Centralized versus decentralized matching processes

Five faculty mentoring programs (42%) are both centrally administered and are centrally implemented within the health science system, school, or department. Three of these five faculty mentoring programs (25% of total programs) are the highly structured and selective programs referenced earlier. In these cases, the inter-school and interdepartmental mentoring relationships that are developed as part of these highly structured programs are thought to foster interdisciplinary collaborations and provide confidentiality. One respondent noted that this model was better suited for providing “sensitivity to political conversations.”

Although a centralized or decentralized faculty mentoring model is particular to the structural dimension of the program, i.e., how it operates, the influence of the two other organizational perspectives became evident with regard to contributing to the choice of a centralized or decentralized model. For example, relative to the programs with centralized administration, fostering collaboration represents a cultural value (symbolic perspective), and providing confidentiality speaks to power structures (political perspective). Nevertheless, I continued to address the variables of this study, from one perspective at a time, beginning to sense that the conceptual design of the study might be contributing to “tunnel vision.”

In one of the highly structured faculty mentoring programs, a consultant serves as the primary mentor to the participants; the cohort of participants serve as peer mentors to each other in this program. In another highly structured faculty mentoring program, the selection committee assigns a group of participants to teams of mentors that were preselected by the selection committee, depending upon the participant’s faculty track. In the third highly structured faculty mentoring program, the selection committee pairs participants with mentors drawn from a pool of mentors who are also predetermined by the selection committee, depending upon the participant’s research interests.

In one moderately structured faculty mentoring program, the director assigns the participants to a mentor who has been preselected by the director, depending upon the participant’s faculty track. In another moderately structured faculty mentoring program, which is the last of the five faculty mentoring programs that are both centrally administered and are centrally implemented, the director assigns the participants to a mentor who has been preselected by the director, depending upon the participant’s research interests.

The remaining seven faculty mentoring programs (58%) are centrally administered; however, responsibility for faculty mentoring faculty is decentralized and comes under the purview of the department or division (a political variable). Several respondents used the expression, “One size does not fit all” in discussing their rationale for their faculty mentoring program models. These respondents noted that the needs (symbolic perspective) of their basic science departments differ from their clinical departments. Respondents also indicated that their diversity with regard to the sizes of departments, and the distribution of senior versus junior faculty, influenced their decisions. A decentralized strategy was also considered more “realistic” for meeting the high demand for mentoring in the larger organizations.

Only one of the seven faculty mentoring programs with decentralized implementation is voluntary. In this case, a departmental/divisional mentoring director matches a mentoring pair based upon his or her opinion of who is a good fit relative to research interests. Sometimes choices are limited by the availability of a mentor; consequently, some matches may be better than others. Mentees are encouraged to work with their mentoring director to identify a mentor for themselves; whereas, most new faculty may not know enough of their more senior colleagues to make such a choice, and thereby rely on the choice of their mentoring director in this regard.

Six of the seven faculty mentoring programs with decentralized implementation (50% of total programs) are operating in cultures that require all junior faculty members be assigned or select a mentor. Since mentoring has been established as a cultural requirement at these institutions (symbolic domain), these policies influenced the choice of their decentralized operations. In three of the six decentralized programs where mentoring for junior faculty is required (25% of total programs), departmental/divisional directors or facilitators/liaisons match mentoring pairs. Similar to the voluntary decentralized faculty mentoring program referenced

earlier, the matching of mentoring pairs is based upon the departmental/divisional directors’ or facilitators/liaisons’ opinions of who is a good fit relative to research interests, and limited by the availability of mentors (political domain) in the respective departments/divisions. Mentees are encouraged to work with their mentoring director to identify a mentor for themselves. New faculty may not know many senior faculty and rely on the choice of their mentoring director in this regard. One respondent commented on the difficulty of mentoring relationships developing spontaneously:

I read about how arranged marriages are not as successful as the one where there is some magic involved. Mentors and protégées find themselves; we don’t have that luxury.

In the other three of the six decentralized faculty mentoring programs where mentoring is required for junior faculty (25% of total programs), the department chair or division chief assigns a mentor in the new faculty member’s appointment letter. The respondents are not sure of the criteria that the chairs/chiefs use to match faculty, but assume that the chairs/chiefs know who would be the best match in their departments/divisions for new faculty members. Nor are the respondents certain whether the chair or chief calls upon every faculty member to be a mentor. Figure 2 represents the distribution of the faculty mentoring programs’ administrative structures relative to mentoring matching strategies.

AD

M

IN

IS

TR

AT

IO

N

Ce nt raliz ed Total Programs= 5 • Assigned by director or committee = 5 Total Programs = 7 • Assigned by Liaisons = 4 • Assigned by Chairs/Chiefs = 3 _{Centralized Decentralized}

IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 2: Administrative Structures Contributing to Matching Strategies

All of the respondents in this study indicated that their faculty mentoring programs were established to meet the unmet mentoring needs of faculty members within their departments and divisions (symbolic domain), thus the need for centralized administration. Although there are mixed thoughts with regard to centralized versus decentralized implementation, there is strong consensus that for uniform institutional accountability, responsibility for the administration of faculty mentoring programs needs to be accepted by an authority above the departmental or divisional levels (political domain):

It really came down to what we wanted to do here, some [departments/divisions] here have wonderful programs, and there are others that have none at all. There had been an effort about seven or eight years ago to decentralize it and let it be the [departments’/ divisions’] responsibility. It seemed like a good idea, but it had fallen apart. It became non-existent in some [departments/divisions]. Decentralization [of administration] doesn’t work–at least, not here.

In document Developing an Organizational Understanding of Faculty Mentoring Programs in Academic Medicine in Major American Research Universities (Page 104-109)