EFFECTIVE PRACTICES [PDF]

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 1

EFFECTIVE PRACTICES FOR ACADEMIC LEADERS

Faculty Development Programs by Carole J. Bland and Kelly R. Risbey Volume 1/issn 1554-0464 Issue 7/isbn 1-57922-156-4 Executive Summary

C ONTENTS Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Role of Faculty Vitality in Institutional and Societal Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Evolution of Faculty Development Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Current Faculty Development Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Effective Faculty Development . . . . . . . 4 Identifying Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Addressing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Designing a Comprehensive Program . . 14 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Annotated Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

A BOUT

THE

July 2006

A UTHORS

Carole Bland is professor and director of research, department of family medicine, University of Minnesota. She has published widely on faculty development programs, faculty vitality, and productivity of academic departments. Her most recent book is The Research-productive Department: Strategies from Departments That Excel. Kelly R. Risbey is a research associate in the Minnesota Postsecondary Education Research Institute at the University of Minnesota. She has co-authored articles on faculty and departmental productivity.

E DITORS Timothy J. Delmont Director, Center for Human Resource Development/Office of Human Resources University of Minnesota [email protected] Robert Secor Vice Provost Emeritus for Academic Affairs Pennsylvania State University [email protected]

Few things are more essential to the success of an academic institution than vital faculty members. Vital faculty members are passionately involved in and committed to their work; committed to the goals of their institutions; continually developing their teaching and research abilities; and consistently growing in and contributing to their disciplines. These desired faculty characteristics must be nurtured over the career continuum, a responsibility that often falls on the shoulders of busy department chairs and deans. The goal of this briefing is to assist academic leaders with the critical task of maintaining their faculty’s vitality—a task otherwise known as faculty development. We begin this briefing by describing the changed societal conditions that make continuous faculty vitality essential not only to institutional success, but also to national welfare. Next, we describe how faculty development initiatives have changed in focus and form over time, as well as what themes and methods have persisted. Then we outline the key steps undergirding any successful faculty development program, offering more detailed guidance on two steps in particular: (1) assessing faculty and institutional vitality needs, using either a broad or targeted assessment approach; and (2) tailoring faculty development strategies to best meet the specialized needs of specific faculty groups, using case examples of new, midcareer, and senior faculty. We conclude with guidelines for designing and maintaining an institutional office for faculty development that can support and coordinate department-level initiatives.

ROLE OF FACULTY VITALITY IN INSTITUTIONAL AND SOCIETAL SUCCESS

The need for organizations to support the continual evolution of their workforce is well recognized in the corporate world. The business literature estimates that “the high performance workplace will require a culture of continuous learning in which as much as 20% of a worker’s time will be spent in formal education to upgrade knowledge and skills” (Duderstadt, 2001, p. 10). Few faculty members are able to commit that amount of time to updating their abilities. This raises the question, “What are colleges and universities doing to keep their faculty from becoming obsolete?” (Camblin, Jr., & Steger, 2000, p. 2). Today’s concern about faculty vitality is driven in part by conditions familiar to all of us in academia: decreased funding for higher education, increased diversity in our learners, a graying faculty, growing

22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166 • www.Styluspub.com

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 2

demands for public accountability of faculty work, and the not-so-gradual transformation of student instruction through information technology. Above and beyond these forces, an even greater urgency for faculty development has arisen from a newer source: the extraordinary pressure to educate the next generation to thrive in the “information age,” an age in which a higher-education degree has become a prerequisite for most jobs. In this new age, the wealth, prosperity, and security of a nation depend on knowledge itself in the form of educated people and ideas. In this “knowledge society,” higher-education institutions will play an ever more prominent role. At the same time, there is increased competition from a global market and Web-based instruction, as well as rapid changes in knowledge and technology. Together, this means that higher-education institutions must redefine themselves, and that faculty members must either face obsolescence or continually participate in developmental activities to keep pace. EVOLUTION OF FACULTY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

Colleges and universities have long used faculty development initiatives to ensure that faculty members and their institutions remain vital and productive. However, changes have occurred in the focus and format of these initiatives over the past four decades (table 1).

Pre-1960s Prior to the 1960s, faculty development was generally limited to sabbaticals and leaves. These periods away from the university or college were granted so that faculty members could advance their disciplinary knowledge. Institutional initiatives to ensure lifelong faculty vitality beyond this individual and disciplinary focus were rarely established. 1960s–1970s In the 1960s and 1970s, with the baby boom and rapid expansion of higher education, a wider range of faculty development initiatives emerged. These new initiatives centered largely on faculty teaching needs and instructional development programs. Faculty members were also offered training in such areas as “managing an academic career.” Typically the new initiatives occurred through structured workshops. Sabbaticals and leaves continued; in fact, they, along with travel to professional conferences, became entrenched in higher-education institutions as the primary development strategy. In addition, faculty development as a profession and an organizational entity began to take root on highereducation campuses. Faculty development offices began to open in great numbers of institutions across the nation, allowing for greater coordination of, and access to, instructional development initiatives. 1980s During the 1980s, the faculty development emphasis shifted from teaching and instruction to the other end of the education spectrum: student learning and curriculum development. This shift was prompted by a growing public concern that students in public education at the K–12 and postsecondary levels were not achieving their greatest learning potential.

EFFECTIVE PRACTICES FOR ACADEMIC LEADERS

ADVISORY BOARD Trudy W. Banta Vice Chancellor for Planning and Institutional Improvement, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis Carole J. Bland Professor and Director of Research, Department of Family Medicine, University of Minnesota Betsy E. Brown Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Executive Director of the UNC Leadership Institute at the University of North Carolina Theodore H. Curry Professor and Director, School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University Gerardo E. de los Santos President and CEO, League for Innovation in the Community College Walter H. Gmelch Dean, School of Education, University of San Francisco C. Kristina Gunsalus Adjunct Professor, College of Law, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign William B. Harvey Vice President and Chief Officer for Diversity and Equity, University of Virginia Val Miskin Director of Graduate Programs, College of Business and Economics, Washington State University Daniel W. Wheeler Professor, Ag Leadership, Education, and Communication, University of Nebraska-Lincoln SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ISSN: [Print] 1554-0464 / [Online] 1554-0472 Editorial & Marketing: 703-661-1504 [email protected] Customer Service: 1-800-232-0223 / 703-661-1581 [email protected] Subscription Rates: Annual hard copy subscription: (12 issues): $90.00 Individual issue price: $13.95 plus shipping Online annual subscription (includes hard copy, site license and right of unlimited single copy reproduction)*: $250.00 Online subscriptions hosted by MetaPress Copyright © 2006 Stylus Publishing, LLC Reproduction by photocopying or other any means, and all forms of digital storage, are strictly forbidden without license *Excludes copies made for courses for which students pay enrollment fees.

2 Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 3

Table 1. Evolving Nature of Faculty Development in Academia Era

Focus

Format

Pre-1960s

Disciplinary knowledge and skill development

• Sabbaticals and leaves • Travel to professional meetings

1960s–1970s

Instructional development

• • • • • •

Sabbaticals and leaves Travel to professional meetings Workshops Mentors Peer consultation Expert consultation

1980s

Student development and curriculum change

• • • • • • •

Sabbaticals and leaves Travel to professional meetings Workshops Mentors Peer consultation Expert consultation Curriculum initiatives, e.g., writing across the curriculum

• • • • • • •

Sabbaticals and leaves Travel to professional meetings Workshops Mentors Peer consultation Expert consultation Curriculum initiatives, e.g., writing across the curriculum New faculty socialization Coaches Action research Web-based training Reengineering Redesign of personnel systems Technological knowledge

1990s–2000s

Teaching, research, leadership, and professional academic skills; wellness; and organizational development

• • • • • • •

Higher-education curriculum reform took many different forms, from the development of general education to program reviews and the enhancement of course content to include broader multicultural themes. Faculty development offices played a prominent role in ensuring that faculty members were equipped to participate in these reforms, offering training to faculty through workshops, seminars, and retreats.

1990s Compared to the prior periods, faculty development in the 1990s focused on a much broader array of vitality issues. Faculty development initiatives still

addressed teaching, learning, and curricular changes but also expanded to address areas such as research productivity, technology and the classroom, and faculty wellness. Perhaps most important, it became increasingly evident that faculty vitality was intimately intertwined with institutional vitality. A vital institution is characterized by focused, shared institutional goals; faculty with clear goals; and mechanisms for aligning faculty work and goals with institutional goals. Vital institutions provide environments where faculty members are productive and grow. Such institutions have mechanisms in place to ensure that members

stay up to date in their disciplines and knowledgeable about current advances in education, outreach, and research. In other words, vital institutions are keenly aware that “for the present and beyond, faculty development must become ‘anything and everything’ (Riegle, 1987), providing a broad array of opportunities for both individuals and institutions” (Camblin, Jr., & Steger, 2000, p. 5). CURRENT FACULTY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

Today, academic leaders are encouraged to view faculty development from this intertwined perspective. That is, the purpose of faculty development now is to facilitate individual faculty success and, collectively, institution success. The challenge is to identify the right mix of areas and formats that can meet not only the multiple, highly diverse needs of the faculty, but also the goals of the institution. Steinert (2000) categorizes the major vitality initiatives present in today’s academic environment into five areas: 1. Leadership and management skills, including time management, conflict management, and performance appraisal skills 2. Professional academic skills, including managing an academic career, balancing work and nonwork demands, understanding implicit academic norms, and developing research and teaching skills 3. Organizational development, including cultivating a research-productive environment and developing a culture and policies that reward both teaching and research excellence 4. Teaching of specific content areas, including programs addressing information technology skills, communication skills, and ethical issues for research and teaching

3 Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 4

5. Educating of the educators, including programs on instructional skill development, cultivating educational scholars, and training educational mentors The formats used today to promote faculty and institutional vitality can be clustered into three types: (1) selfdirected learning (e.g., sabbaticals, leaves, everyday personal efforts to grow continually); (2) formal professional development programs (e.g., workshops, seminars, formal mentoring programs, Web-based training); and (3) organizational development strategies in which “a systematically planned change effort for the purpose of developing and implementing action strategies for organizational improvement [occurs],” such as reengineering, restructuring, and the redesign of personnel policy (Caffarella, 1994, p. 93). Among the development areas from Steinert (2000) that we have listed above, the most recent demand has been that faculty and administrators alike become knowledgeable in technology and its applications in teaching, research, and administration. This demand can be seen in faculty development initiatives on nearly every campus that concentrates on technology skill development, at both the instructional and professional level. Technological competence offers many potential benefits to faculty members, allowing them to • teach in new ways and at all times of day; • handle administrative functions such as course registrations and grades directly; • route grants through internal administrative structures electronically and submit proposals directly to funding agencies online;

• increase their interactions and collaborations with colleagues across disciplines, institutions, and nations. However, as Lieberman and Guskin (2003) emphasize: Such major and widespread institutional reform of faculty roles and student learning will not be successful without major efforts to provide faculty with the necessary skills, training, technology, and support to perform the new roles. As important, these new roles will only be successful if 1) the institutional rewards for faculty are aligned with their new roles, and 2) the faculty, academic, and administrative decision-makers understand and provide resources for the new faculty roles and the support necessary to implement and sustain them. (p. 261)

Like the successful corporation of the future, the successful departments, colleges, and universities in the information age will be those that provide effective and efficient ongoing faculty and institutional development programs. EFFECTIVE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

The previous section describes the evolution and current nature of faculty development. But what makes a faculty development initiative effective? Although there is abundant literature on faculty development, most of the writings are reports from the field, case studies, or models for developing programs. Evaluation of these programs is largely in the form of participant self-reports, and only rarely do they make use of more objective measures. To develop and objectively assess the effectiveness of faculty development programs, we suggest a consistent set of steps such as the following:

1. Conduct a needs assessment. 2. Develop a purpose and objectives for the program. 3. Secure faculty and administrator support. 4. Secure sufficient resources. 5. Design the program. 6. Implement the program. 7. Evaluate the program for quality and effectiveness. These steps are undoubtedly familiar—they are the same steps recommended for designing an effective educational program. It is not surprising, then, that the literature finds that successful faculty development initiatives begin with ensuring that the program addresses an area of need and that both faculty and administrative support are present (steps 1 and 3). The program will certainly fail if either of these supports is missing or if the program addresses an area that is not perceived as an area of great need. The remaining steps in producing faculty development programs are common to teaching and curriculum development. The recommended actions are to set the purpose and objectives for the program (step 2), identify the strategy or strategies that best fit the identified needs (step 5), ensure that the leadership and resources to mount the planned program are available (step 4), implement the program (step 6), and assess the program’s effectiveness (step 7). This briefing does not discuss all these familiar steps in depth. However, because so much of the effectiveness of a faculty development effort depends on identifying the right needs, the next section provides detailed information on identifying faculty needs and determining whether these differ by faculty career stage, gender, discipline, ethnicity, and so on. Both personal characteristics and professional

4 Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 5

development needs should be taken into consideration when designing a program. For example, you may identify that mentoring is a need of all faculty, but that the specific areas for mentoring and the most effective mentoring strategy are different for junior faculty members and midcareer faculty members and that specific members of your faculty may have individual needs that should be addressed.

reviewing curriculum vitae. Alternatively, an obvious need for a faculty and institutional vitality program may arise from a new initiative being implemented, such as writing across the curriculum, increasing Web-based instruction, or the merging of two colleges. Here we outline two examples of assessment strategies for identifying needs, one broad and comprehensive and one more targeted.

IDENTIFYING NEEDS

Broad, Comprehensive Assessment Approach One way to measure vitality and identify needs is, first, to assess the presence or absence of elements essential to faculty and institutional vitality and, second, to use this information to identify elements needing improvement. Fortunately, the literature is quite con-

Designing a faculty and institutional vitality program begins with assessing the current faculty and institutional conditions to identify areas that if addressed will increase faculty and institutional success. There are many ways to assess these needs, such as conducting surveys, using focus groups, and

sistent on the individual, organizational, and leadership characteristics of a highly productive or vital academic organization. Table 2 synthesizes these characteristics, and figure 1 illustrates how these essential elements work together to ensure faculty and institutional vitality. Most of the research that identified these characteristics used research outcomes as the indicators of productivity or vitality (Bland & Bergquist, 1997; Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2005; Bland, Weber-Main, Lund, & Finstad, 2005). Although not many studies assessed faculty vitality through outcomes that measure teacher effectiveness (such as student ratings), those that did found that these same characteristics made for effective teachers. Moreover, conceptual models for

Productive Organization • Articles/books • Patents • Grants • Prestige • Awards • Effective teaching • Highly motivated, satisfied faculty • Artistic accomplishments

A supportive environment facilitates productivity when its features are attended to by leadership and made available to well-prepared faculty.

Institutional Characteristics Well-prepared individuals go into a supportive environment

Individual Characteristics • Socialization • Motivation • Content knowledge • Basic & advanced research/teaching skills • Simultaneous projects • Autonomy and commitment • Orientation • Work habits

Figure 1.

• Resources • Rewards • Sufficient work time • Clear coordinating goals • Size/experience/expertise

• Mentoring • Culture • Communication • Research/teaching emphasis • Recruitment and selection • Positive group climate • Communication with professional network • Assertive-participative governance • Brokered opportunity structure • Decentralized organization

A conducive environment is a result of effective leadership.

Leadership Characteristics • Highly regarded, able scholar • Research/teaching oriented • Uses assertive-participative style • Fulfills critical roles - Manager - Fundraiser - Keeps goals visible - Assures presence of individual - and institutional characteristics - Group advocate

Individual, institutional, and leadership characteristics that facilitate faculty vitality.

Adapted from “A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity” by C. J. Bland, et al., 2005, Academic Medicine, 80 (3), 225–237. Reprinted with permission.

5 Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Table 2

Page 6

Individual, Institutional, and Leadership Characteristics That Facilitate Faculty Vitality

Individual 1. Socialization: Understands the values, norms, expectations, and sanctions affecting established faculty (e.g., beneficence, academic freedom). 2. Motivation: Driven to explore, understand, and follow own ideas through deliberate planning, and to advance and contribute to society through innovation, discovery, and creative works. 3. Content Knowledge: Familiar —within own research/teaching area—with all major published works, projects being conducted, differing theories, key researchers/educators, and predominant funding sources. 4. Basic & Advanced Research and Teaching Skills: Comfortable with statistics, study design, data collection methods, teaching skills, and advanced methods commonly used in research/teaching area. 5. Simultaneous Projects: Engaged in multiple, concurrent projects, so as to buffer against disillusionment if one project stalls or fails. 6. Orientation: Committed to both external activities (e.g., regional and national meetings, collaborating with colleagues) and activities within own organization (e.g., curriculum planning, institutional governance). 7. Autonomy & Commitment: Has academic freedom, plans own time and sets own goals, but is also committed to and plays a meaningful role within the larger organization. 8. Work Habits: Has established productive scholarly and education habits early in career.

Institutional

Leadership

1. Recruitment and Selection: Great effort is expended to recruit and hire members who have the training, goals, commitment, and socialization that match the institution. 2. Clear Coordinating Goals: Visible, shared goals coordinate members’ work. 3. Research/Teaching Emphasis: Research and teaching have appropriate emphasis and are given greater or equal priority than other department goals. 4. Culture: Members are bonded by shared, research- and teaching-related values and practices, and have a safe home for testing new ideas. 5. Positive Group Climate: The climate is characterized by high morale, dedication to work, low member turnover, and good leader/member relationships. 6. Mentoring: Beginning and mid-level members are assisted by and collaborate with senior scholars. 7. Communication with Professional Network: Members have a vibrant network of colleagues with whom they have frequent and substantive (not merely social) research and education communication. 8. Resources: Members have access to sufficient resources such as funding, facilities, and especially humans (e.g., local peers for support, research and teaching assistants, technical consultants). 9. Sufficient Work Time: Members have significant periods of uninterrupted time to devote to work. 10. Size/Experience/Expertise: Members offer different perspectives by virtue of differences in their degree levels, approaches to problems, and varying discipline backgrounds; the group is stable, and its size is at or above a “critical mass.” 11. Communication: There are clear and multiple forms of communication so all members feel informed. 12. Rewards: Research and teaching are rewarded equitably and in accordance with defined benchmarks of achievement; potential rewards include money, promotion, and recognition. 13. Brokered Opportunities: Professional development opportunities are routinely and proactively offered to members to ensure their continued growth and vitality. 14. Decentralized Organization: Governance structures are flat and decentralized where participation of members is expected. 15. Assertive Participative Governance: There are clear and common goals and assertive and participative leadership where active member participation is expected and effective feedback systems are used.

1. Scholar: Highly regarded as a scholar and educator; serves as a sponsor, mentor, and peer model for other group members. 2. Research and Teaching Oriented: Possesses a “research orientation” and a “teaching orientation”; has internalized the group’s research- and educationcentered mission. 3. Capably Fulfills All Critical Leadership Roles: • Is a manager of people and resources • Is a fundraiser • Is a group advocate • Keeps the group’s mission and shared goals visible to all members • Attends to the many individual and institutional features that facilitate research and education productivity and faculty vitality 4. Participative Leader: • Uses an assertive, participative style of leadership • Holds frequent meetings with clear objectives • Vests ownership of projects with members and values their ideas • Creates formal mechanisms and sets expectations for all members to contribute to decision making • Makes high-quality information readily available to the group

Adapted from “A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity” by C. J. Bland, et al., 2005, Academic Medicine, 80 (3):225–237. Reprinted with permission.

faculty development in all areas, including teacher development, identify similar characteristics. For example, Caffarella and Zinn (1999) cluster the factors that impede or support faculty into four domains: people and interpersonal relationships; institutional structures; personal considerations and commitments; and intellectual and personal characteristics. In short, a vital

and productive institution possesses faculty, an environment, and leaders with characteristics such as those described in table 2. Notably, while having faculty with the individual characteristics listed is essential for institutional vitality, the literature finds that the most powerful predictors of faculty productivity are the environmental and leadership characteristics. Without

these, even the most well-prepared faculty member is not likely to thrive. Knowing which of the characteristics in table 2 are absent in your department, college, or institution can alert you to those areas, which if attended to will be most likely to improve your organization’s vitality and productivity. Three years ago, one of the authors

6 Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 7

of this briefing (Bland) and her colleagues used this comprehensive approach to assess faculty vitality in the University of Minnesota Medical School (Bland, Seaquist, Pacala, Center, & Finstad, 2002). They began with a needs assessment requested by the dean and the faculty senate who wanted to identify ways to support faculty vitality (i.e., productivity, satisfaction, and commitment). A survey was developed and administered that gathered information on each of the faculty and institutional vitality characteristics detailed (see table 2 and figure 1) and on faculty satisfaction, commitment, and productivity. The medical school used the survey data to identify essential vitality areas needing enhancement and improvement. These data were summarized individually for each department and at the school level. Analyses were also conducted to identify differing needs by discipline, gender, career stage, and ethnicity. The data analysis revealed—quite clearly—areas in which the organization and faculty members did and did not match the profile of a vital organization. Using this information, each department tailored specific development efforts to meet its needs; in addition, schoolwide initiatives, such as a mentoring program, were created. This comprehensive assessment of vitality characteristics provided a picture of the “vitality” of the faculty and organization at multiple levels, as well as areas to target for improvement.

Targeted Assessment Approach Rather than undertake a broad needs assessment to understand the current faculty and institutional conditions, a leader may choose a more targeted approach. This approach is most often used when a specific institutional initiative is being planned and its success depends heavily on the existence of selected vitality characteristics or when

current events threaten faculty vitality. For example, if a school is planning a curriculum change involving significant use of problem-based learning, it would be important to conduct a targeted assessment of faculty skills and needs for training in that teaching technique. Or, if large numbers of faculty are reaching the late career stage and, eventually, retirement, leaders might target an assessment on the recruitment strategies of the institution as well as the vitality needs of senior faculty to ensure ongoing institutional vitality. A targeted approach to needs assessment can also provide critical information for ensuring faculty and institutional vitality during times of planned change and growth. For example, in a strategic planning exercise, you may have prepared a revision of your institutional, college, or department vision and priority goals. As indicated in table 2 and figure 1, the vital organization requires that institutional vision and goals be known and understood by everyone. Thus, you would want to conduct a targeted assessment to determine whether your faculty members understand and share the new vision and goals. In the survey of the University of Minnesota Medical School faculty, we asked our faculty members about their understanding of the school’s vision and goals for the next five years. We found that there was a disconnect among the stated vision of the school, the vision and actions of the departments, and faculty members’ goals and activities. Specifically, we found the following: • Only 27 percent of our faculty members perceived that the school had a vision for the next five years. • Only 36 percent perceived that their department had a vision.

• Only 28 percent thought that their department’s goals related to the school’s goals. These findings were surprising— and disappointing—given that over the previous year significant emphasis had been placed on refining the medical school’s vision in a school retreat, through a dedicated working committee with continual communication back to the faculty and with the university regents’ approval of that vision. Having this information alerted leaders to the fact that an essential feature for vitality—shared vision—was missing and that targeted strategies were needed to keep the vision in front of departments and faculty, as they made decisions about their goals, budgets, hiring decisions, and so on. Here is a second example of when you might initiate a targeted assessment. You and your colleagues have agreed on the goal of increasing research productivity. You would therefore target an assessment of the characteristics needed to reach this goal. You could assess all the features in table 1 or you could focus on the five features recently reported as most important to research productivity by chairs of highly research-productive departments (Bland, Weber-Main, Lund, & Finstad, 2005): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Effective recruitment Clear, shared department goals Positive culture with shared values Collaboration Mentoring

ADDRESSING NEEDS

Once you have identified areas that you need to address to maintain faculty and institutional vitality, the question to ask is “How do I address them?”

7 Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 8

Fortunately, there are many strategies for ensuring the presence of each vitality area and many helpful resources for learning about these strategies. Still, it is a challenge to select strategies that not only meet the identified needs but also provide a best fit with the unique characteristics of your faculty, such as career stage, gender, discipline, and ethnicity. Take career stage, for example. New faculty members can be very challenged by the tasks of applying newly learned skills; becoming acclimated to a new work environment and to new work roles; and learning to balance teaching, research, and service duties. Thus, many faculty development programs are targeted to meet the needs of beginning faculty through new faculty orientation and workshops often focused on developing a syllabus, navigating the tenure track, or balancing work and nonwork demands. However, these strategies will not facilitate the careers of midcareer and senior faculty, whose needs are less obvious and likely to be more diverse. Tenured and full professor faculty are quite self-sufficient and, with their years of experience and acclimation to academic life, do not require daily, weekly, or even monthly attention from academic leaders. But in our fastchanging world even the most accomplished faculty members can become obsolete in their field, lack the ability to keep up with their institution’s increasing use of technology, or feel undervalued and disconnected from the mission, vision, and ongoing work of the department. Consistent lack of development especially puts faculty members at risk of becoming stagnant or “stuck” and losing motivation to complete their academic tasks. Faculty development programs can be targeted to meet the special needs of these faculty members.

In short, faculty members at all career stages benefit from strategies designed to maintain and increase their productivity and joy in their careers. However, at each career stage the needs and optimal development strategy may differ, requiring that faculty development initiatives be tailored. To assist leaders in tailoring programs to fit faculty, we describe ways that academic leaders could meet the faculty development needs of new, midcareer, and senior faculty. These examples take the following form: (1) a description of new faculty needs and the use of a mentoring program to address these needs, (2) a description of midcareer faculty development initiatives, and (3) an examination of faculty development issues facing senior faculty members and their academic leaders.

Coaching New Faculty The life of a new faculty member is both exciting and overwhelming. Junior faculty members are expected to fulfill new responsibilities, transition from the role of student (or other career) to faculty member, understand a new organization, develop relationships with new colleagues, and more. How well faculty members navigate their early years plays a critical role in their future success. Several studies have examined the experiences of new faculty and provide a broad assessment of junior faculty development needs. These studies, summarized by Sorcinelli (1994), highlight six areas that contribute to junior faculty work stress and could be targeted in a faculty development program for junior faculty. 1. Time constraints in research and teaching. New faculty members reported not having enough time to do their work, which led to difficulties in juggling teaching and research and, consequently, feeling inadequately

prepared for teaching. As a result, the majority reported health issues such as fatigue, anxiety attacks, and insomnia. Over time faculty developed increased comfort with time management, but still, some reported time pressures leading to deteriorating health. 2. Lack of collegial relations. New faculty members also reported feelings of isolation, loneliness, and lack of support from colleagues. They desired support in teaching and research and help in understanding salary and personnel decisions. However, junior faculty reported satisfaction with the support that they received from department chairs: New faculty identified their chairperson as a crucial advocate and, in some cases, the most important individual during their first year. Chairs who were cited as particularly helpful seemed to take time to assign courses that fit interests and priorities, to negotiate minimal preps or a reduced load, to secure internal funds for resources or travel, and to provide guidance for annual reviews. Tellingly, chairs who assigned excessive workloads and provided little mentoring to new faculty were a dominant source of stress. (p. 475)

3. Inadequate feedback, recognition, and reward. New faculty members felt that their work was “invisible,” without recognition; they were highly anxious about formal evaluations of their performance, especially their teaching evaluations. Over five years their satisfaction with the feedback and recognition that they had received had decreased. 4. Unrealistic expectations. New faculty members set very high (often unrealistic) goals for themselves, and these are reinforced by supervisors. This results in feelings of “not measuring up.”

8 Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 9

5. Insufficient resources. There is a large disparity among new faculty members, with some receiving excellent resources in their early years, but most having great difficulty finding the resources to succeed. 6. Lack of balance between work and personal life. As noted previously, new faculty members feel there is a lack of time to do their work. This results in “negative spillover,” that is, reduction in the time and energy for nonfaculty responsibilities and leisure. To address these needs of new faculty today, institutions often implement orientation programs and special programs designed to aid scholarship (such as workshops on grant writing or seed grants) and ones designed to enhance teaching (such as instructional development, summer fellowships, or consultations with educational specialists). Many institutions, however, have decided that a mentoring program is one of the best ways to address the broad spectrum of support, collegiality, socialization, and development needs of junior faculty that we have described. The next section provides more in-depth information about mentoring programs.

Mentoring Programs In Homer’s Odyssey, Odysseus asks Mentor to look after and guide his son’s development while he is gone. Hence, the term mentoring is often attributed to Homer. Much has been written about mentoring and its benefits in academics as well as other fields. In an article on faculty mentoring, Rogers, Holloway, and Miller (1990) define mentorship as the “influence, guidance, or direction exerted by a close, trusted, and experienced counselor. A mentor is to be detached and disinterested to some degree, so that he or she can hold up a mirror for the protégé” (p. 186). Much of the mentor-

ing literature is corporate focused. For example, Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, and Lima (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of mentoring in corporations and found that formal mentoring, compared with nonmentoring, resulted in positive outcomes on promotions, satisfaction, greater intention to stay, and compensation. Allen et al. also found that mentees in the latter stages of mentoring reported more benefits than those in the initiation stage, suggesting that duration of mentoring is important. The academic literature on mentoring claims many benefits of mentoring although most of the articles are descriptive or anecdotal. There are, however, studies that provide objective evidence of the real benefits of providing mentors for new faculty, including the following: • Research productivity. Many of the outcome studies on mentoring relate to research and have found that having had a formal mentor is highly correlated with research productivity. According to Blackburn (1979), “mentorship/sponsorship in the first years is critical for launching a productive career. Learning the informal network that supports productivity—the inner workings of professional associations and who the productive people are, for example—is critical” (pp. 25–26). This critical function of mentoring was echoed in a recent study on nursing by Byrne and Keefe (2002), who concluded that “when scholarly productivity with funded research is the desired outcome, intense involvement of a protégé with an expert researcher is essential” (p. 391). • Socialization. Mentors facilitate faculty members’ understanding of the culture and practices of an academic profession. Corcoran and

Clark (1984) reported that highly active faculty members learned more about how to behave from their advisers than had a representative group of faculty. • Salary levels, salary satisfaction, and promotion. Melicher (2000), studying faculty in financial management, found that having a mentor “has a positive impact on salary levels, salary satisfaction, and promotion/tenure satisfaction” (p. 166). • Teaching effectiveness. Williams (1991) reported on mentoring studies that found declines in teaching anxiety and improved student ratings on teaching effectiveness. Table 3 provides a summary of the continuum of mentoring programs by describing the differences and similarities among four common mentorship models. Not only are all mentoring programs not alike, but it is also the case that not all mentoring programs are equally successful. A study of medical school faculty by Bland et al. (2002) found that having or having had a formally assigned mentor was the second-best predictor of high research productivity (having a passion for research was first); however, this association did not hold when the mentoring relationship was “informal” or nonstructured. Other studies echo the importance of being systematic in one’s approach to mentoring. For example, Wilson, Pereira, and Valentine (2002), in their examination of social work faculty, report that mentoring programs must be “carefully developed and supported if protégés, mentors and their organizations are to fully realize these benefits. Factors such as mentor-protégé matching, mentor characteristics, the roles of mentors, organizational support, and the men-

9 Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 10

Table 3. Differences and Similarities between Four Mentorship Models* Model

Natural (Informal) Mentor

Intentional (Formal) Mentor

Peer Mentor

Group Mentoring

Other terms used to describe model

Unintentional, informal, traditional, unplanned

Planned, formal, deliberate, conscious

Peer assisted, supportive, reciprocal, group

Group, reciprocal, collaboration

Typical terms used for person being mentored

Protégé

Mentoree, mentee, protégé

Colleague, learner, partner, group member

Group member, colleague

Amount and type of structure

None

High—contract, agreements, expectations

Medium—use of consensus

Medium—depends on level of participants

Need for coordinator

None

High—involved in selection, matching, and coaching

Low—shared responsibilities, trouble-shooter

Medium-group facilitation, organizer, or planner

Typical amount of training required

Life experiences for mentors

0–10 hours for mentors and orientation for mentees

5–8 hours to start; peers then train others

Coordinator/Facilitator needs to be knowledgeable about process and content

Preferred setting and delivery

One-on-one

One-on-one, one-to-group, email, phone

Pairs, small group, email, telephone

Medium group, face-to-face

Typical purpose and goals

Implicit—not specified

Goal, activity, project centered

Goal-directed, skill learning, life issue

Goal-oriented, work-task, project focused

Challenges

Difficult to determine what is being learned

Recruiting and training enough mentors to fill demand

Providing skill training for group interaction

Managing group dynamics, time commitments, changing group membership

Source: Modified with permission from “A Chart Summarizing Four Different Types of Mentoring: Intentional, Traditional, Peer, and Transition,” by Ray Carr on the Peer Resources Web site, http://www.peer.ca/peer.html, retrieved on May 23, 2005.

toring process must be considered if a successful mentoring program is to be implemented” (p. 317). Drotar and Avner (2003) add, “Prospective faculty mentors (and Department Chairs) need to recognize that mentoring is a rewarding privilege of academic life that demands protected time, energy, and extraordinary commitment, which cannot and should not be made by everyone” (p. 2). Boyle and Boice (1998), found that mentoring is not dependent on personality but, rather, on what the mentor/mentee do; that early and enduring mentoring is most beneficial; that mentoring pairs/teams continue to meet regularly and progress when given “nudging”; and that mentoring programs require a coordinator in order to be most beneficial. They also found that using mentors from outside the mentee’s department is very effective, that less than 25 percent of faculty members find mentors on their own—those who do are most often

white males; and that formal mentoring is, overall, more effective than informal mentoring.

Developing an Effective Mentoring Program A summative message that emerges from the literature is that mentoring, when done well, can have a widereaching, positive impact on the success of new faculty. So, how do you develop an effective mentoring program? The first step is to identify the needs of your new faculty. We have already provided examples of two ways to do this: one a comprehensive assessment approach and the other a targeted assessment approach. The second step is to settle on the purpose and goals of the mentoring program, given the identified needs, and to ensure the support of faculty and administrators. The third step is to design, implement, and evaluate the program. Each setting is unique and it is essential to tailor your

implementation strategy. We suggest starting by gathering advice from appropriate colleagues, in this case seasoned mentors, faculty seeking mentors, and leaders in your organization. In this process you can also reconfirm the support of a mentoring program from your faculty and administrators. In addition, gather advice from others in your discipline or in your organization who have addressed this need, such as your office of faculty affairs, human resources, or faculty development. Good advice is also available in the extensive literature and in guidebooks on mentoring. Five excellent books that address the needs of new faculty and describe approaches to faculty development, including mentoring programs, are presented here. In addition, the journal Science has synthesized information on mentoring from sources such as the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, and

10 Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 11

the National Science Foundation on its Web site “Career Development”: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/ career_development 1. Empowering the Faculty: Mentoring Redirected and Renewed (Luna & Cullen, 1995) 2. Faculty in New Jobs: A Guide to Settling In, Becoming Established, and Building Institutional Support (Menges, 1999) 3. Advice for New Faculty Members: Nihil Nimus (Boice, 2000) 4. Mentor in a Manual: Climbing the Academic Ladder to Tenure (Schoenfeld & Magnan, 1992, 2004) 5. Mentoring Revisited: Making an Impact on Individuals and Institutions (Wunsch, 1994) The overarching lesson from all the literature sources is that mentoring is an essential part of a vital department. Furthermore, a formal mentoring program is most likely to be effective, although the best design of the program varies in accordance with department/discipline size, diversity, geographic proximity, and so on. This is why it is so important to tailor your strategy to your situation and follow the six steps for effective faculty development programs outlined earlier. Recall, as illustrated in figure 1, that the essential features of a vital academic organization are closely intertwined. Addressing one almost inevitably impacts others. We were reminded of this recently when we developed a mentoring program to increase the success of research-oriented new faculty in clinical departments across the seven health professions schools at the University of Minnesota. In developing this mentoring program, we found that the goals and vision of the participating departments needed to be clearer in order to help mentor the new faculty. We then

had to revisit the reward structure so that spending the time to be an effective mentor did not disadvantage seasoned productive faculty mentors. In addition, the development of the mentoring program pointed out that the career path and expectations for nontraditional appointments needed to be more detailed and commonly agreed upon. In short, whatever faculty strategy you implement, be alert to how it interacts with other vitality features of your organization.

Supporting Midcareer Faculty Midcareer is a wonderful faculty career stage. The press of tenure track is over, the ropes of academe are now familiar, there is joy and confidence as a result of one’s accomplishments, relative freedom to pursue one’s dreams is available, and much of one’s career lies ahead. From the institutional perspective, it is a time when faculty members have experience on which to build as well as a desire to contribute to and influence the organization. Midcareer is a long career stage. As long as twenty to thirty years can elapse between achieving that first promotion and even beginning to think about retirement. Further, more and more faculty members are experiencing these years in the same institution. Thus, it is to the benefit of the institution to ensure that throughout this stage faculty members remain vital and productive. Unfortunately, for most institutions, problems in the economy have meant only minimal monetary rewards for outstanding performance and limited funding for professional development activities. These conditions have resulted in concern about the vitality of midcareer faculty (Caffarella, Armour, Fuhrmann, & Wergin, 1989; Karpiak, 1996). Fortunately, there are writings that specifically address midcareer development. For example, Belker (1985) rightly points out that it

is important to integrate individual development with institutional goals so that development efforts do not become “tangential, even superfluous to the larger tasks facing universities and colleges. . . . Faced with an older faculty, limited opportunities to hire new faculty, and fiscal restraints, colleges must begin to confront the issue of reeducation not as faculty development but as a concept that will mutually benefit the faculty member and the institution” (pp. 69, 71). Sorcinelli (1999), in an article on faculty development for post-tenure faculty, provides an example of linking midcareer needs with institutional goals. She reports that in 1997–1998, at the University of Massachusetts, the strategic planning process included a significant information technology initiative. To carry out this plan, a set of surveys and interviews assessed faculty needs. One of the findings was that when faculty were clustered into stages of innovation adoption nearly all the “early adapters” were tenured. Furthermore, it was the tenured faculty members who were particularly interested in developing new computerbased teaching and learning programs. Thus, the institution offered a “TEACHnology fellowship” for tenured faculty only to help them apply technology to teaching and learning. Tailoring the training to fit midcareer faculty resulted in many outcomes that included new and revised courses, increased networking, and “TEACHnology fellows [who] have begun to emerge as ‘exemplars’ . . . eager to take risks in order to continue to grow and learn throughout their careers” (p. 67). Romano, Hoesing, O’Donovan, and Weinsheimer (2004), at the University of Minnesota, reported a similar approach to midcareer development called the Mid-Career Teaching program. They sought to build specifi-

11 Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 12

cally on the experience of midcareer faculty by having six to seventeen faculty members meet for two-hour sessions twelve times over a year to partner together to improve student learning. An assessment of the sixty participants from 1998 to 2001 found “a large majority indicating that their satisfaction, confidence, motivation, and enthusiasm for classroom instruction increased after participation in the program. The faculty increased their knowledge about the instructional process and made positive changes to their teaching behaviors” (p. 43). Both Sorcinelli (1999) and Romano et al. (2004) provide directives that they believe are important for programs aimed at tenured faculty members, such as the following: • Provide formal, structured opportunities to set up and steer the agenda. • Offer a range of support that reflects the interests and needs of the faculty. • Focus on acquiring specific skills. • Provide opportunity to interact with colleagues on teaching and learning. • Create rewards and recognition. Midcareer faculty can also benefit from mentoring. Although mentoring is typically thought of as a more experienced person working with a novice, it can also occur among peers, in a group, or through external coaching. Wheeler and Wheeler (1994) report on a midcareer mentoring program at the University of Nebraska that was “specifically designed to help mid-career faculty reassess and refocus their careers” (p. 96). In fact, mentoring, in its many forms, is probably the most effective strategy for faculty vitality and can be adapted and useful at any career

stage. This is illustrated in a conversation overheard at an annual professional meeting and reported by Hazzard (1999): [Paul] Beeson, now 90, a visionary giant of 20th century American internal medicine and geriatrics who, perhaps better than any other in our field, personifies the word mentor, and another prime leader of our field who, at 77, asked, ‘Paul, what should I consider for the next stage of my career?’ (p. 1467)

This brings us to a discussion of the vitality of senior faculty.

Understanding Senior Faculty Needs In this section we explore the less understood, but equally important, needs of faculty during their senior years. We report on a needs assessment of a broad cross section of senior faculty and offer advice and suggestions on ways to create initiatives that boost senior faculty vitality. From this examination, you are encouraged either to undertake a more detailed needs assessment at your own institution or to use these data for a more targeted approach based on critical issues for your own senior faculty. Senior faculty are typically defined as those who have achieved full professor rank and/or are fifty years of age or older. Senior faculty are a critical, but often ignored, group in faculty development. We say critical because they are the ones whom we are counting on to recruit and mentor the new faculty, and many of the features of a vital organization depend on them, such as leadership and maintenance of a cohesive culture and a positive climate. They are also critical because they may be contemplating retirement, and their reasons for delaying retirement or retiring earlier than expected underscore important faculty development issues that need to be ad-

dressed. Although there is not a great deal of literature about existing development programs for senior faculty, there is some. Recently, we participated in a survey of the needs and perspectives of senior faculty conducted at the University of North Carolina (sixteen campuses), the Association of New American Colleges (twenty campuses), and the University of Minnesota (four campuses) (Berberet, Brown, Bland, Risbey, & Trotman, 2005). We found that senior faculty professional development needs are intertwined within three issues: (1) motivation and satisfaction, (2) stress, and (3) retirement plans. Motivation and Satisfaction We found that senior faculty members are motivated and satisfied through opportunities for intellectual inquiry, membership in a meaningful academic community, opportunities to have institutional impact, and recognition for their work. Intellectual stimulation (98 percent overall agreement) and making positive contributions to the institution (94 percent overall agreement) are great sources of motivation and satisfaction.1 Favorable peer and student evaluations were other important sources of motivation and satisfaction (with 90 percent and 88 percent overall agreement, respectively). Senior faculty members also strongly agreed that they felt motivated and satisfied as a result of receiving merit pay based on performance, having their research published, and receiving recognition from their professional organizations. These findings suggest that faculty development strategies such as the following would be useful to senior faculty: • Career development and goalsetting workshops • Targeted grant monies to present at scholarly conferences and to

12 Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 13

network with colleagues within and across disciplines • Department-wide recognition of faculty accomplishments related to research, teaching, and service These strategies mirror those that have been effective with new and midcareer faculty. Stress Senior faculty in our study also underscored many ways in which academic work contributes to faculty stress. These sources of stress are very similar to those reported by new faculty and described earlier in this briefing. Faculty members in our study indicated that lacking the time to give a piece of work the attention it deserves (86 percent overall agreement) and inadequate institutional acknowledgment and rewards for service (84 percent overall agreement) were significant sources of stress. They also reported that the difficulties associated with balancing time demands of teaching and research and the challenges inherent in institutional processes and procedures (e.g., “red tape”) were also key sources of academic stress. These sources of stress suggest that senior faculty would benefit from the following faculty development strategies: • Time management workshops and updated “balanced workload” policies • Recognition of faculty service roles and accomplishments in newsletters, on Web sites, and through interdepartmental correspondence • Targeted monies for teaching or research leaves as rewards for productive faculty If the goal of a faculty development program is to decrease senior faculty stress—and similar stress felt by other

faculty—one strategy would be to implement department policies that promote more effective personal time management. These policies could include (1) training for efficiently handling the increasing quantities of e-mail; (2) flexible workload assignments, such as allowing individual faculty members to “stack” teaching into one semester, leaving more uninterrupted time in the other semester for research or for new course development; and (3) increasing graduate assistant support for teaching and/or research. Retirement Plans Academic leaders who implement faculty development programs that are designed to increase satisfaction or decrease workload can impact senior faculty members’ retirement decisions. Faculty members in our study indicated that they would likely retire earlier than expected if they were dissatisfied with their work environments, not performing their jobs up to their expectations, feeling unappreciated by their departmental or institutional colleagues, or facing increased workload and productivity expectations at their institutions. Conversely, our senior faculty respondents reported that they would be influenced to retire later if they experienced high satisfaction from their work and if flexible workload policies existed that would allow them to focus their efforts on areas of greatest professional interest. Faculty development strategies targeted at senior faculty nearing retirement could include the following: • Retirement planning and career trajectory workshops • Explicit recognition of faculty accomplishments within the department and across the institution • Flexible workload arrangements offered as a reward to highly productive faculty

Senior faculty would benefit from faculty development programs designed to address their long-range planning decisions, which also cultivate discussion and debate on issues that could impact their retirement decisions. Departments and institutions that help faculty members develop a planned and dignified transition into retirement are most likely to get the reciprocal benefit of senior faculty support and counsel in organizational planning for the future. Our survey revealed a hardworking, institutionally motivated, and flexible senior faculty cohort. This profile suggests that institutions could benefit in a myriad of ways from tailoring development initiatives to the needs, interests, and issues of senior faculty. Chairs need to think of how to address senior faculty needs in the context of the department’s structures for governance, management, leadership opportunities, workload flexibility, professional development support, and rewards. All of these structures can be modified in order to maintain late career vitality and satisfaction and to strengthen the department’s relationships with its senior faculty members as they remain valued colleagues, transition into retirement, and even after they retire. Moreover, faculty and institutional vitality can also be enhanced by capitalizing on the fact that senior faculty members have keen interests in new academic and leadership roles and a willingness to cooperate in retirement transitions beneficial both to institutions and to faculty members. The following texts are key resources for those who plan to develop programs specifically addressing senior faculty vitality: • The Vitality of Senior Faculty Members: Snow on the Roof—Fire in the Furnace (Bland & Bergquist, 1997) • “Planning for the generational turnover of the faculty: Faculty

13 Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 14

perceptions and institutional policies” (Berberet et al., 2005) • “Senior Faculty Renewal at Research Universities: Implications for Academic Policy Development” (Crawley, 1995) DESIGNING A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM

We have discussed the need for faculty development at all career stages and described some specific strategies. Similarly, programs may need to be tailored for women and underrepresented ethnic groups. Ideally, these strategies should be part of a larger faculty development program that offers a range of initiatives to meet the multiple needs of faculty over their careers. A comprehensive program to improve faculty and institutional vitality can range from a few workshops implemented by outside consultants to an established office with dedicated staff. Whatever initiatives are offered, they will have a larger impact if they are coordinated. Frequently, universities, colleges, or departments offer a variety of unconnected development initiatives that individually are well thought out and implemented. However, because they are not coordinated, they lack the combined effectiveness that can result when efforts are guided by a comprehensive understanding of the features that affect vitality. Having a comprehensive understanding of what impacts vitality, as outlined in table 2 and figure 1, provides a foundation for selecting a combination of individual and institutional strategies that provide optimal benefit to both the faculty member and the organization. To ensure a coordinated approach to vitality, ideally one person should have as his or her primary responsibilities (1) monitoring the needs of the faculty and organization, (2) implementing strategies to ensure faculty and institutional vitality,

and (3) assessing the effectiveness of strategies used. Many colleges and universities are creating faculty development offices to assist departments in meeting their faculty development needs and to coordinate faculty development initiatives. As Lieberman and Guskin (2003) recently stated, “There will be the increased need for centralized faculty development to support the campus broadly in everything from individual faculty support, to program review, to campus wide assessment” (p. 270). Sorcinelli (2002) provides excellent guidelines and ten principles to follow when creating such offices: 1. Build stakeholders by listening to all perspectives. 2. Ensure effective program leadership and management. 3. Emphasize faculty ownership. 4. Cultivate administrative commitment. 5. Develop guiding principles, clear goals, and assessment procedures. 6. Strategically place the center or office within the organizational structure. 7. Offer a range of opportunities but lead with strengths. 8. Encourage collegiality and community. 9. Create collaborative systems of support. 10. Provide measures of recognition and rewards. Having an institutional faculty development office is a great advantage to department chairs, particularly in departments where the leadership is rotated every three to six years. A central faculty development office provides resources and expertise to assist department leaders in maintaining their department members’ faculty vitality, it becomes a clearinghouse for

sharing the strategies used by one department with others, and it is a mechanism for facilitating institution-wide initiatives. CONCLUSION

In the competitive world of our information age and knowledge-based economy, the departments, colleges, and universities that thrive will be those that ensure the continued growth not only of their students but also of their faculty, staff, and administrators. To do this, vitality efforts will require more institutional investment of time and resources, will need to be more integrated into the fabric of the organization, and will require the careful attention of leadership. It is our hope that the information in this briefing assists you in one of your most important responsibilities—maintaining faculty and institutional vitality. ENDNOTE

1. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 4-point scale with a series of possible sources of motivation, satisfaction, stress, and with a list of reasons to delay or speed up retirement. REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127–136. Belker, J. S. (1985). The education of midcareer professors: Is it continuing? College Teaching, 33(2), 68–71. Berberet, J., Brown, B. E., Bland, C. J., Risbey, K. R., & Trotman, C. A. (2005). Planning for the generational turnover of the faculty: Faculty perceptions and institutional practices. In R. Clark & J. Ma (Eds.), Recruitment, retention, and retirement in higher education: Building and managing the faculty of the future (pp. 80–100). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. Blackburn, R. T. (1979). Academic careers: Patterns and possibilities. In J. B. Francis (Ed.), Faculty career development: Current Issues in Higher Education (pp.

14 Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 15

25–27). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Bland, C. J., & Bergquist, W. H. (1997). The vitality of senior faculty members: Snow on the roof—fire in the furnace. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report, 25(7). Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Bland, C. J., Seaquist, E., Pacala, J. T., Center, B. A., & Finstad, D. A. (2002). One school’s strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty. Academic Medicine, 77(5), 368–376. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine, 80(3), 225–237. Bland, C. J., Weber-Main, A. M., Lund, S. M., & Finstad, D. A. (2005). The researchproductive department: Strategies from departments that excel. Boston: Anker. Boice, R. (2000). Advice for new faculty members: Nihil Nimus. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate teaching assistants. Innovative Higher Education, 22(3), 157–179. Byrne, M. W., & Keefe, M. R. (2002). Building research competence in nursing through mentoring. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34(4), 391–396. Caffarella, R. S. (1994). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide for educators, trainers, and staff developers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Caffarella, R. S., Armour, R. A., Fuhrmann, B. S., & Wergin, J. F. (1989). Mid-career faculty: Refocusing the perspective. Review of Higher Education, 12(4), 403–410. Caffarella, R. S., & Zinn, L. F. (1999). Professional development for faculty: A conceptual framework of barriers and supports. Innovative Higher Education, 23(4), 241–254. Camblin, L. D., Jr., & Steger, J. A. (2000). Rethinking faculty development. Higher Education, 39(1), 1–18. Corcoran, M., & Clark, S. M. (1984). Professional socialization and contemporary career attitudes of three faculty generations. Research in Higher Education, 20(2), 131–153. Crawley, A. L. (1995). Senior faculty renewal at research universities: Implications for academic policy development. Innovative Higher Education, 20(2), 71–94.

Drotar, D., & Avner, E. D. (2003). Critical choices in mentoring the next generation of academic pediatricians: Nine circles of hell or salvation? Journal of Pediatrics, 142(1), 1–2. Duderstadt, J. J. (2001). Leading higher education in an era of rapid change. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from University of Michigan, Millennium Project Web site: http://milproj.ummu.umich.edu/ publications/midwest_higher_ed/down load/midwest_higher_ed.pdf Hazzard, W. R. (1999). Mentoring across the professional lifespan in academic geriatrics. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 47(12), 1466–1470. Karpiak, I. E. (1996). Ghosts in a wilderness: Problems and priorities of faculty at midcareer and mid-life. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 26(3), 49–78. Lieberman, D. A., & Guskin, A. E. (2003). The essential role of faculty development in new higher education models. To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development, 21, 257–272. Luna, G., & Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering the faculty: Mentoring redirected and renewed. Washington, DC: Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University. Melicher, R. (2000, Spring/Summer). The perceived value of research and teaching mentoring by finance academicians. Financial Practice and Education, 166–174. Menges, R. (Ed.). (1999). Faculty in new jobs: A guide to settling in, becoming established, and building institutional support. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rogers, J. C., Holloway, R. L., & Miller, S. M. (1990). Academic mentoring and family medicine’s research productivity. Family Medicine, 22(3), 186–190. Romano, J. L., Hoesing, R., O’Donovan, K., & Weinsheimer, J. (2004). Faculty at mid-career: A program to enhance teaching and learning. Innovative Higher Education, 29(1), 21–48. Schoenfeld, A. C., & Magnan, R. (1992). Mentor in a manual: Climbing the academic ladder to tenure. Madison, WI: Magna. Schoenfeld, A. C., & Magnan, R. (2004). Mentor in a manual: Climbing the academic ladder to tenure (3rd ed.). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Effective approaches to new faculty development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 474–479.

Sorcinelli, M. D. (1999). Post-tenure review through post-tenure development: What linking senior faculty and technology taught us. Innovative Higher Education, 24(1), 61–72. Sorcinelli, M. D. (2002). Ten principles of good practice in creating and sustaining teaching and learning centers. In K. H. Gillespie, L. R. Hilsen, & E. C. Wadsworth (Eds.), A guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources (pp. 9-23). Bolton, MA: Anker. Steinert, Y. (2000). Faculty development in the new millennium: Key challenges and future directions. Medical Teacher, 22(1), 44–50. Wheeler, D. W., & Wheeler, B. J. (1994). Mentoring faculty for midcareer issues. In M. A. Wunsch (Ed.), Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 57 (pp. 91–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Williams, L. S. (1991). The effects of a comprehensive teaching assistant training program on teaching anxiety and effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 32(5), 585–598. Wilson, P. P., Pereira, A., & Valentine, D. (2002). Perceptions of new social work faculty about mentoring experiences. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(2), 317–333. Wunsch, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 57. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

There are literally hundreds of excellent articles and books on the topic of faculty development. We recommend that in addition to reviewing the following references readers peruse the most recent literature on faculty development in journals and in ERIC (Education Resource Information Center, the educational research electronic database) located on the Web at http://www.eric.ed.gov/).

Developing a Faculty Development Program Gillespie, K. H., Hilsen, L. R., & Wadsworth, E. C. (Eds.) (2002). A guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources. Bolton, MA: Anker.

15 Effective Practices for Academic Leaders

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

15957-EP NL#7-1235U

7/7/06

2:51 PM

Page 16

While it has a broad vision of faculty development, this book focuses most heavily on individual faculty members as teachers engaged in fostering student development. It also serves as an introduction to the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD). This organization holds annual meetings, and once yearly publishes a monograph entitled To Improve the Academy, filled with ideas for promoting faculty and institutional development. http://www .podnetwork.org/

Focusing on Research Productivity Bland, C. J., Weber-Main, A. M., Lund, S. M., & Finstad, D. A. (2005). The researchproductive department: Strategies from departments that excel. This practical book provides readers with two critical tool sets: a user-friendly summary of more than forty years of literature on the essential characteristics of research-productive organizations, plus a wealth of descriptive examples of how these characteristics are actually manifest in a large number of highly research-productive academic departments and schools.

New to Faculty Development

Focusing on Senior Faculty

“National Institute for New Faculty Developers,” a faculty development conference cosponsored by the POD and the Office for Professional Development, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. http://www.center.iupui.edu/ ninfd/overview.htm.

Bland, C. J., & Bergquist, W. H. (1997). The vitality of senior faculty members: Snow on the roof—fire in the furnace. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. This book provides a comprehensive

summary of literature on faculty development up to 1997, particularly mid- and senior faculty development. Two of the findings in this book are that many of the development strategies for senior faculty are similar to those used for faculty of all ages and that senior faculty derive benefits from these development opportunities equal to those derived by their colleagues in other career stages.

Journals That Are Devoted to or That Frequently Publish Articles on Faculty Development Journal of Faculty Development, as well as other journals that frequently publish on faculty development, such as Innovations in Higher Education and Journal of Staff, Program, and Organization Development. Many specialty journals, such as Academic Medicine, have articles specifically on faculty development in their areas.

CALL FOR PAPERS AND FEEDBACK Academic leaders and scholars interested in preparing an issue for Effective Practices should contact the editors with their proposals. We also welcome your feedback, suggestions for future topics, and names of authors you might recommend. Please e-mail Robert Secor ([email protected]) or Timothy J. Delmont ([email protected]).

Statement of Purpose Effective Practices for Academic Leaders is a monthly publication that assists leaders to better manage their work agendas and make key decisions by offering critical advice and information in a concise format for ready application in administrative life. Each monthly 16-page briefing sets out the context and fundamental issues on a key topic; summarizes key scholarly research findings to ground administrative practice; offers insights and tips on effective practices drawn from real world experiences; and presents an annotated bibliography. Each issue is written by an acknowledged authority. These briefings cover a wide array of leadership, management, and governance practices associated with the roles and responsibilities of academic administration, with special emphasis on topics germane to academic departments. They also address the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors needed for exemplary administrative performance. An online subscription provides unlimited access to all users of an institutional network.

2006 I SSUES

V OLUME 1

Walter H. Gmelch: Stress Management Theodore H. Curry: Faculty Performance Reviews Irene W. D. Hecht: Becoming a Department Chair Trudy W. Banta & Lauryl A. Lefebvre: Leading Change through Assessment Jerry R. Thomas: Fostering Scholarly Research Donald E. Hanna & Michael J. Johnson: The Challenges and Opportunities of Technology in Higher Education Carole J. Bland & Kelly R. Risbey: Faculty Development Programs Dan Wheeler: Change Management Betsy E. Brown: Supporting Early-Career Faculty Michael J. Dooris & Louise Sandmeyer: Academic Planning Mary Deane Sorcinelli & Ann E. Austin: Encouraging Professional Growth: Current Issues and Future Directions for Faculty Development Ann Springer: Legal Issues

16 Volume 1, No. 7, July 2006

Copyright © 2006, Stylus Publishing, LLC

Effective Practices for Academic Leaders