How Mentoring Relationships Evolve: A Longitudinal Study of Academic Pediatricians in a Physician Educator Faculty Development Program

Abstract

Mentoring relationships, in the context of this faculty development program, tended not to be an exclusive dyadic connection but rather a constellation of relationships that evolved over time and included peer mentoring. The complex reality of these relationships challenges the application of traditional mentoring models and suggests unique considerations in developing mentoring programs designed to meet the needs of faculty in academic medicine.

Long-term follow-up of a facilitated peer mentoring program

“…Mentoring is a key factor for successful career advancement within academic medicine (Sambunjak et al 2006;Feldman et al 2010). Mentoring is also a complex phenomenon with the potential for a broad sphere of influence and many models for success, with the one size fits all of the traditional dyadic mentoring model, having all but faded in recent years (Straus et al 2009;Sambunjak et al 2010;Balmer et al 2011;Cho et al 2011;Decastro et al 2013;Straus et al 2013). A variety of peer mentoring models have been described (Pololi et al 2002;Pololi & Knight 2005;Bussey-Jones et al 2006;Lewellen-Williams et al 2006;Santucci et al 2008;Spector et al 2010;Lord et al 2012), some exclusively for female faculty (Seritan et al 2007;Files et al 2008;Sonnad et al 2011).…”

A Checklist for the Development of Faculty Mentorship Programs

“…The cons of formal mentoring are that the relationship may feel forced, may be mismatched and not evolve fruitfully, or may lead to differences 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.…”

Is the Research on Continuing Education of Health Professionals Underutilized?

“…In fact, the evidence suggests that practitioners are more likely to identify conceptual than instrumental uses of the research. The Balmer et al article, 7 for example, may alter your understanding of the mentoring process.…”