Mentoring at the University of Pennsylvania: Results of a Faculty Survey
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Wasserstein, A.G., Quistberg, D.A. & Shea, J.A. J GEN INTERN MED (2007) 22: 210. doi:10.1007/s11606-006-0051-x
- 330 Views
Research suggests mentoring is related to career satisfaction and success. Most studies have focused on junior faculty.
To explore multiple aspects of mentoring at an academic medical center in relation to faculty rank, track, and gender.
Cross-sectional mail survey in mid-2003.
Faculty members, 1,432, at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Self-administered survey developed from existing instruments and stakeholders.
Response rate was 73% (n = 1,046). Most (92%) assistant and half (48%) of associate professors had a mentor. Assistant professors in the tenure track were most likely to have a mentor (98%). At both ranks, the faculty was given more types of advice than types of opportunities. Satisfaction with mentoring was correlated with the number of types of mentoring received (r = .48 and .53, P < .0001), job satisfaction (r = .44 and .31, P < .0001), meeting frequency (r = .53 and .61, P < .0001), and expectation of leaving the University within 5 years (Spearman r = −.19 and −.18, P < .0001), at the assistant and associate rank, respectively. Significant predictors of higher overall job satisfaction were associate rank [Odds ratio (OR) = 2.04, CI = 1.29–3.21], the 10-point mentoring satisfaction rating (OR = 1.27, CI = 1.17–1.35), and number of mentors (OR = 1.60, CI = 1.20–2.07).
Having a mentor, or preferably, multiple mentors is strongly related to satisfaction with mentoring and overall job satisfaction. Surprisingly, few differences were related to gender. Mentoring of clinician–educators, research track faculty, and senior faculty, and the use of multiple mentors require specific attention of academic leadership and further study.