Activity 2
Although many of the strategies for developing healthy mentoring relationships are straight forward in principle, they can be more nuanced in actual practice. Let’s explore this with another example.
1. Read the following mentoring scenario:
A couple of months ago, Professor Sarandos met with her mentee, Dr. Benton, an assistant professor in the same department. They discussed strategies for helping Dr. Benton prepare his dossier for submission to the promotion and tenure committee in the next academic year. Professor Sarandos expressed general concerns about Dr. Benton’s low number of publications and lack of external funding. At the end of the meeting, the two agreed that Dr. Benton would strive to present a more compelling case for promotion and then report on his progress at their next meeting.
2. Listen to version 1 of the follow-up meeting between Professor Sarandos (the mentor) and Dr. Benton (the mentee):
TranscriptProfessor Sarandos: Hi, nice to see you. So, tell me about your progress. What’s new regarding your publications and grant support?
Dr. Benton: Things are good. I made all the changes we discussed.
Professor Sarandos: Ok. Can you share some specifics?
Dr. Benton: Well, as you can see, I updated my CV.
Professor Sarandos: I’m confused. Your CV was already up to date. What you need to focus on are additional accomplishments to include in your CV. We’ve already discussed this.
Dr. Benton: Well, I have added the titles of three manuscripts that are in preparation. I’m also thinking about a couple of funding mechanisms that I might apply for in the near future.
Professor Sarandos: But that’s not enough to please the promotion and tenure committee. You need actual, completed products. When we last met, we talked about your finishing a first draft of a few manuscripts and writing the specific aims page of a new grant proposal, didn’t we? Has that happened yet?
Dr. Benton: Well, no. I don’t recall our conversation getting that specific. I think I mentioned to you that my technician has had some difficulty repeating a key experiment. This is holding up the manuscripts. And I’m still waiting to hear back from that potential collaborator for the new grant proposal. But, things should come together pretty soon.
Professor Sarandos: This is really frustrating. Your tenure clock is ticking, and unless you can follow through on the plans we discuss, your promotion is looking doubtful. I’ve talked about your situation with a few other senior faculty members, and they agree with me. It’s also not a good use of my time to have these meetings if you don’t have any progress to report.
Dr. Benton: I’m sorry you feel that way. I guess I didn’t realize I was so far behind expectations. But I also don’t remember these expectations being spelled out for me. Can we talk about how to fix this? If the grant is the biggest priority, do you have any advice for how I might nudge that collaborator?
Professor Sarandos: You know, I think you need to focus on nudging yourself. It’s your career that’s at stake. I’ve done what I can do.
3. Use the chat box below to reflect briefly on this mentoring interaction.
After you “submit” your comments (which will not be saved), some example responses will appear. These responses might differ from yours, and that’s okay! The goal of this exercise is not to get “the right answer.” It is to get you thinking about the context in which specific mentoring strategies might be applied.
What problems seem to have arisen between Dr. Sarandos and Dr. Benton?
Miscommunication, misaligned expectations
While Dr. Sarandos expected to see a first draft of a paper and the specific aims page of a grant proposal, Dr. Benton thought he only needed to made minor changes to his CV to reflect “work in progress.” Further, he appears unaware of the milestones he needs to meet for promotion.
Missed opportunities for support
Dr. Benton mentions several impediments to his progress, including an inability to get important data from his technician and difficulty connecting with a potential collaborator. Both are issues he raised with his mentor in an earlier conversation.
Mistrust
Dr. Sarandos mentions having talked about her mentee’s “situation” with other senior faculty, which could be considered a breach of trust by Dr. Benton.
4. What is your opinion of Dr. Sarandos’ mentoring style in this interaction?
Which behaviors do you agree with, and what might you do differently if you were the mentor in this situation?
Necessary candor
Dr. Sarandos is being very candid with Dr. Benton, which might be what he needs to get back on track for promotion. Some mentees need a reality check to help set priorities and spur progress.
Challenge overload
Dr. Sarandos is issuing a lot of challenges, but without offering any accompanying support. She might have devoted some of their meeting time to helping Dr. Benton work through the specific roadblocks that he’s raised with her.
Frustration barrier
Dr. Sarandos’ frustration is understandable; her mentee doesn’t seem to be listening well or following through on tasks. However, in this interaction her frustration is impeding her ability to actively listen and respond thoughtfully to Dr. Benton, even when he starts to asks for specific advice near the end of the conversation.
Feedback loop
It’s reasonable for Dr. Sarandos to want input from other colleagues about Dr. Benton’s progress. But her approach to soliciting and sharing that feedback isn’t optimal. Instead, she might suggest that Dr. Benton circulate his CV to other faculty for feedback and that they discuss the critiques together, or that they invite an additional faculty member to join them at a future mentoring meeting to get another perspective. Receiving similar advice from another source could help reinforce Dr. Sarandos’ concerns. It could also help prompt a more productive and detailed discussion of what Dr. Benton can do moving forward to successfully meet the expected benchmarks for promotion.
5. Now listen to version 2 of the follow-up meeting between Professor Sarandos (the mentor) and Dr. Benton (the mentee):
TranscriptProfessor Sarandos: I was really pleased to see your action plan and timeline for moving forward on those key dossier elements. Thanks for emailing it to me so I could review it before this meeting. It seems constructive. Don’t you think?
Dr. Benton: Absolutely. Thanks for helping with that. The only drawback is I was a bit unrealistic in planning to write three manuscripts and submit a major grant proposal in the next six months, while still fulfilling my travel obligations. I'd like to chat with you about prioritizing these goals, after we finish reviewing my progress.
Professor Sarandos: I'm happy to discuss that. You may need to adjust your plans to match your changing circumstances. It’s important to be ambitious, but also realistic. Let’s figure out the most important projects to finish before your promotion year. Perhaps your coauthors can help with the manuscript writing load. But let’s start by reviewing your timeline and what you've accomplished so far.
Dr. Benton: Sure. I was supposed to have finished writing a first draft of one manuscript and a polished draft of the specific aims page for a new grant proposal. I emailed you those documents last week to review. Have you had a chance to look at them?
Professor Sarandos: Yes. I took a quick look at the manuscript without bothering to edit it since it's a very early draft. You can read my written comments, but I’ll say that I like the general direction you've taken. The results are really innovative and should be easy to publish in a major journal, provided you can reproduce the data for that final experiment. I’m interested in hearing whether you’ve worked out those technical difficulties in your lab. I have a colleague who might be able to help you with the technique. Moving on to the grant… The specific aims look fantastic. You've clearly put a lot of time and thought into writing this crucial page. I made only minor edits. I think you're ready to move on to the research plan and other sections of the proposal.
Dr. Benton: Thanks for the encouragement. It really helped that you and other colleagues were able to comment on previous drafts.
Professor Sarandos: It's a pleasure to mentor someone like you. You're open to constructive criticism and pay close attention to developing your own career.
Dr. Benton: Thanks, I appreciate hearing that and really value your support. Looking ahead, I think the next step for me is to polish the manuscript so I can submit it a month from now, pending that final experiment. In about two weeks, I’ll send you and the other reviewers a detailed outline of the experimental design section of the grant proposal. Before I leave, I’d like to schedule another meeting with you in a month to discuss next steps.
Professor Sarandos: That sounds reasonable. Now let’s discuss that tricky experiment.
6. Use the chat box below to briefly reflect on this conversation.
What is your opinion of Dr. Sarandos’ mentoring style in this interaction? Which behaviors do you agree with, and what might you do differently if you were the mentor in this situation?
Supportive
Dr. Sarandos is much more supportive during this interaction. She provides directed feedback and help in addressing the challenges Dr. Benton is facing.
Responsive
Dr. Sarandos has clearly prepared for the meeting. She also took time between meetings to provide feedback on her mentee’s draft manuscript and proposal aims. Being accessible and responsive are good qualities in a mentor.
Trust building
Dr. Sarandos exhibits several trust-building behaviors: She follows through on her commitments, affirms Dr. Benton’s capabilities, and asks him for feedback on her mentoring (e.g., whether the action plan she asked him to create was useful).
Different approaches
It might be useful for Dr. Sarandos to ask more open-ended questions such as, “What questions or concerns do you have about the promotion process?” or “Beside dossier preparation and research troubleshooting, what else should we put on our agenda for our next meeting?”
