- Email: [email protected]
Mentoring faculty members
Mentoring faculty members Edward M. Copeland, III, MD, Gainesville, Fla
From the Department of Surgery, The University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Fla
RECRUITMENT, MENTORING, AND RETENTION of faculty members are inextricably intertwined. For example, if new faculty members are recruited into welldefined jobs, then mentoring them to fulfill their responsibilities will likely lead to retention if their defined responsibilities and goals are successfully attained. Both the faculty member and chairperson must be sure that resources meet job expectations, and both parties must agree on these resources. In addition, the chair should make multiple other clinical and basic research opportunities available for exploration. I liken this experience to sending out multiple pseudopods, and those that are productive, flow into, and those that are not, eliminate. The chair should provide ongoing guidance in this process to avoid expenditure of time on nonproductive projects. Guidance can only be valuable if the chair knows the capability of both the faculty member and the collaborator. The result will be the best likelihood of success given the circumstances. Medical schools located on a university campus afford a unique opportunity for collaboration with investigators on campus in such departments as chemistry, bioengineering, biology, and economics. Physician scientists can be thought of as unapproachable possibly because of imaginary boundaries between the medical complex and the remainder of the university. This, however, is easily eliminated, and most investigators on campus are delighted to have greater access to applied human biology. Seminal scientific discovery, a successful clinical practice, and receipt of the teacher of the year award are goals few of us attain. A department of surgery is made up of a diverse group of individuals, and although each should aspire to all 3 goals, their Accepted for publication June 4, 2003. Reprint requests: Edward M. Copeland, III, MD, The Edward R. Woodward Professor of Surgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Florida College of Medicine, PO Box 100286, Gainesville, FL 32610-0286. Surgery 2003;134:741-2. Ó 2003, Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved. 0039-6060/2003/$30.00 + 0 doi:10.1016/S0039-6060(03)00324-6
attainment will be unequal. The chair should know the realistic capabilities of each faculty member and, in the weaker areas, give helpful hints and guidance for methods of maximizing potential, even if it is limited in certain areas. Sometimes faculty members are better than they think they are (a situation much easier to handle than the reverse). For example, clinical observations that seem commonplace to one physician may be new facts to another. These observations can be catalogued into a scientific article. Often the more popular abstracts at prestigious national meetings are such observations. The research interests of everyone in the department should be known by all, and a venue for sharing results should exist. Interdepartmental collaboration will be stimulated, results critically appraised, and experience with verbal presentation of scientific data attained. The chair should be a ‘‘research matchmaker’’ throughout the university. For translational research, the clinical application can be equally as important as the bench discovery. Each faculty member should have an identity within the department. The chair should know how well-rounded this identity is and, from a practical standpoint, how much time can be allocated to expansion of it. Sometimes a faculty member can be most productive if the identity is more focused. How much time a chair should spend with oneon-one mentoring is variable and often depends on the degree of organization within the department. An open-door policy by the chair is almost imperative, but I never encouraged faculty members who dropped by for only a casual chat. A chair should mentally change places with faculty members to see how decisions affect them. The chair should be the spokesperson for the common opinion of the department, not just a conduit of information from the dean or hospital chief executive office. An honest chair does not have to remember in the future what was said today. Just remember the facts, be consistent with interpretation, and, thereby, avoid mixed messages. The personality traits and idiosyncrasies of the chair may determine the behavior of the faculty members. Surgeons have the common trait of emulating their professors. Consequently, the SURGERY 741
742 Copeland
burden is on the chair to set a good example. Savvy chairs can make those around them think they are of equal importance. The chair should be in control but avoid a strict hierarchy, creating no secondclass citizens among faculty members and being especially sensitive to individuals at affiliated or integrated institutions such as full-time faculty members at a Veterans Administration hospital. These characteristics of a chair are appreciated and make faculty members more receptive to mentoring. We must replicate ourselves. Surgeons train future surgeons. Teaching is a responsibility of everyone on the faculty. Time must be made available to teach and to teach well. Teaching is not a task that can just be assigned. Yes, the responsibility for organizing the educational programs should be given to those most interested, but the chair must emphasize that everyone participates and teach the teachers if necessary. Teaching must be rewarded. Both quantitative and qualitative methods of measuring it for the students and residents should exist. This can be done in questionnaire form. Share the results with the faculty members as a method of selfassessment. They should know where they rank relative to their peers in the opinions of the students and residents. Making this information available in the tenure and promotion packet also has a great stimulatory effect. The direct result of the faculty members’ efforts should be reflected in the compensation package. Each year, the goals of the previous year should be discussed and those of the following year outlined. A letter of evaluation and expectation signed by both the faculty member and chair helps avoid future misunderstanding. Compensation should be based on goal achievement. Cross-subsidization of salaries within a department is a necessity, because some jobs will not be revenue-enhancing. There may even be a faculty member who does difficult operations that are time-consuming and poorly reimbursed, but necessary for the training program and for proper care of patients in the catchment area. As long as everyone’s role is understood and properly executed, a cross-subsidy system will work. ‘‘Pressure’’ to generate revenue will be diminished, unless, of course, clinical productivity is your defined goal. Dollars to establish a new clinical or basic research program should be time-limited. ProFormas should be established and progress reports done frequently. Self-sustaining clinical programs and extramural research funding are necessities; nevertheless, the chair should establish a mechanism to stockpile funds that can be used both as startup and bridge funding for research. Within this framework,
Surgery November 2003
research mentoring must be established along with quality control. For most departments of surgery, this means a few select areas of research expertise into which a junior faculty member can fit. To have a junior faculty member begin a new program with no interested or knowledgeable senior leadership frequently leads to frustration and failure. A chair’s responsibility is to train surgical leaders of the future. At a minimum, young faculty members should participate in the American College of Surgeons, the Association for Academic Surgery, and their specialty surgical society. These organizations are all-inclusive rather than exclusive. Faculty members should learn to be collegial with their associates nationally, for they will interact in academic surgery for a lifetime. An early reputation for aloofness, condescension, laziness, and dishonesty is destructive and almost impossible to overcome. Faculty members should have the opportunity to express themselves nationally, not only by participating in the scientific programs, but also in the leadership of the societies. Encourage membership on committees of national organizations. Take every opportunity to put a faculty member on a national committee with the goal of becoming chairperson. This will get the ball rolling toward possible election to office in the organization. Chairs should encourage other department members in influential positions nationally to assume the responsibility of involving junior faculty members whenever possible. Nepotism is practiced frequently among chairs, so recognize capable individuals from other schools but do not be shy about recommending your qualified faculty members for worthy positions. Teach faculty members to investigate every negative event for positive impact and make seemingly bad situations work to their advantage. Teach them to strive to make those around them successful, for then their successes will be potentiated, better recognized, and more appreciated. Share with them the reasons for key decisions made that impact the department so that they may learn from the outcome of these decisions. If a mistaken decision is made, they may not make the same mistake when confronted with similar circumstances in the future. The bottom line to mentoring is simple. All chairs have walked in the shoes of virtually every faculty member. We have learned both positive and negative lessons from our mentors. Pass on the positives, be respectful, give direction, explain reasons for decisions, and treat faculty members as we would like to have been treated under similar circumstances. Somebody thought we were qualified to be a chair; success as a mentor proves it.
From the Department of Surgery, The University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Fla
RECRUITMENT, MENTORING, AND RETENTION of faculty members are inextricably intertwined. For example, if new faculty members are recruited into welldefined jobs, then mentoring them to fulfill their responsibilities will likely lead to retention if their defined responsibilities and goals are successfully attained. Both the faculty member and chairperson must be sure that resources meet job expectations, and both parties must agree on these resources. In addition, the chair should make multiple other clinical and basic research opportunities available for exploration. I liken this experience to sending out multiple pseudopods, and those that are productive, flow into, and those that are not, eliminate. The chair should provide ongoing guidance in this process to avoid expenditure of time on nonproductive projects. Guidance can only be valuable if the chair knows the capability of both the faculty member and the collaborator. The result will be the best likelihood of success given the circumstances. Medical schools located on a university campus afford a unique opportunity for collaboration with investigators on campus in such departments as chemistry, bioengineering, biology, and economics. Physician scientists can be thought of as unapproachable possibly because of imaginary boundaries between the medical complex and the remainder of the university. This, however, is easily eliminated, and most investigators on campus are delighted to have greater access to applied human biology. Seminal scientific discovery, a successful clinical practice, and receipt of the teacher of the year award are goals few of us attain. A department of surgery is made up of a diverse group of individuals, and although each should aspire to all 3 goals, their Accepted for publication June 4, 2003. Reprint requests: Edward M. Copeland, III, MD, The Edward R. Woodward Professor of Surgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Florida College of Medicine, PO Box 100286, Gainesville, FL 32610-0286. Surgery 2003;134:741-2. Ó 2003, Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved. 0039-6060/2003/$30.00 + 0 doi:10.1016/S0039-6060(03)00324-6
attainment will be unequal. The chair should know the realistic capabilities of each faculty member and, in the weaker areas, give helpful hints and guidance for methods of maximizing potential, even if it is limited in certain areas. Sometimes faculty members are better than they think they are (a situation much easier to handle than the reverse). For example, clinical observations that seem commonplace to one physician may be new facts to another. These observations can be catalogued into a scientific article. Often the more popular abstracts at prestigious national meetings are such observations. The research interests of everyone in the department should be known by all, and a venue for sharing results should exist. Interdepartmental collaboration will be stimulated, results critically appraised, and experience with verbal presentation of scientific data attained. The chair should be a ‘‘research matchmaker’’ throughout the university. For translational research, the clinical application can be equally as important as the bench discovery. Each faculty member should have an identity within the department. The chair should know how well-rounded this identity is and, from a practical standpoint, how much time can be allocated to expansion of it. Sometimes a faculty member can be most productive if the identity is more focused. How much time a chair should spend with oneon-one mentoring is variable and often depends on the degree of organization within the department. An open-door policy by the chair is almost imperative, but I never encouraged faculty members who dropped by for only a casual chat. A chair should mentally change places with faculty members to see how decisions affect them. The chair should be the spokesperson for the common opinion of the department, not just a conduit of information from the dean or hospital chief executive office. An honest chair does not have to remember in the future what was said today. Just remember the facts, be consistent with interpretation, and, thereby, avoid mixed messages. The personality traits and idiosyncrasies of the chair may determine the behavior of the faculty members. Surgeons have the common trait of emulating their professors. Consequently, the SURGERY 741
742 Copeland
burden is on the chair to set a good example. Savvy chairs can make those around them think they are of equal importance. The chair should be in control but avoid a strict hierarchy, creating no secondclass citizens among faculty members and being especially sensitive to individuals at affiliated or integrated institutions such as full-time faculty members at a Veterans Administration hospital. These characteristics of a chair are appreciated and make faculty members more receptive to mentoring. We must replicate ourselves. Surgeons train future surgeons. Teaching is a responsibility of everyone on the faculty. Time must be made available to teach and to teach well. Teaching is not a task that can just be assigned. Yes, the responsibility for organizing the educational programs should be given to those most interested, but the chair must emphasize that everyone participates and teach the teachers if necessary. Teaching must be rewarded. Both quantitative and qualitative methods of measuring it for the students and residents should exist. This can be done in questionnaire form. Share the results with the faculty members as a method of selfassessment. They should know where they rank relative to their peers in the opinions of the students and residents. Making this information available in the tenure and promotion packet also has a great stimulatory effect. The direct result of the faculty members’ efforts should be reflected in the compensation package. Each year, the goals of the previous year should be discussed and those of the following year outlined. A letter of evaluation and expectation signed by both the faculty member and chair helps avoid future misunderstanding. Compensation should be based on goal achievement. Cross-subsidization of salaries within a department is a necessity, because some jobs will not be revenue-enhancing. There may even be a faculty member who does difficult operations that are time-consuming and poorly reimbursed, but necessary for the training program and for proper care of patients in the catchment area. As long as everyone’s role is understood and properly executed, a cross-subsidy system will work. ‘‘Pressure’’ to generate revenue will be diminished, unless, of course, clinical productivity is your defined goal. Dollars to establish a new clinical or basic research program should be time-limited. ProFormas should be established and progress reports done frequently. Self-sustaining clinical programs and extramural research funding are necessities; nevertheless, the chair should establish a mechanism to stockpile funds that can be used both as startup and bridge funding for research. Within this framework,
Surgery November 2003
research mentoring must be established along with quality control. For most departments of surgery, this means a few select areas of research expertise into which a junior faculty member can fit. To have a junior faculty member begin a new program with no interested or knowledgeable senior leadership frequently leads to frustration and failure. A chair’s responsibility is to train surgical leaders of the future. At a minimum, young faculty members should participate in the American College of Surgeons, the Association for Academic Surgery, and their specialty surgical society. These organizations are all-inclusive rather than exclusive. Faculty members should learn to be collegial with their associates nationally, for they will interact in academic surgery for a lifetime. An early reputation for aloofness, condescension, laziness, and dishonesty is destructive and almost impossible to overcome. Faculty members should have the opportunity to express themselves nationally, not only by participating in the scientific programs, but also in the leadership of the societies. Encourage membership on committees of national organizations. Take every opportunity to put a faculty member on a national committee with the goal of becoming chairperson. This will get the ball rolling toward possible election to office in the organization. Chairs should encourage other department members in influential positions nationally to assume the responsibility of involving junior faculty members whenever possible. Nepotism is practiced frequently among chairs, so recognize capable individuals from other schools but do not be shy about recommending your qualified faculty members for worthy positions. Teach faculty members to investigate every negative event for positive impact and make seemingly bad situations work to their advantage. Teach them to strive to make those around them successful, for then their successes will be potentiated, better recognized, and more appreciated. Share with them the reasons for key decisions made that impact the department so that they may learn from the outcome of these decisions. If a mistaken decision is made, they may not make the same mistake when confronted with similar circumstances in the future. The bottom line to mentoring is simple. All chairs have walked in the shoes of virtually every faculty member. We have learned both positive and negative lessons from our mentors. Pass on the positives, be respectful, give direction, explain reasons for decisions, and treat faculty members as we would like to have been treated under similar circumstances. Somebody thought we were qualified to be a chair; success as a mentor proves it.