- Email: [email protected]
The Value of Speed Mentoring in a Pediatric Academic Organization
The Value of Speed Mentoring in a Pediatric Academic Organization Janet R. Serwint, MD; Melissa M. Cellini, MD; Nancy D. Spector, MD; Maryellen E. Gusic, MD From the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (Dr Serwint); Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, Bronx, NY (Dr Cellini); Drexel University Medical School, Philadelphia, Pa (Dr Spector); and Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind (Dr Gusic) The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Address correspondence to Janet R. Serwint, MD, Department of Pediatrics and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 1800 Orleans St, Suite 8464, Baltimore, MD 21287 (e-mail: [email protected]). Received for publication October 31, 2013; accepted February 21, 2014.
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: A reliable and supportive mentor is indispensable to the career development of successful academic professionals. The Academic Pediatric Association (APA) utilized a speed mentoring format at the 2012 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting to enhance mentoring potential. We sought to evaluate the structure of the speed mentoring event and to determine the benefits and impact from the perspectives of the mentors and mentees. METHODS: Sixty mentees were matched with 60 mentors within various tracks. Each mentee met with 6 mentors for 10 minutes for each dyad. Participants were then asked to complete a survey 1 to 4 weeks after the event. Survey items included expectation, impact, and value of the experience along with potential for ongoing mentoring relationships. RESULTS: Fifty-four (90%) of the 60 mentees and 52 (87%) of 60 of the mentors completed the evaluation. Mentees stated that
the event allowed them to receive advice from multiple mentors in a short time period. Mentors appreciated that they gained new insights, reflected on their own careers, and were able to give back to their field. Both mentees and mentors agreed that the time was well spent, would participate again, and identified chemistry as a major factor in pursuing an ongoing relationship. CONCLUSIONS: This national speed mentoring event provided an innovative, fun, and time-efficient mechanism to establish connections, network, and determine whether chemistry existed for potential mentor–mentee relationships. Further study should evaluate whether it can be used in other venues and lead to the development of lasting mentor–mentee relationships.
KEYWORDS:
mentee; mentor; networking; speed mentoring
organization;
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS 2014;-:1–6
WHAT’S NEW
to as good chemistry between the mentor and mentee in order to create optimal relationships.8 Professional organizations often provide opportunities for networking and collaboration among colleagues with similar interests and goals.9 The Academic Pediatric Association (APA) is one such organization. The APA is composed of more than 2000 pediatric professionals in academic positions at all levels, from across the United States, Canada, and countries outside North America. The mission of the APA is to improve the health of all children and adolescents through leadership in the education of child health professionals, research and dissemination of knowledge, patient care, and advocacy in partnership with children, families, and communities (http://www. academicpeds.org). With its dedication to education, research, leadership, and advocacy, the APA attracts members who seek mentoring as well as members who possess the capability and desire to be effective mentors. Despite this, results from the 2011 Value of APA Survey indicated that members requested additional opportunities for mentoring at the national level. Of those who responded to the survey, 50% stated they had received mentoring through the APA, while 17% submitted qualitative comments stating they desired additional mentoring venues. The respondents identified the need for more formal structure and innovative venues for mentoring, access outside
A national speed mentoring event can be a fun, innovative, and time-efficient mechanism for mentees and mentors to establish connections, network with colleagues, and determine whether chemistry exists for future mentoring relationships.
A RELIABLE, GENUINE, knowledgeable, and supportive mentor is indispensable to the career development of successful academic professionals. The mentorship relationship has been associated with enhanced self-confidence, research productivity, career preparation and development, occupational satisfaction and retention, professional success, and promotion for the mentee.1–3 Mentors also benefit from the interaction with junior colleagues, experiencing renewed inspiration to further their research and scholarly work, and receiving satisfaction by sharing knowledge and experience, assisting others, and giving back to the medical community.4–6 Although the benefits of mentoring are numerous, meaningful mentoring relationships may be difficult to initiate. Limited selection of mentors, inadequate access to faculty, and lack of appropriate mentoring skills are barriers to creating effective mentoring relationships.7 In addition, mentees have expressed the need for what they referred ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Copyright ª 2014 by Academic Pediatric Association
national
1
Volume -, Number -–- 2014
2
SERWINT ET AL
their own institutions, and the creation of a mentoring match program with specific outreach to junior faculty and fellows. In an effort to enhance the mentorship potential of the APA, a Mentoring Task Force was established from this organization to design an effective and efficient mechanism to bring mentors and mentees together. Utilizing the speed dating concept,10–12 we postulated that a similar process could be applied to academic medicine at a national level to provide expeditious opportunities for networking and exposure to professional colleagues in the hopes of fostering a mentoring match. Although the Cook and Berquist studies implemented the concepts of speed mentoring in an academic setting, these studies involved participation at a single academic institution with small samples and limited evaluation.11,12 The APA Mentoring Task Force organized an inaugural speed mentoring event at the 2012 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting (PAS). After the event, both mentors and mentees completed a survey to evaluate the dyadic interaction. The objectives of our study were to evaluate the organization and structure of the APA speed mentoring event, and to determine the benefits and impact of the event from the perspectives of the mentors and the mentees.
METHODS PARTICIPANTS Participants were recruited through the APA organizational electronic mailing list 4 months before the event. Mentees were recruited first and were defined as being in fellowship training or serving as a faculty member less than 10 years. They were accepted in the order in which they responded. Each mentee was asked to rank order a list of potential tracks and identify those in which they would be most interested in participating. Mentees were assigned to 1 of their top 2 choices. The potential tracks were identified by input from membership responses to the Value of APA Survey, the APA Mentoring Task Force, and participant input from past APA Leadership conferences and were selected to address typical APA member career trajectories. The tracks included Career Development, Clinical Research, Community-Based Research, Educational Scholarship, Health Services Research, Leadership Skills, Qualitative Research, Quality Improvement Scholarship, Scholarship from Everyday Work, and Work– Life Balance. A total of 60 mentees were recruited, with the remainder placed on a waiting list. After mentee selection, an equal number of mentors were recruited. Mentors were defined as having more than 10 years’ experience after residency or fellowship training with content expertise in one of the track areas. Initial recruitment of mentors was through the APA electronic mailing list, and mentors self-identified their areas of expertise. When additional mentors were needed, recruitment took place through personal e-mail requests by members of the APA Mentoring Task Force to colleagues with expertise in the respective areas. This addi-
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
tional recruitment was needed for 8 mentors, and mentors readily responded affirmatively to the personal invitation. SPEED MENTORING EVENT The event took place on the first day of the 2012 PAS meeting. Six mentees were matched with 6 mentors within a designated track. The curriculum vitas (CVs) of the mentees and mentors were shared with each other. The purpose of this sharing was to identify areas of mutual interest and for mentees to review the composition of a variety of CVs for their own professional development. Mentees were encouraged to come prepared with questions. Each dyadic mentor–mentee spent 10 minutes together, after which time the mentees moved to the next mentor at the sound of a bell. In total, each mentee and mentor participated in 6 dyads. After the experience, the entire group of 12 met over lunch to discuss the event. EVALUATION The Mentoring Task Force created a 19 question survey using a modified Delphi method. Although the survey was not piloted, questions were designed using the stated objectives and assessed content, expectations, impact, and value of the experience along with the potential for ongoing relationships. Forced-choice questions used a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Openended questions included benefits of the event from the perspectives of mentors and mentees. All the participants received an electronic survey administered via SurveyMonkey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/) 1 week after the event, with 3 additional weekly reminders. Mentors and mentees received separate questionnaires that included open-ended items specific to their roles but with the intent to mirror one another. Institutional review board approval was obtained through the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. RESOURCES FOR THE EVENT The APA provided administrative assistance to organize the event. This administrator devoted approximately 45 hours of time to 1) send e-mail invitations to mentors and mentees, 2) collate responses, 3) place mentees and mentors into tracks, 4) develop a waiting list of mentees and mentors and replace participants when unanticipated absences took place (5 instances), 5) distribute the evaluation survey via SurveyMonkey, and 6) assist with the statistical analysis of responses. An additional 15 hours of time was contributed by JRS to organize the event and communicate with APA administrators to determine participants and assign tracks. Additional monetary expenses included the cost of lunch for participants and securing a room for the event. ANALYSIS The quantitative questions were analyzed by SPSS software, version 10 (IBM, Armonk, NY) and included frequencies of each response. Responses of agree and strongly agree (Likert scale of 4 and 5) were grouped together.
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
SPEED MENTORING
Comparisons were made between mentor and mentee. Qualitative responses were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Three of the authors (MC, MG, and NS) independently coded the comments, identifying preliminary themes. The authors used a constant comparative method to refine the themes and then independently categorized the comments on the basis of the refined themes. The authors refined the coding through discussion until consensus was reached. Quotes were selected to represent the themes identified in the analysis.
RESULTS A total of 120 people (60 mentors and 60 mentees) attended the event. Attendees included 10.5% of the 1138 APA members who attended the 2012 PAS meeting and 6% (120 of 2096) of the 2012 APA membership. Fiftyfour (90%) of the 60 mentees and 52 (87%) of 60 of the mentors completed the survey. Characteristics of the mentees included 85% women and 32% in fellowship training, while 8% held the rank of instructor and 60% assistant professor. In examining the characteristic of the mentors, 56% were women, 8% held the rank of assistant professor, 42% associate professor, and 46% professor, while 4% worked at a federal agency. Both mentors and mentees included members from all 10 APA regions. STRUCTURE OF THE EVENT Both mentors and mentees agreed that the efficiency, welcoming environment, and variety of interactions led to the richness of the experience. The time limit of 10 minutes per dyad with 6 dyads was optimal. One mentee stated that the individual pairings allowed “enough time to get to know one another but not so long that it required extensive preparation.” Many participants also appreciated receiving the CVs in advance in order to prepare questions and focus the conversations. The organization and pace of the event was viewed as a “very efficient use of time.” Furthermore, the variety of the interactions allowed both mentors and mentees the opportunity to broaden their networks and receive “6 different but complementary viewpoints.”
Figure. Mentee and mentor impressions of speed mentoring event.
3
In addition, the relaxed, informal atmosphere and the warm enthusiasm of both mentors and mentees created a safe and welcoming environment. The majority of both mentors and mentees thought that the time was well spent and that they would participate again (Figure). The event was “fun and informative and took away the fear factor of approaching a stranger.” According to one mentee, “The mentors projected a relaxed attitude and were very friendly. I liked that it was the first day [of the meeting] to provide additional opportunities for contact throughout the meeting. In addition, it forced me to practice my introductions and elevator speech in an environment that wasn’t so seemingly pressure filled as approaching them in the halls or a session. Given I felt that these [interactions] went OK I had more confidence about ‘cold calling’ some of the other people I wanted to meet at the meeting when I saw them.” EXPECTATIONS OF EVENT Both mentors and mentees agreed that their expectations were to share/receive advice and to make connections. One mentor stated, “I expected to respond to a young scholar and provide advice in relation to my own experience and the scholar’s interest and questions.” Mentors also participated in the event “to meet some smart and committed young people” and to “learn more about what’s happening in the field, who academic physicians are, and how they become what they become.” Similarly, mentees participated in order “to interact with leaders in my field and receive guidance on career and research topics.” Mentees also sought to gain new insights and points of view regarding their academic careers. One mentee stated, “I wanted to meet people with similar interests from different institutions to get their input on where I am at in my career. Although I have great mentorship here (at my own institution), I wanted different perspectives.” CONTENT OF CONVERSATIONS The majority of questions focused on the mentee’s career (Figure). The issues discussed by the mentors and mentees focused on both personal and professional topics. The Table summarizes the results from the qualitative
4
SERWINT ET AL
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Table. Content of Mentor–Mentee Conversation Question Asked Describe the topics/issues discussed in your conversations
I was offered/I offered the following suggestions
Mentee Response
Goal setting Professional focus Time management/balance Mentoring Networking/collaboration Academic promotion National involvement Professional development Career advancement Time management Mentors Making contacts Involvement in national organizations
analysis; the suggestions provided were aligned with the issues raised in the conversations. IMPACT OF EVENT The majority of mentees found that the event met their expectations. Mentees noted that the event gave them the advice, the connection with a broader network, and the perspectives they were hoping to receive. Mentees gained “feedback about [their] current path and advice going forward from senior leaders in the field.” The advice included “some very concrete suggestions on how to develop [their] career and CV” as well as “some broad strategies for thinking about how to move [their] career forward.” Mentees also gained a “new network of people I can potentially work with in the future” through “contact information,” “referrals,” and “instruction to senior members.” One mentee felt that the event “hopefully started some relationships that I can build upon in the future.” Finally, parallel to their expectations, the mentees received a “variety of perspectives.” Many mentees believed that “it was helpful hearing different answers to the same question or different approaches.” When asked specifically about what impact the session would have on their career development or on a project discussed during the event, mentees shared comments that described tips or connections for cultivating mentoring relationships, plans to reach their goals, and encouragement from the mentors. One mentee stated that he gained “motivation! I was so inspired by the encouragement received from the [mentors] and honest guidance.” Another mentee gained “acknowledgment that I’m progressing well academically from multiple senior academic pediatricians.” The mentees expressed that the greatest value of the event was their ability to ask questions, make personal and professional connections, and receive advice. One mentee stated that the most valuable part was “cutting to the chase and asking [the mentors] questions regarding my own career and future. I felt like I could be myself and didn’t have to impress them or cram everything into a 30-second introduction.” Another mentee echoed the value of having a focused interaction, stating, “They were not scrutinizing me or interviewing me; they were there just to meet me and help me. The whole 10 minutes was
Mentor Response
Goal setting/planning Personal/professional balance Mentoring Professional relationships Scholarship
Setting goals Finding focus Developing academic skills Prioritizing and creating alignment Establishing mentoring relationships Creating collaborations
focused on me.” This “individualized, one-on-one attention” helped foster personal and professional connections in a limited time frame. Through these connections, mentees came away with potential mentors and role models. One mentee found value in knowing “that other very nice, kind people have gone down this academic path and maintained their work/life balance, yet have been very successful at both personal and academic life. At this moment in my life, I needed a role model to look at.” Although the expectation of most mentors was to give advice and make connections, many mentors thought that they personally had gained much more. The connections they made with junior academic pediatricians granted them new insights as they reflected on their own careers; they also gained a reinvigorated confidence in their mentoring ability and inspiration. Many mentors enjoyed “learning a bit more about the experiences of new faculty” and gained “an appreciation for the challenges that junior faculty face in this new academic environment.” Other mentors thought that the event “forced me to think about myself and leadership style” and “made me think hard about my own past and current situations.” This active reflection offered mentors a better understanding of the current milieu of academic pediatrics, as well as a deeper insight into their individual role within the field. This new appreciation for their important role in fostering the future of academic pediatrics was further fueled by the confidence the event brought them in their mentoring ability. Many mentors expressed a feeling of “self-satisfaction [in being] able to share with [the] younger generation.” One mentor stated that she “felt I had value to contribute and satisfaction that there were individuals in academic careers who wanted to benefit from my experience and I believe did.” Another mentor shared that he “also gained confidence in myself being able to provide mentorship when I at first wasn’t sure I knew what to tell these junior people who were already accomplished and at institutions with great mentorship.” The mentors expressed value in the validation that they “have something to offer” and were “able to contribute to [the mentees’] academic mission.” Furthermore, through the sharing of ideas and dialogue among the mentors and mentees, many mentors gained a “renewed faith in our junior faculty” and
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
“confidence in the future of academic pediatrics.” They felt inspired by the younger generation and reenergized to “help others achieve their dreams.” The majority of both mentees and mentors thought that the time was well spent, and they would participate again. POTENTIAL FOR ONGOING MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS Both mentors and mentees identified chemistry as a main factor contributing to the pursuit of an ongoing mentoring relationship. According to one mentor, “Several [mentees] seemed to click more than others, which was not a surprise. For those that did, I have a feeling, we will work together going forward.” The mentees shared similar sentiments, stating, “The connection I had to the mentor both professionally and personally; the spirit, passion, dedication, and determination the mentor had” would foster ongoing mentorship. Shared interests were thought to potentiate the possibility of ongoing relationships. Mentees were more likely to pursue a mentoring relationship with mentors who could provide specific guidance and support. According to one mentee, “I found that they had dealt with similar challenges and have been successful in publishing their work and being promoted.” One mentor explained that the “overlap in interests and my ability to provide them with a benefit that also will allow me to benefit in my academic career” strongly supported the desire to maintain a mentoring relationship. Mentees identified approachability and investment of the mentor as factors that would contribute to the likelihood of an ongoing mentoring relationship. Mentees commented that those mentors with whom they would most likely pursue a relationship were “easy to talk to,” “open and willing to provide guidance,” genuinely “interested in mentoring,” and “expressed a desire to continue contact.” Mentors were open to pursuing a mentoring relationship with mentees who took the initiative to make future contact. One mentor stated, “I know that I will respond favorably if one or more of the mentees contacts me for additional mentorship.” When asked whose responsibility it is to take the next step in pursuing a mentoring relationship, both mentors and mentees believed that the main responsibility fell upon the mentee (Figure). According to a mentor, “[I am] not sure that I will continue in an ongoing mentoring relationship, but I am certainly available to them, if they choose to contact me.” Although all of the mentees shared the belief that future contact was their sole responsibility, some mentors felt a share of the responsibility. One mentor responded, “I believe both [share the responsibility]. I plan to e-mail each of them in follow up to offer further support.”
DISCUSSION Mentoring is important to the professional development of mentees. Yet initiating a successful mentor–mentee relationship can be difficult. Our PAS speed mentoring event removed this barrier by facilitating the meeting of mentors and mentees from across the country.
SPEED MENTORING
5
The evaluation of the speed mentoring revealed positive reactions. Most mentors and mentees thought that the time was well spent, and they would participate again. The brief, fun, and welcoming environment was thought to contribute to highly productive interactions. This experience, described as “low pressure,” was held early in the course of the PAS meeting and helped to bolster mentees’ confidence in approaching additional colleagues and led to continued success in networking throughout the meeting. Approximately 60% of mentees and 50% of mentors stated a likelihood of pursuing a mentoring relationship as a result of the event. Although the interactions with the mentors were brief, they provided the opportunity to discover common interests and discover whether the participants shared chemistry. In a qualitative study conducted by Straus et al,8 mentees expressed concern that assigned mentorship could lead to “superficial or inadequate mentorship relationships” and the importance of the mentee having input into the mentor selection. These participants also discussed the need for what they referred to as good chemistry between the mentor and mentee. By exposing our participants to many willing and capable mentors, we provided mentees the opportunity to selfselect a mentor who not only shared similar career interests but also someone with whom they felt a connection. The fact that more mentees thought it was their responsibility to pursue the relationship is in agreement with Zerzan and colleagues’ concept of “managing up” and that the mentee best knows his or her needs and what would make the relationship successful.13 One major theme expressed by the participants was the desire and ability to gain perspectives from multiple individuals from different institutions. We prioritized scheduling mentor–mentee pairings so that the individuals were from various institutions and would expose mentees to novel interactions. This concept reinforced Hitchcock and colleagues’ position regarding the importance of national organizations for professional development.9 Our study highlights the benefit of national networks in addressing the unique needs of individual faculty. National meetings provide opportune venues to meet colleagues and develop mentoring relationships that are based on common interests. These mentors inspire mentees in their work and serve as important role models within their field. In addition, the setting of a national meeting allows for national exposure and the development of a mentoring mosaic or portfolio.14 The speed mentoring event served to enhance these benefits by facilitating introductions, encouraging dialogue, and providing multiple perspectives to which they may not have had previous exposure. This diversity of opinions and backgrounds allowed the mentees to address multiple mentoring needs and reinforces DeCastro and colleagues’ theory that “everybody knows different things.”15 The mentors benefited from the speed mentoring event as well as the mentees. The mentor comments reaffirmed other studies articulating the merits of interacting with mentees. This experience allowed the mentors to exchange ideas with the younger generation, to give back to the
6
SERWINT ET AL
medical profession, and to pass on knowledge, skill, and wisdom. Mentors were also given the opportunity to remain updated regarding the future direction of the field.14 Our data reinforce the concepts proposed by Jackson et al that the mentor–mentee relationship should be mutually beneficial from both a personal and professional perspective; it should also be rejuvenating.16 There were several limitations to this study. The speed mentoring event was a single event, so results may not be generalizable. This event included members of a pediatric academic organization who may have unique mentoring needs that differ from members of other medical disciplines. Furthermore, as academic pediatricians, mentors may have specific training in developing mentoring skills. Participants volunteered to participate in the event and hence were self-selected; their needs may not be generalizable to other disciplines in academics. Responses were by self-report and may have been influenced by social desirability. However, responses were anonymous and deidentified; qualitative responses in their own words would reveal their opinions. True effectiveness of the event would need to be measured by behavior change or subsequent contact. Strengths of this evaluation included the high response rate, large sample size, and comparison of responses of both stakeholders. Additional strengths included the diversity of the participants with varying levels of professional experiences and the national representation of the participants.
CONCLUSIONS This national speed mentoring event resulted in an innovative, fun, and time-efficient mechanism to establish connections, to network with colleagues, and to determine whether chemistry existed for potential future mentor– mentee relationships. The overwhelming majority of both stakeholders found it a valuable experience, and they would be interested in participating again. Future research should evaluate whether this strategy of speed mentoring may be considered in other venues to enhance networking potential and whether it can lead to the development of lasting mentor–mentee relationships.
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge the APA Mentoring Task Force members who contributed to the design and execution of the event, the APA for providing funding, the event support provided by the APA staff, with specific mention of Allison Hartle, and the mentors and mentees who participated. The Board of the Academic Pediatric Association provided funding for the speed mentoring event. The APA staff assisted with the distribution of the survey instrument.
REFERENCES 1. Driessen EW, Overeem K, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Get yourself a mentor. Med Educ. 2011;45:438–439. 2. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, et al. Medical faculty with mentors are more satisfied. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11(4 suppl):107. 3. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, et al. Junior faculty member’s mentoring relationships and their professional development in US medical schools. Acad Med. 1998;73:318–322. 4. Erickson EH. The Life-Cycle Complete. New York, NY: Norton; 1982. 5. Levinson D. The Seasons of a Man’s Life. New York: Knopf; 1978. 6. Pololi L, Knight S. Mentoring faculty in academic medicine: a new paradigm? J Gen Int Med. 2005;20:866–870. 7. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296:1103–1115. 8. Straus SE, Chatur F, Taylor M. Issues in the mentor-mentee relationship in academic medicine: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2009;84: 135–139. 9. Hitchcock MA, Bland CJ, Hekelman FP, Blumenthal MG. Professional networks: the influence of colleagues on the academic success of faculty. Acad Med. 1995;70:1108–1116. 10. Finkel EJ, Eastwick PW. Speed-dating. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2008; 17:193–197. 11. Cook DA, Bahn RS, Menaker R. Speed mentoring: an innovative method to facilitate mentoring relationships. Med Teach. 2010;32: 692–694. 12. Berquist JB, Carnes M, Roach MA, Vogelman B. “Speed dating” workshop to pair interns and researchers. Med Educ. 2010;44: 11133–11134. 13. Zerzan JT, Hess R, Schur E, et al. Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees. Acad Med. 2009;84:140–144. 14. Carey EC, Weissman DE. Understanding and finding mentorship: a review for junior faculty. J Palliat Med. 2010;13:1373–1379. 15. DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, et al. Mentor networks in academic medicine: moving beyond a dyadic conception of mentoring for junior faculty researchers. Acad Med. 2013;88:488–496. 16. Jackson VA, Palepu A, Szalacha L, et al. “Having the right chemistry”: a qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2003;78:328–334.
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: A reliable and supportive mentor is indispensable to the career development of successful academic professionals. The Academic Pediatric Association (APA) utilized a speed mentoring format at the 2012 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting to enhance mentoring potential. We sought to evaluate the structure of the speed mentoring event and to determine the benefits and impact from the perspectives of the mentors and mentees. METHODS: Sixty mentees were matched with 60 mentors within various tracks. Each mentee met with 6 mentors for 10 minutes for each dyad. Participants were then asked to complete a survey 1 to 4 weeks after the event. Survey items included expectation, impact, and value of the experience along with potential for ongoing mentoring relationships. RESULTS: Fifty-four (90%) of the 60 mentees and 52 (87%) of 60 of the mentors completed the evaluation. Mentees stated that
the event allowed them to receive advice from multiple mentors in a short time period. Mentors appreciated that they gained new insights, reflected on their own careers, and were able to give back to their field. Both mentees and mentors agreed that the time was well spent, would participate again, and identified chemistry as a major factor in pursuing an ongoing relationship. CONCLUSIONS: This national speed mentoring event provided an innovative, fun, and time-efficient mechanism to establish connections, network, and determine whether chemistry existed for potential mentor–mentee relationships. Further study should evaluate whether it can be used in other venues and lead to the development of lasting mentor–mentee relationships.
KEYWORDS:
mentee; mentor; networking; speed mentoring
organization;
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS 2014;-:1–6
WHAT’S NEW
to as good chemistry between the mentor and mentee in order to create optimal relationships.8 Professional organizations often provide opportunities for networking and collaboration among colleagues with similar interests and goals.9 The Academic Pediatric Association (APA) is one such organization. The APA is composed of more than 2000 pediatric professionals in academic positions at all levels, from across the United States, Canada, and countries outside North America. The mission of the APA is to improve the health of all children and adolescents through leadership in the education of child health professionals, research and dissemination of knowledge, patient care, and advocacy in partnership with children, families, and communities (http://www. academicpeds.org). With its dedication to education, research, leadership, and advocacy, the APA attracts members who seek mentoring as well as members who possess the capability and desire to be effective mentors. Despite this, results from the 2011 Value of APA Survey indicated that members requested additional opportunities for mentoring at the national level. Of those who responded to the survey, 50% stated they had received mentoring through the APA, while 17% submitted qualitative comments stating they desired additional mentoring venues. The respondents identified the need for more formal structure and innovative venues for mentoring, access outside
A national speed mentoring event can be a fun, innovative, and time-efficient mechanism for mentees and mentors to establish connections, network with colleagues, and determine whether chemistry exists for future mentoring relationships.
A RELIABLE, GENUINE, knowledgeable, and supportive mentor is indispensable to the career development of successful academic professionals. The mentorship relationship has been associated with enhanced self-confidence, research productivity, career preparation and development, occupational satisfaction and retention, professional success, and promotion for the mentee.1–3 Mentors also benefit from the interaction with junior colleagues, experiencing renewed inspiration to further their research and scholarly work, and receiving satisfaction by sharing knowledge and experience, assisting others, and giving back to the medical community.4–6 Although the benefits of mentoring are numerous, meaningful mentoring relationships may be difficult to initiate. Limited selection of mentors, inadequate access to faculty, and lack of appropriate mentoring skills are barriers to creating effective mentoring relationships.7 In addition, mentees have expressed the need for what they referred ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Copyright ª 2014 by Academic Pediatric Association
national
1
Volume -, Number -–- 2014
2
SERWINT ET AL
their own institutions, and the creation of a mentoring match program with specific outreach to junior faculty and fellows. In an effort to enhance the mentorship potential of the APA, a Mentoring Task Force was established from this organization to design an effective and efficient mechanism to bring mentors and mentees together. Utilizing the speed dating concept,10–12 we postulated that a similar process could be applied to academic medicine at a national level to provide expeditious opportunities for networking and exposure to professional colleagues in the hopes of fostering a mentoring match. Although the Cook and Berquist studies implemented the concepts of speed mentoring in an academic setting, these studies involved participation at a single academic institution with small samples and limited evaluation.11,12 The APA Mentoring Task Force organized an inaugural speed mentoring event at the 2012 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting (PAS). After the event, both mentors and mentees completed a survey to evaluate the dyadic interaction. The objectives of our study were to evaluate the organization and structure of the APA speed mentoring event, and to determine the benefits and impact of the event from the perspectives of the mentors and the mentees.
METHODS PARTICIPANTS Participants were recruited through the APA organizational electronic mailing list 4 months before the event. Mentees were recruited first and were defined as being in fellowship training or serving as a faculty member less than 10 years. They were accepted in the order in which they responded. Each mentee was asked to rank order a list of potential tracks and identify those in which they would be most interested in participating. Mentees were assigned to 1 of their top 2 choices. The potential tracks were identified by input from membership responses to the Value of APA Survey, the APA Mentoring Task Force, and participant input from past APA Leadership conferences and were selected to address typical APA member career trajectories. The tracks included Career Development, Clinical Research, Community-Based Research, Educational Scholarship, Health Services Research, Leadership Skills, Qualitative Research, Quality Improvement Scholarship, Scholarship from Everyday Work, and Work– Life Balance. A total of 60 mentees were recruited, with the remainder placed on a waiting list. After mentee selection, an equal number of mentors were recruited. Mentors were defined as having more than 10 years’ experience after residency or fellowship training with content expertise in one of the track areas. Initial recruitment of mentors was through the APA electronic mailing list, and mentors self-identified their areas of expertise. When additional mentors were needed, recruitment took place through personal e-mail requests by members of the APA Mentoring Task Force to colleagues with expertise in the respective areas. This addi-
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
tional recruitment was needed for 8 mentors, and mentors readily responded affirmatively to the personal invitation. SPEED MENTORING EVENT The event took place on the first day of the 2012 PAS meeting. Six mentees were matched with 6 mentors within a designated track. The curriculum vitas (CVs) of the mentees and mentors were shared with each other. The purpose of this sharing was to identify areas of mutual interest and for mentees to review the composition of a variety of CVs for their own professional development. Mentees were encouraged to come prepared with questions. Each dyadic mentor–mentee spent 10 minutes together, after which time the mentees moved to the next mentor at the sound of a bell. In total, each mentee and mentor participated in 6 dyads. After the experience, the entire group of 12 met over lunch to discuss the event. EVALUATION The Mentoring Task Force created a 19 question survey using a modified Delphi method. Although the survey was not piloted, questions were designed using the stated objectives and assessed content, expectations, impact, and value of the experience along with the potential for ongoing relationships. Forced-choice questions used a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Openended questions included benefits of the event from the perspectives of mentors and mentees. All the participants received an electronic survey administered via SurveyMonkey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/) 1 week after the event, with 3 additional weekly reminders. Mentors and mentees received separate questionnaires that included open-ended items specific to their roles but with the intent to mirror one another. Institutional review board approval was obtained through the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. RESOURCES FOR THE EVENT The APA provided administrative assistance to organize the event. This administrator devoted approximately 45 hours of time to 1) send e-mail invitations to mentors and mentees, 2) collate responses, 3) place mentees and mentors into tracks, 4) develop a waiting list of mentees and mentors and replace participants when unanticipated absences took place (5 instances), 5) distribute the evaluation survey via SurveyMonkey, and 6) assist with the statistical analysis of responses. An additional 15 hours of time was contributed by JRS to organize the event and communicate with APA administrators to determine participants and assign tracks. Additional monetary expenses included the cost of lunch for participants and securing a room for the event. ANALYSIS The quantitative questions were analyzed by SPSS software, version 10 (IBM, Armonk, NY) and included frequencies of each response. Responses of agree and strongly agree (Likert scale of 4 and 5) were grouped together.
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
SPEED MENTORING
Comparisons were made between mentor and mentee. Qualitative responses were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Three of the authors (MC, MG, and NS) independently coded the comments, identifying preliminary themes. The authors used a constant comparative method to refine the themes and then independently categorized the comments on the basis of the refined themes. The authors refined the coding through discussion until consensus was reached. Quotes were selected to represent the themes identified in the analysis.
RESULTS A total of 120 people (60 mentors and 60 mentees) attended the event. Attendees included 10.5% of the 1138 APA members who attended the 2012 PAS meeting and 6% (120 of 2096) of the 2012 APA membership. Fiftyfour (90%) of the 60 mentees and 52 (87%) of 60 of the mentors completed the survey. Characteristics of the mentees included 85% women and 32% in fellowship training, while 8% held the rank of instructor and 60% assistant professor. In examining the characteristic of the mentors, 56% were women, 8% held the rank of assistant professor, 42% associate professor, and 46% professor, while 4% worked at a federal agency. Both mentors and mentees included members from all 10 APA regions. STRUCTURE OF THE EVENT Both mentors and mentees agreed that the efficiency, welcoming environment, and variety of interactions led to the richness of the experience. The time limit of 10 minutes per dyad with 6 dyads was optimal. One mentee stated that the individual pairings allowed “enough time to get to know one another but not so long that it required extensive preparation.” Many participants also appreciated receiving the CVs in advance in order to prepare questions and focus the conversations. The organization and pace of the event was viewed as a “very efficient use of time.” Furthermore, the variety of the interactions allowed both mentors and mentees the opportunity to broaden their networks and receive “6 different but complementary viewpoints.”
Figure. Mentee and mentor impressions of speed mentoring event.
3
In addition, the relaxed, informal atmosphere and the warm enthusiasm of both mentors and mentees created a safe and welcoming environment. The majority of both mentors and mentees thought that the time was well spent and that they would participate again (Figure). The event was “fun and informative and took away the fear factor of approaching a stranger.” According to one mentee, “The mentors projected a relaxed attitude and were very friendly. I liked that it was the first day [of the meeting] to provide additional opportunities for contact throughout the meeting. In addition, it forced me to practice my introductions and elevator speech in an environment that wasn’t so seemingly pressure filled as approaching them in the halls or a session. Given I felt that these [interactions] went OK I had more confidence about ‘cold calling’ some of the other people I wanted to meet at the meeting when I saw them.” EXPECTATIONS OF EVENT Both mentors and mentees agreed that their expectations were to share/receive advice and to make connections. One mentor stated, “I expected to respond to a young scholar and provide advice in relation to my own experience and the scholar’s interest and questions.” Mentors also participated in the event “to meet some smart and committed young people” and to “learn more about what’s happening in the field, who academic physicians are, and how they become what they become.” Similarly, mentees participated in order “to interact with leaders in my field and receive guidance on career and research topics.” Mentees also sought to gain new insights and points of view regarding their academic careers. One mentee stated, “I wanted to meet people with similar interests from different institutions to get their input on where I am at in my career. Although I have great mentorship here (at my own institution), I wanted different perspectives.” CONTENT OF CONVERSATIONS The majority of questions focused on the mentee’s career (Figure). The issues discussed by the mentors and mentees focused on both personal and professional topics. The Table summarizes the results from the qualitative
4
SERWINT ET AL
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Table. Content of Mentor–Mentee Conversation Question Asked Describe the topics/issues discussed in your conversations
I was offered/I offered the following suggestions
Mentee Response
Goal setting Professional focus Time management/balance Mentoring Networking/collaboration Academic promotion National involvement Professional development Career advancement Time management Mentors Making contacts Involvement in national organizations
analysis; the suggestions provided were aligned with the issues raised in the conversations. IMPACT OF EVENT The majority of mentees found that the event met their expectations. Mentees noted that the event gave them the advice, the connection with a broader network, and the perspectives they were hoping to receive. Mentees gained “feedback about [their] current path and advice going forward from senior leaders in the field.” The advice included “some very concrete suggestions on how to develop [their] career and CV” as well as “some broad strategies for thinking about how to move [their] career forward.” Mentees also gained a “new network of people I can potentially work with in the future” through “contact information,” “referrals,” and “instruction to senior members.” One mentee felt that the event “hopefully started some relationships that I can build upon in the future.” Finally, parallel to their expectations, the mentees received a “variety of perspectives.” Many mentees believed that “it was helpful hearing different answers to the same question or different approaches.” When asked specifically about what impact the session would have on their career development or on a project discussed during the event, mentees shared comments that described tips or connections for cultivating mentoring relationships, plans to reach their goals, and encouragement from the mentors. One mentee stated that he gained “motivation! I was so inspired by the encouragement received from the [mentors] and honest guidance.” Another mentee gained “acknowledgment that I’m progressing well academically from multiple senior academic pediatricians.” The mentees expressed that the greatest value of the event was their ability to ask questions, make personal and professional connections, and receive advice. One mentee stated that the most valuable part was “cutting to the chase and asking [the mentors] questions regarding my own career and future. I felt like I could be myself and didn’t have to impress them or cram everything into a 30-second introduction.” Another mentee echoed the value of having a focused interaction, stating, “They were not scrutinizing me or interviewing me; they were there just to meet me and help me. The whole 10 minutes was
Mentor Response
Goal setting/planning Personal/professional balance Mentoring Professional relationships Scholarship
Setting goals Finding focus Developing academic skills Prioritizing and creating alignment Establishing mentoring relationships Creating collaborations
focused on me.” This “individualized, one-on-one attention” helped foster personal and professional connections in a limited time frame. Through these connections, mentees came away with potential mentors and role models. One mentee found value in knowing “that other very nice, kind people have gone down this academic path and maintained their work/life balance, yet have been very successful at both personal and academic life. At this moment in my life, I needed a role model to look at.” Although the expectation of most mentors was to give advice and make connections, many mentors thought that they personally had gained much more. The connections they made with junior academic pediatricians granted them new insights as they reflected on their own careers; they also gained a reinvigorated confidence in their mentoring ability and inspiration. Many mentors enjoyed “learning a bit more about the experiences of new faculty” and gained “an appreciation for the challenges that junior faculty face in this new academic environment.” Other mentors thought that the event “forced me to think about myself and leadership style” and “made me think hard about my own past and current situations.” This active reflection offered mentors a better understanding of the current milieu of academic pediatrics, as well as a deeper insight into their individual role within the field. This new appreciation for their important role in fostering the future of academic pediatrics was further fueled by the confidence the event brought them in their mentoring ability. Many mentors expressed a feeling of “self-satisfaction [in being] able to share with [the] younger generation.” One mentor stated that she “felt I had value to contribute and satisfaction that there were individuals in academic careers who wanted to benefit from my experience and I believe did.” Another mentor shared that he “also gained confidence in myself being able to provide mentorship when I at first wasn’t sure I knew what to tell these junior people who were already accomplished and at institutions with great mentorship.” The mentors expressed value in the validation that they “have something to offer” and were “able to contribute to [the mentees’] academic mission.” Furthermore, through the sharing of ideas and dialogue among the mentors and mentees, many mentors gained a “renewed faith in our junior faculty” and
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
“confidence in the future of academic pediatrics.” They felt inspired by the younger generation and reenergized to “help others achieve their dreams.” The majority of both mentees and mentors thought that the time was well spent, and they would participate again. POTENTIAL FOR ONGOING MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS Both mentors and mentees identified chemistry as a main factor contributing to the pursuit of an ongoing mentoring relationship. According to one mentor, “Several [mentees] seemed to click more than others, which was not a surprise. For those that did, I have a feeling, we will work together going forward.” The mentees shared similar sentiments, stating, “The connection I had to the mentor both professionally and personally; the spirit, passion, dedication, and determination the mentor had” would foster ongoing mentorship. Shared interests were thought to potentiate the possibility of ongoing relationships. Mentees were more likely to pursue a mentoring relationship with mentors who could provide specific guidance and support. According to one mentee, “I found that they had dealt with similar challenges and have been successful in publishing their work and being promoted.” One mentor explained that the “overlap in interests and my ability to provide them with a benefit that also will allow me to benefit in my academic career” strongly supported the desire to maintain a mentoring relationship. Mentees identified approachability and investment of the mentor as factors that would contribute to the likelihood of an ongoing mentoring relationship. Mentees commented that those mentors with whom they would most likely pursue a relationship were “easy to talk to,” “open and willing to provide guidance,” genuinely “interested in mentoring,” and “expressed a desire to continue contact.” Mentors were open to pursuing a mentoring relationship with mentees who took the initiative to make future contact. One mentor stated, “I know that I will respond favorably if one or more of the mentees contacts me for additional mentorship.” When asked whose responsibility it is to take the next step in pursuing a mentoring relationship, both mentors and mentees believed that the main responsibility fell upon the mentee (Figure). According to a mentor, “[I am] not sure that I will continue in an ongoing mentoring relationship, but I am certainly available to them, if they choose to contact me.” Although all of the mentees shared the belief that future contact was their sole responsibility, some mentors felt a share of the responsibility. One mentor responded, “I believe both [share the responsibility]. I plan to e-mail each of them in follow up to offer further support.”
DISCUSSION Mentoring is important to the professional development of mentees. Yet initiating a successful mentor–mentee relationship can be difficult. Our PAS speed mentoring event removed this barrier by facilitating the meeting of mentors and mentees from across the country.
SPEED MENTORING
5
The evaluation of the speed mentoring revealed positive reactions. Most mentors and mentees thought that the time was well spent, and they would participate again. The brief, fun, and welcoming environment was thought to contribute to highly productive interactions. This experience, described as “low pressure,” was held early in the course of the PAS meeting and helped to bolster mentees’ confidence in approaching additional colleagues and led to continued success in networking throughout the meeting. Approximately 60% of mentees and 50% of mentors stated a likelihood of pursuing a mentoring relationship as a result of the event. Although the interactions with the mentors were brief, they provided the opportunity to discover common interests and discover whether the participants shared chemistry. In a qualitative study conducted by Straus et al,8 mentees expressed concern that assigned mentorship could lead to “superficial or inadequate mentorship relationships” and the importance of the mentee having input into the mentor selection. These participants also discussed the need for what they referred to as good chemistry between the mentor and mentee. By exposing our participants to many willing and capable mentors, we provided mentees the opportunity to selfselect a mentor who not only shared similar career interests but also someone with whom they felt a connection. The fact that more mentees thought it was their responsibility to pursue the relationship is in agreement with Zerzan and colleagues’ concept of “managing up” and that the mentee best knows his or her needs and what would make the relationship successful.13 One major theme expressed by the participants was the desire and ability to gain perspectives from multiple individuals from different institutions. We prioritized scheduling mentor–mentee pairings so that the individuals were from various institutions and would expose mentees to novel interactions. This concept reinforced Hitchcock and colleagues’ position regarding the importance of national organizations for professional development.9 Our study highlights the benefit of national networks in addressing the unique needs of individual faculty. National meetings provide opportune venues to meet colleagues and develop mentoring relationships that are based on common interests. These mentors inspire mentees in their work and serve as important role models within their field. In addition, the setting of a national meeting allows for national exposure and the development of a mentoring mosaic or portfolio.14 The speed mentoring event served to enhance these benefits by facilitating introductions, encouraging dialogue, and providing multiple perspectives to which they may not have had previous exposure. This diversity of opinions and backgrounds allowed the mentees to address multiple mentoring needs and reinforces DeCastro and colleagues’ theory that “everybody knows different things.”15 The mentors benefited from the speed mentoring event as well as the mentees. The mentor comments reaffirmed other studies articulating the merits of interacting with mentees. This experience allowed the mentors to exchange ideas with the younger generation, to give back to the
6
SERWINT ET AL
medical profession, and to pass on knowledge, skill, and wisdom. Mentors were also given the opportunity to remain updated regarding the future direction of the field.14 Our data reinforce the concepts proposed by Jackson et al that the mentor–mentee relationship should be mutually beneficial from both a personal and professional perspective; it should also be rejuvenating.16 There were several limitations to this study. The speed mentoring event was a single event, so results may not be generalizable. This event included members of a pediatric academic organization who may have unique mentoring needs that differ from members of other medical disciplines. Furthermore, as academic pediatricians, mentors may have specific training in developing mentoring skills. Participants volunteered to participate in the event and hence were self-selected; their needs may not be generalizable to other disciplines in academics. Responses were by self-report and may have been influenced by social desirability. However, responses were anonymous and deidentified; qualitative responses in their own words would reveal their opinions. True effectiveness of the event would need to be measured by behavior change or subsequent contact. Strengths of this evaluation included the high response rate, large sample size, and comparison of responses of both stakeholders. Additional strengths included the diversity of the participants with varying levels of professional experiences and the national representation of the participants.
CONCLUSIONS This national speed mentoring event resulted in an innovative, fun, and time-efficient mechanism to establish connections, to network with colleagues, and to determine whether chemistry existed for potential future mentor– mentee relationships. The overwhelming majority of both stakeholders found it a valuable experience, and they would be interested in participating again. Future research should evaluate whether this strategy of speed mentoring may be considered in other venues to enhance networking potential and whether it can lead to the development of lasting mentor–mentee relationships.
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge the APA Mentoring Task Force members who contributed to the design and execution of the event, the APA for providing funding, the event support provided by the APA staff, with specific mention of Allison Hartle, and the mentors and mentees who participated. The Board of the Academic Pediatric Association provided funding for the speed mentoring event. The APA staff assisted with the distribution of the survey instrument.
REFERENCES 1. Driessen EW, Overeem K, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Get yourself a mentor. Med Educ. 2011;45:438–439. 2. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, et al. Medical faculty with mentors are more satisfied. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11(4 suppl):107. 3. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, et al. Junior faculty member’s mentoring relationships and their professional development in US medical schools. Acad Med. 1998;73:318–322. 4. Erickson EH. The Life-Cycle Complete. New York, NY: Norton; 1982. 5. Levinson D. The Seasons of a Man’s Life. New York: Knopf; 1978. 6. Pololi L, Knight S. Mentoring faculty in academic medicine: a new paradigm? J Gen Int Med. 2005;20:866–870. 7. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296:1103–1115. 8. Straus SE, Chatur F, Taylor M. Issues in the mentor-mentee relationship in academic medicine: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2009;84: 135–139. 9. Hitchcock MA, Bland CJ, Hekelman FP, Blumenthal MG. Professional networks: the influence of colleagues on the academic success of faculty. Acad Med. 1995;70:1108–1116. 10. Finkel EJ, Eastwick PW. Speed-dating. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2008; 17:193–197. 11. Cook DA, Bahn RS, Menaker R. Speed mentoring: an innovative method to facilitate mentoring relationships. Med Teach. 2010;32: 692–694. 12. Berquist JB, Carnes M, Roach MA, Vogelman B. “Speed dating” workshop to pair interns and researchers. Med Educ. 2010;44: 11133–11134. 13. Zerzan JT, Hess R, Schur E, et al. Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees. Acad Med. 2009;84:140–144. 14. Carey EC, Weissman DE. Understanding and finding mentorship: a review for junior faculty. J Palliat Med. 2010;13:1373–1379. 15. DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, et al. Mentor networks in academic medicine: moving beyond a dyadic conception of mentoring for junior faculty researchers. Acad Med. 2013;88:488–496. 16. Jackson VA, Palepu A, Szalacha L, et al. “Having the right chemistry”: a qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2003;78:328–334.