programs.
The current study reviews best practices in faculty mentoring programs and reports the results of a survey of AACSB accredited colleges and schools of business in the United States to examine the current state of faculty mentoring programs. We draw insights on three specific research questions:
The following sections review the literature on mentoring, identifying benefits and challenges, and best practices specific to academia. Details of the research methodology and survey results are then presented. Finally, conclusions and implications are offered that institutions can use to build or develop mentoring programs.
Definitions of Mentoring
There is no consensus definition of mentoring. Bozeman and Feeney (2007), for example, identified 13 definitions from the research literature. They propose a comprehensive definition that centers on differential sharing between mentor and protégé. Part of this definition states that mentoring is
the informal transmission of knowledge, social capital, and psychosocial support . . . between a person who is perceived to have greater relevant knowledge, wisdom, or experience (the mentor) and a person who is perceived to have less (the protégé). (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007, p. 731)
This definition implies that anyone can simultaneously be both a mentor and protégé based on their relative knowledge and experience across various domains.
Benefits of Mentoring
A large body of literature on mentoring has developed since Kram’s (1985) seminal work that suggested that effective mentoring could result in career development and psychosocial benefits. Indeed, more than 1,500 articles have explored the benefits of effective mentoring programs (Colley, 2001). A number of review articles and meta-studies provide insights into the key findings and conclusions of prior research. Boyle and Boice (1998) examined the benefits of mentoring for graduate students, graduate teaching assistants, and new faculty members. They identified a willingness to take risks, increased political savvy, positive research productivity, and career advancement as key benefits of mentoring. Ragins, Cotton, and Miller (2000) provided statistical evidence that mentoring leads to positive outcomes on a variety of measures, including job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, and satisfaction with opportunities for promotion. Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, and Lima (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature, concluding that mentoring was related to positive outcomes with respect to several objective and subjective measures of career development. These measures included compensation and salary growth, expectations of advancement, and intention to remain with an employer. Hegstad and Wentling (2005) identified improved employee retention, networking, organizational learning, loyalty, and awareness of issues related to diversity among other benefits of mentoring.
Zellers, Howard, and Barcic (2008) explored the organizational benefits of mentoring. They found that mentoring not only had a positive impact on performance and organizational stability but also on socialization, communication, the preservation of intellectual capital and institutional memory, leadership capacity, and succession planning. They also cataloged benefits specific to protégés and mentors. Protégés benefited in terms of assimilation into the organization, job, income, and promotion prospects; leadership development; and the motivation to mentor others. Academe-specific benefits included improvements in confidence, scholarship, and teaching effectiveness, and reduced feelings of isolation and alienation. Academe-specific benefits to mentors included a feeling of contribution and accomplishment, personal satisfaction, revitalization, and the ability to gain new perspectives. Table 1 summarizes key findings from the literature on the benefits of mentoring programs.
Key Benefits of Mentoring Programs.
Challenges of Mentoring
While the literature has focused primarily on the benefits of mentoring, the challenges inherent in mentoring cannot be overlooked. Indeed, according to Scandura (1998), “ . . . when dysfunctional mentoring does occur, its consequences might be quite serious” (p. 451). Eby and Lockwood (2005) listed a range of potential problems associated with mentoring. Those identified by both mentors and protégés included mismatches and scheduling difficulties. Problems as seen by protégés included unmet expectations, mentor neglect, having a cynical mentor, and not having enough time to develop the mentoring process. Problems as seen by mentors included feelings of personal inadequacy. Ragins et al. (2000) examined whether the real potential benefits of good mentoring were masked by the real costs of bad mentoring. Their results suggested that for protégés reporting marginal or low satisfaction with the mentoring relationship, organizational benefits were negligible or negative (costs).
Several studies have also examined factors that limit the potential of mentoring programs. According to Luecke (2004) and McCauley and Van Velsor (2004), women and minorities may not have the same access to information on mentoring as other peers, and mentors may tend to seek out only protégés with whom they can personally identify. Johnson (2007) suggested that faculty members in particular may be more inclined to mentor junior colleagues in whom they see themselves. Studies have also suggested that cross-race mentoring relationships have unique challenges. These include negative stereotypes or preconceptions, a lack of trust, and difficulties when it comes to discussing certain sensitive issues (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). The relative shortage of women and minorities among more senior faculty thus poses particular challenges.
Best Practices in Formal Faculty Mentoring
Three key themes emerged from the literature in the context of best practices in faculty mentoring programs: administrative support, program objectives/assessment, and program structure.
Administrative Support
The primary intent of mentoring programs is to develop faculty rather than to serve as remedial programs to be used once performance issues, whether they be related to research or teaching, have emerged. As such, when administrators see the strategic significance of mentoring programs, they can build appropriate systems that enable success. Hegstad and Wentling (2005) identified a number of common organizational characteristics in effective mentoring programs including top management support, a flat organizational structure, an organizational culture characterized by teamwork and trust that is founded on a respect for confidentiality, effective and open communication, and effective job design. They noted that faculty mentoring programs often fail due to a lack of focus and commitment. Lindenberger and Zachary (1999) provided a practitioner’s guide for developing a successful mentoring program, again highlighting the importance of top management support and long-term commitment. Top management support was also identified by Parise and Forret (2008) as a key success factor.
Program Objectives and Assessment
As with any programmatic initiative, a faculty mentoring program should be aligned with broader organizational priorities, and there should be clarity in terms of its purpose and objectives. Hegstad and Wentling (2005) highlighted the importance of this alignment between program objectives and organizational mission, as well as the importance of commitment and continuity. Zellers et al. (2008) spoke of the need to link program objectives to other organizational policies and practices such as performance appraisal and promotions, and systems for reward and recognition.
Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, and Marchese (2006) provided a theoretical framework for understanding mentoring effectiveness from a relationship perspective. Variables in their model included proactivity, openness, perceptions of similarity, and perceptions of organizational support. Their results indicated that mentor proactivity was positively related to successful career and psychosocial mentoring. Boyle and Boice (1998) highlighted the importance of evaluating levels of mentor and protégé participation and the quality of mentoring interactions, and analyzing the issues raised by mentoring relationships.
Program Structure
Effective mentoring involves more than merely pairing faculty mentors and protégés. Successful programs involve comprehensive planning prior to program implementation, and the formalization of required activities and anticipated outcomes. Hegstad and Wentling (2005) and Boyle and Boice (1998) highlighted the desirability of advanced planning in managing mentor–protégé dyads. The latter also noted the importance of having required meetings, and clear expectations regarding meeting frequency and who was expected to participate, that is, mentors, protégés, mentoring dyads, or all program participants, along with the utility of holding program-wide meetings such as workshops and socials for all program participants. Boyle and Boice (1998) also recommended using incentives to motivate and reward program participants.
A number of recent studies have highlighted the positive impact of increasing the number and diversity of mentors throughout the academic career. Van Emmerik (2004) found that the size of an individual’s mentoring network (measured by number of mentors) was positively related to both career satisfaction as well as job satisfaction. Similarly, de Janasz and Sullivan (2004) suggested the importance of building a robust constellation of mentors in contrast to a single mentoring relationship.
Hegstad and Wentling (2005) found that effective mentoring programs placed an emphasis on careful mentor/protégé selection to avert potential matching problems. Both their work and that of Allen, Eby, and Lentz (2006a) highlighted the importance of seeking input from both mentors and protégés in making assignment decisions. Parise and Forret (2008) explored the impact of voluntary participation and the solicitation of input to the matching process from the mentor’s perspective. They found that both factors were positively related to mentor perceptions of the mentoring program. Boyle and Boice (1998) suggested that it was important to have clear policies to guide both the mentor’s and/or the protégé’s desire to terminate a mentoring relationship.
Allen et al. (2006a) found that closeness of academic rank but not physical proximity had a positive effect on the success of a mentoring relationship. They also suggested that mentors and protégés should come from the same department. In contrast, Ragins et al. (2000) and Boyle and Boice (1998) indicated a preference for cross-departmental relationships, arguing that this insulated participants from conflicts associated with promotion/tenure considerations. These contradictory results suggest that organizational/departmental culture can play an important role in making assignment decisions.
Several authors have examined the role of gender, race, and ethnicity in making mentor–protégé matches. Knox and McGovern (1988) found that women sought mentors who were willing to share knowledge, competent, understanding, consistent, knowledgeable about institutional and professional issues, and who would push them to define/clarify goals. They also found that protégés who had positive mentoring experiences characterized their mentors as being experienced, having a sense of humor, and having treated the protégé as a colleague. Gibson (2004) noted that having a caring and supportive mentor, feeling connected, having one’s worth affirmed, and not being alone were important to female protégés. Allen, Day, and Lentz (2005) found that interpersonal comfort mediated gender differences, and suggested that cross-gender mentoring dyads based on commonalities could help to mitigate potential gender-related issues.
Tillman (2001) examined the mentoring experiences of African American protégés at two predominantly White universities. Tillman noted that same-race mentoring relationships offered greater psychosocial support than did cross-race relationships, and in the latter case, secondary same-race mentors were often sought. A case analysis of the mentoring relationship between a White male professor and a Black female associate professor highlighted several issues that can improve the effectiveness of cross-race mentoring (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004). These issues included overcoming hidden racism and a lack of trust that may have historical roots, and mentors positively embracing racial and cultural differences rather than using them to exert power and influence or compartmentalize minority faculty.
Boyle and Boice (1998) addressed the importance of orientation and training, and the need to set clear expectations for both protégé and mentor that were known to each other. They noted that both mentor and protégé have expectations of the relationship, particularly regarding career and social support, thus each should bring to the relationship a commitment to satisfying the expectations of the other (Young & Perrewe, 2000). Allen, Eby, and Lentz (2006b) found evidence that the quality of training is an important consideration. They also suggested that training should include contextual expectations related to gender, race, and ethnicity.
Table 2 summarizes the findings on best practices in faculty mentoring and provides additional support from the literature for various dimensions of mentoring programs. As the literature suggests, there are a number of steps that can be taken to develop effective programs that can elicit benefits both to faculty and academic units.
Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring.
Summarizing the findings from the literature, a number of conclusions can be drawn. First, successful mentoring programs are viewed as being strategically important initiatives that are aligned and integrated with broader objectives of the academic unit/institution. In addition, successful programs receive significant support and commitment from top management. Program design and implementation are characterized by having a well-defined structure that is understood and embraced by all program participants. Key elements of this structure include careful matching of mentors and protégés that considers a variety of critical success factors, clear articulation of program and individual expectations, carefully considered training and mentoring activities, and formal assessment of execution and outcomes at both the program and individual levels. Underlying all of this is the need for the program to operate in a culture that fosters trust in the program and its objectives, and is perceived as being conducive to faculty development.
In the context of the present study, our goal is to examine to what extent business schools have adopted faculty mentoring as part of their DNA, and whether it has the potential to help address the challenges raised by AACSB regarding faculty shortages. In other words, we hope to examine the prevalence of formal faculty mentoring programs, the motivations for creating mentoring programs, the typical structure and administration of mentoring programs, and the drivers of positive program outcomes.
Survey Methodology
A survey instrument was developed based on the literature. The survey included a section that sought information on institutional characteristics and sections that examined specific details of mentoring programs themselves: structure, goals/objectives, and assessment/effectiveness. Questions on institutional characteristics sought data on institution type (public, private), institution location (urban, suburban, rural), and the size (number of students) and types of degrees granted (bachelor, master and doctoral) by both the institution and the business school. Specific to the business school, questions were also asked about the academic mission and whether a formal mentoring program was in place.
Structural issues included ownership/funding of the program (department, college, university), program age, participation (mandatory, voluntary), faculty to whom mentors were assigned (rank, new/continuing faculty), processes/criteria used to assign and evaluate mentors, the structure of mentoring relationships (hierarchical or peer, single or multiple), program oversight (department, college, university), training/activities for program participants, reward structures for mentors, and policies for dissolving mentoring relationships. Questions regarding objectives explored whether programs included explicit objectives for the program/individuals, desired outcomes for protégés and expectations of mentors. Details of program activities were also sought. Survey items related to program assessment and evaluation included the frequency and ownership of assessment, the integration of the mentoring program with other faculty evaluation processes, protégé and program outcomes, and the importance of variables used to match mentors and protégés.
The survey instrument was pretested by faculty members at the authors’ institutions and refined accordingly. It was then distributed electronically to Deans and Associate Deans at AACSB accredited schools in the United States (N = 483). An initial e-mail was sent to request participation in the study and to ensure that the survey was directed to the appropriate individual at the respective institutions. After eliminating ten institutions that preferred not to participate in the study, the survey was sent to respondents at all AACSB accredited business schools in the United States, 473 institutions. The initial distribution plus two follow up reminders yielded a total of 118 useable responses, representing a response rate of 25%.
The sample represented a diverse set of institutions in terms of size and location, whether the institution was public or private, degrees offered, and the mission of the reporting unit (Table 3). Fifty-six responses (48%) came from units reporting a formal faculty mentoring program. Of the 56 responses, 53 were complete. The analysis presented in the following section is based on the responses from these 53 schools.
Profile of Responding Institutions.
Results
The survey results will be presented in three sections, program structure, goals/objectives, and assessment/effectiveness followed by a section highlighting the differences between high-performing programs and low-performing programs characterized through a post hoc analysis.
Program Structure
Forty-five percent (24/53) of programs were college programs, and 21% (11/53) and 8% (4/53), respectively, were university and department programs. The remaining programs were operated jointly by the college and department and/or university. Forty percent (21/53) of programs were between 5 and 10 years old, 28% (15/53) were less than 5 years old, and 23% (12/53) were more than 10 years old. Given the long history of interest in faculty mentoring, it is of note that so few programs had been functioning for more than 10 years. Seventy percent (37/53) of programs were not funded. Funding, when provided, was most likely to come from the college alone (7/16) or from both the college and university (7/53).
While it was not surprising that programs were not funded, the results indicate a gap between desired outcomes (as implied by the existence of a program) and resource support. Further evidence of this gap between intention and funding is that in almost 60% (31/53) of institutions, mentors received no compensation or recognition, and in a further 40% (21/53) they were acknowledged only as part of the faculty evaluation process.
Programs were largely managed by department heads (38%, 20/53) or college administration (28%, 15/53), though in some institutions (13%, 7/53) the program was managed by a director. One quarter (14/53) of programs received no formal program oversight. In 57% (30/53) of programs, the department head was responsible for assigning mentors to protégés, and in 26% (14/53) it was the sole responsibility of college administration. Assignments in the remaining programs were most likely to be made by a college-level committee or by the department head in conjunction with college administration.
In 47% (25/53) of programs, participation was voluntary for both protégés and mentors, and in 42% (22/53) it was mandatory for protégés only. Five respondents (9%) reported that the program was mandatory for both protégés and mentors. In schools reporting formal mentoring programs, mentors were always assigned to newly hired assistant professors, and in 45% (24/53) of programs they were also assigned to new associate professors. It was less likely that new full (19%, 10/53), adjunct (15%, 8/53), or visiting professors (13%, 7/53) were assigned a mentor. In 66% (35/53) of programs continuing assistant professors were assigned mentors, with the corresponding figures for associate and full professors being 21% (11/53) and 9% (5/53), respectively. In 32% (17/53) of programs, no continuing faculty members were assigned mentors.
These mentor assignment results suggest that mentoring is seen by some as a one-time event rather than an ongoing process. Many (28%, 15/53) mentoring relationships lasted 1 year or less, while a larger number of cases (38%, 20/53) lasted at least 2 years. It was also common (34%, 18/53) that the relationship duration was open ended. It was equally likely for the mentor, protégé, or program administrator to have authorization to terminate the mentoring relationship.
Mentoring relationships were typically (96%, 51/53) one to one, and in only five instances (9%, 5/53) was it reported that protégés had multiple mentors. Mentor–protégé relationships were generally hierarchical (68%, 36/53), with only three reported instances of protégés being assigned mentors of the same rank. Fourteen programs used both hierarchical and peer to peer relationships, raising the question of whether or not a mentor of higher rank who is somewhat removed from the protégé’s career stage is necessarily the best mentor for a new faculty member.
Typically, neither mentors (79%, 42/53) nor protégés (60%, 32/53) received any formal training. In 17% (9/53) of programs protégés received at least 8 hours of training/orientation, but it was more common for training to last fewer than 8 hours (22.5%, 12/53).
Most (83%, 44/53) programs had no requirements regarding the frequency of meetings between mentor and protégé but, when they did, the requirement typically called for a once a semester/quarter meeting (9.4%, 5/53). Almost 90% (47/53) of programs had no required structured activities, 77% (41/53) had no workshops/seminars, and a similar number had no planned social activities (75.5%, 40/53). When required (17%, 9/53), activities were typically required of both the mentor and protégé rather than for either group alone.
It was common for there to be no formal processes to screen potential mentors (89%, 47/53) nor match mentors with protégés (83%, 44/53). However, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of responses to questions on the importance of variables used to assign mentors to protégés yielded two distinct groups as noted by the brackets in Table 4. (In all the tabled results, values that are not significantly different from each other are bracketed together.) Within group differences in means were not significant, while mean differences across groups was significant. The first group consisted of the variables gender, race/ethnicity, and age. Mean responses (5-point Likert-type scale, extremely unimportant = 1, extremely important = 5) within the group ranged from 2.52 (gender) to 2.35 (age), but differences were not statistically significant (α = .05). The observation that gender and race/ethnicity were not viewed as important in making mentor assignments is contrary to evidence from earlier studies (Tillman, 2001) that such factors can affect the effectiveness of mentoring.
Mean Responses: Mentor Assignment Criteria.
1 = extremely unimportant, 5 = extremely important. Brackets indicate nonsignificant differences in means (α = .05).
Mean responses for the second group of eight variables ranged from 4.15 (tenure status) to 3.62 (preference and interest of the protégé). Ninety percent of responses indicated that tenure status was important (54%, 28/52) or very important (36.5%, 19/52) in making assignments. The corresponding figures for academic discipline/department, academic rank, preference/interest of the mentor, and experience/ effectiveness of the mentor were 81% (42/52), 79% (41/52), 77% (41/53), and 77% (40/52), respectively.
It should be noted that academic discipline/department was the only variable for which the most frequent response was extremely important. Other variables that related to the potential fit between mentor and protégé were considered to be relatively less important. For example, 72% (38/53) of respondents indicated that compatibility of the mentor and protégé was important or extremely important, and the corresponding figures for unique qualifications of the mentor and preference/interest of the protégé were 69% (36/52) and 63% (33/52), respectively.
Goals and Objectives
A majority of programs (53%, 28/53) had no formal program goals. When program goals were present, they were equally likely to be established at the university or college level (15%, 8/53), but less likely to be set at the department (6%, 3/53) or individual levels (11%, 6/53). It was also the norm (81%, 43/53) that program participants were not required to set personal goals. Only 9% (5/53) of programs required protégés alone or both mentors and protégés to set goals.
The primary focus of most (77%, 41/53) programs was on career development, the remainder having an equal focus on career and psychosocial success. The lack of focus on psychosocial support is interesting in light of prior findings that indicated that mentoring can provide significant benefits in psychosocial development (Zellers et al., 2008). In the domain of career success, most (81%, 43/53) programs focused on improving both teaching and research performance, and in a further 11% (6/53) the focus was on teaching alone. Two respondents each indicated that the program was focused on research alone and on career success outside the realm of teaching and research.
In terms of specific dimensions of professional support, mean scores for six variables varied from 4.19 (providing guidance and advocacy) to 3.7 (opening doors/making introduction). One-way ANOVA indicated that differences in means were statistically insignificant (α = .05, Table 5). Sixty-five percent (33/51) of respondents indicated that faculty mentors directly provided formal training and guidance to protégés regarding tenure and promotion.
Mean Responses: Mentor Roles.
1 = extremely unimportant, 5 = extremely important. Brackets indicate nonsignificant differences in means (α = .05).
Assessment/Effectiveness
A majority (53%, 27/51) of mentoring programs were not formally evaluated, but for programs where evaluation did occur the frequency of evaluation was annually (22%, 11/51) or less often (23.5%, 12/51). Similarly, mentoring outcomes were typically not evaluated (80%, 41/51), but when outcomes were evaluated the evaluations only took place at the college level (12%, 6/51). The fact that evaluation only took place at the college level is consistent with programs being largely college owned. Only in 22% (11/51) of programs were outcomes tied to other faculty evaluation processes.
Despite the limited evidence of formal program evaluation, there was evidence to suggest that programs had a positive impact on protégé outcomes (Table 6). Mean responses for nine variables ranged from 3.82 (adjustment to organizational culture) to 3.08 (self-esteem). Aside from the four variables—adjustment to organizational culture, promotion and tenure outcomes, teaching performance, and research performance—less than 50% of respondents suggested that the programs were effective in achieving desirable outcomes. While the differences of means tests for protégé outcomes were inconclusive, it should be noted that the variables rated as being least effective related to psychosocial benefits of mentoring: self-esteem, self-confidence, personal well-being, job satisfaction, and managing work–life balance.
Mean Responses: Protégé Outcomes.
1 = extremely unimportant, 5 = extremely important, brackets indicate nonsignificant differences in means (α = .05).
In terms of measures of program effectiveness, mean scores for six variables ranged from 3.75 (overall organizational culture) to 3.2 (development of leadership capability; Table 7). For three of the variables—overall faculty retention, overall organizational culture, and tenure and promotion outcomes for female faculty—a majority of respondents indicated that programs were effective, but in each case, the majorities were small. Overall, the results suggest that programs were limited in their impact, and one-way ANOVA did not yield additional insights.
Mean Responses: Program Outcomes.
1 = extremely unimportant, 5 = extremely important. Brackets indicate nonsignificant differences in means (α = .05).
High-Performing Versus Low-Performing Business School Mentoring Programs
While the results offered evidence, albeit limited, of the value of mentoring programs, an important follow-up question is what distinguishes effective programs from less effective programs. To answer this question, two dependent variables, average of the protégé outcomes and average of the program outcomes, were computed for each respondent. Based on the values of the two outcome variables the respondents were assigned to one of three groups to be referred to as high-, medium-, and low-performing programs, respectively. 3 Mean responses of the high-performing programs were compared with those of the low-performing programs for a number of variables related to program structure and how mentors were assigned to protégés. While caution should be exercised in interpreting the results as the sample size in each group was small, certain patterns emerge.
High-performing programs, both in terms of protégé and program outcomes, were twice as likely as low-performing programs to be funded, and had been in existence for a longer period of time (Table 8). High performers were more likely to require protégés to participate in mentoring programs and establish specific goals. High-performing programs were also more likely to require formal training for both mentors and protégés and require workshops or other related activities. Mentors in high-performing programs were more likely to receive some form of recognition than those in the low-performing programs. Finally, high-performing programs were more likely to have some form of formal program evaluation process than low-performing programs.
High- Versus Low-Performing Programs: Program Structure.
For protégé outcomes, t tests indicated that high-performing programs attached statistically greater importance than low-performing programs to three variables used to match mentors with protégés (α = .05; Table 9). For program outcomes, significant differences existed for five variables. Of particular note was that for both performance measures, high-performing programs attached greater importance than low-performing programs to the compatibility of the mentor and protégé, consistent with the results of prior studies (Hegstad & Wentling, 2005). In addition, relative to program outcomes, high-performing programs attached greater importance to assigning mentors based on protégé preference/interest and mentor qualifications.
High- Versus Low-Performing Programs: Mentor Assignment.
Note. Difference of means t tests were significantly different at α = .05.
Discussion and Implications
The AACSB accreditation standards call for the formal orientation and mentoring of faculty. According to Standard 11, 4 “The school has well-documented and communicated processes in place to manage and support faculty members over the progression of their careers consistent with the school’s mission. These include: Providing orientation, guidance and mentoring” (Eligibility Procedures and Standards, 2012, p. 52). While not motivated by AACSB mandates, the goal of this research was, in essence, to examine the extent to which AACSB accredited business schools were meeting Standard 11. While schools of business may have processes to “manage and support” faculty, the evidence from our survey suggests that these efforts do not rise to the level of formalized mentoring. The observation that only half of the schools surveyed reported a formal mentoring program is at one level encouraging, but at another level, an area for concern.
In many schools of business, faculty members receive targeted guidance regarding annual review and tenure and promotion processes. However, faculty orientation and training often is focused on narrow, targeted career outcomes but does not address broader developmental goals. Our results suggest that in many business schools a significant opportunity exists to strengthen efforts to develop faculty rather than merely to get them through a process.
Another important conclusion to be drawn from the results is that significant gaps exist between current practice and best practice in business school mentoring. As Table 10 highlights, mentoring programs fall short on several dimensions. 5 In particular, it is not clear that programs are aligned or integrated with broader strategic initiatives, or managed in a manner that suggests recognition of the value that they can offer.
Current Versus Best Practice.
To the contrary, the results suggest that many mentoring programs are implemented in an ad hoc manner absent awareness of the research on best practices. The ad hoc nature of many mentoring programs demonstrates that significant opportunity exists to improve mentoring outcomes.
The need for greater mentoring program development and formalization is shown in contrast to the characteristics of high-performing mentoring programs identified in this study, that is, dedicated funding, requirements for individual goals/training/program activities, program evaluation, mentor recognition, and consideration of important interpersonal characteristics in matching mentors with protégés. These high-performance mentoring practices are consistent with best practices in faculty mentoring more generally.
Please recall the faculty vignette provided in the introduction regarding Dr. Newbody. Due to his lack of research performance regarding the development of a research program including refereed journal publication, Dr. Newbody was not retained at the third year review. The time and resources associated with hiring Dr. Newbody were at least to some degree wasted and the required search to replace him was unnecessary since Dr. Newbody was fully capable and adequately trained to satisfy the scholarly expectations of the institution.
As this vignette illustrates, even though a mentor was assigned to Dr. Newbody, the mentoring relationship was unstructured and included no stated performance expectations. No training was provided to either the mentor or the protégé. Moreover, nothing was done to evaluate the quality of mentoring outcomes. Had a more formal, structured effort to mentor Dr. Newbody been in place, the outcome may have been different. The survey results provided above suggest that even the business schools reporting a formal mentoring program have not implemented many of the best practices recognized in the mentoring literature.
The discussion and conclusions provided above regarding the survey results must be tempered by the modest 25% response rate. The survey was undertaken as a first step to explore the prevalence of mentoring programs at AACSB business schools in the United States, but due to response bias it is possible that the respondents are not representative of all AACSB schools in the United States. The pattern of schools responding could be weighted more heavily toward schools eager to describe their own faculty mentoring program, vice-versa the sample may be overweighted with respondents eager to learn more about mentoring programs so that they can get started. Knowing that the responses may be subject to response bias suggests caution in interpreting the results.
Business schools continue to face challenges associated with attracting and retaining productive faculty. With the growth of AACSB throughout the world and the concurrent competition for scholarly faculty, it appears likely that these challenges will be ongoing in the years ahead. Schools that recognize the important benefits of mentoring faculty will be at an advantage, not only in retaining faculty but also in helping faculty to be more productive and healthy scholars. The evidence from this study suggests that when appropriate infrastructure and processes are in place, faculty mentoring can generate productive outcomes.
The current work raises several opportunities for future research. The fact that fewer than half of business schools responding to the survey have a formal faculty mentoring program, and that programs are typically loosely structured and managed, raises the question “why”? One can speculate that time, personnel, and budgetary constraints, and the independence of faculty members are part of the answer. Objective evidence may offer potential solutions that can motivate schools to adopt programs that have been shown to be successful. A more nuanced analysis of successful programs is another area for study. Whether these programs share contextual or cultural characteristics would offer significant insight. Moreover, this may lead to an understanding of how to create conditions for program success.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.