Faculty Mentoring Report - 2025 Ohio State Faculty Mentoring Study

Introduction

The 2025 Study on Faculty Mentoring set out to illuminate how mentoring truly lives across Ohio State—how it is experienced, supported, and valued in the day to day work of faculty. With the aim of building a university wide framework that is both comprehensive and responsive, the study sought to understand the full ecosystem of mentoring, from formal structures to the informal practices that shape faculty life. Because mentoring is deeply tied to faculty success, well being, and long term retention, we looked to peer institutions and to our own community, weaving together broad insights with Ohio State’s unique context. Through a multi method design that engaged administrators, department and school leaders, and faculty across ranks and appointment types, the study generated a rich, layered picture of mentoring at the university. What follows is an overview of how the study was conducted and the central findings that emerged.

2025 Study on Faculty Mentoring: Research Methodology and Design

A multi-method study on faculty mentoring designed and spearheaded by Korie Little (University Distinguished Scholar and Professor, Department of Sociology; Office of Faculty Affairs Faculty Fellow) with the support of Maritza Pierre (then PhD candidate, CFAES School of Environment and Natural Resources) was conducted in 2025. The goal was to develop a nuanced yet comprehensive understanding of mentoring values, experiences, and practices that shape faculty success. To achieve this, a wide range of resources and approaches were employed.

A review of 21 university-wide faculty mentoring programs across Big Ten institutions and other peer universities recognized for strong mentoring initiatives (see Appendix A for list) was conducted. This review included analyzing Office of Faculty Affairs websites—or those of equivalent offices responsible for mentoring—for evidence of system-level mentoring assignments, structured activities, and university-level policies supporting faculty-to-faculty mentoring. Where such indicators were present, we performed deeper content analysis to understand program design, implementation strategies, and sustainability. To complement this review, vice provosts and senior administrators from six peer institutions with robust mentoring programs were interviewed. Another was done with a tenured professor now at Ohio State about the faculty mentoring programs of his former employer. These conversations examined how initiatives were launched, how they function in practice, and what has been learned over time—offering models and high level insights on faculty mentoring. While much was learned from our peer institutions, the heart of the study is Ohio State. Deans and associate deans of faculty affairs from fourteen colleges and three regional campuses were interviewed, exploring what works well, where challenges persist, and their ideas for strengthening university-wide support at Ohio State. College and campus websites were also reviewed to help map current mentoring practices.
To capture department-level perspectives, we invited all department chairs and school directors to participate in a focus group—Eighteen TIU heads total participated in two focus groups, one in-person and one virtual. These candid discussions addressed their goals for mentoring, effective implementation, and areas of success and growth, among other areas.

Finally, faculty were engaged. Two IRB-approved surveys were fielded to all tenure-line faculty across Ohio State’s colleges and campuses: one for tenure-track assistant professors and one for tenured faculty. These surveys aimed to: (i) identify ways the university can support existing mentoring efforts and (ii) understand faculty perspectives and experiences. We received 149 responses from assistant professors and 474 from tenured faculty, totaling 623 participants—providing a rich dataset for analysis. Six virtual focus groups were conducted with Clinical, Teaching, Practice, (CTP) faculty, involving a total of 26 participants. All CTP faculty were invited to participate in these sessions, which provided an opportunity for them to share experiences, perspectives, and recommendations related to faculty mentoring.

Together, these efforts created a clear and well-rounded picture of faculty mentoring at Ohio State—one shaped by the voices of faculty, the insights of academic leaders, and lessons drawn from peer institutions. What emerged is a clear sense of both the strengths we can build on and the opportunities ahead. This collective knowledge now positions the university to design mentoring structures that are more intentional, more supportive, and more aligned with the needs of our faculty. The findings that follow capture the most consistent themes that surfaced across this work and point the way toward a stronger, more integrated mentoring culture at Ohio State.

Findings summary

Big Ten (Plus) University-Wide Faculty Mentoring Programs: What We Learned?

A review of the university faculty mentoring initiatives of peer institutions revealed significant variation in program development. Some institutions offer a diversity of advanced, well-developed mentoring activities and comprehensive programs, others provide basic mentoring guidelines and policies, and others fall anywhere between these approaches. Moreover, programs range in how long they have been established, from being in place for over a decade to those launched within the last few years. While many emphasize voluntary and flexible approaches, others institutionalize expectations through formal agreements, mentoring plans, and structured guidelines.

In short, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Successful programs fit the mission and vision and culture of their institutions; they ensure flexibility, secure faculty buy-in and provide clear expectations and resources. They balance adaptability with institutional support, embedding mentoring into the culture while remaining open to change and improvement.

University Mentoring Goals

One key lesson from peer institutions is the importance of clarity around the goals of faculty mentoring within the university. These goals should be clearly defined, customized to align with the institution’s culture, and formally documented within its structure and policies.

The mentoring goals of the universities we reviewed vary, but several common themes emerge. Public-facing statements emphasize supporting faculty in achieving their goals and succeeding in their work, while promoting collaboration, personal growth, skill development, and career progression. Many universities highlight the importance of fostering a culture of mentoring and inclusion, recognizing and rewarding effective mentoring, and ensuring that mentoring practices enhance research quality. Conversations with administrative leaders reinforced that retention and community-building are top priorities, alongside helping faculty feel embedded and well-networked across departments and colleges.

University-Level Mentoring Approaches

Many universities view mentoring as part of a larger faculty development ecosystem. The programs at times are integrated with professional development centers and diversity initiatives. In addition to programming for tenure-line faculty, there are initiatives that target department chairs and instructional-, clinical-, and research-track faculty, ensuring that mentoring meets diverse needs across the academic spectrum.

While mentoring approaches vary widely, common formats include traditional one-on-one mentoring and mentoring pods. Peer mentoring and learning circles are also popular. They are often organized around specific goals—such as research interests or professional development—or around shared identities, like women leaders or faculty of color. Universities offer a range of activities tailored to different career stages, including orientations and meetings or workshops for new faculty. There is also an emphasis on “mid-career institutes” that support faculty who are well into the tenure process or recently tenured. Additionally, cohort-based models are common, especially for early- and mid-career faculty, with semester- or year-long programs requiring regular attendance. Another key distinction in mentoring approaches lies in their focus. One approach emphasizes sharing knowledge and leveraging the expertise of mentors. The other prioritizes empowering faculty by equipping them with the skills and strategies needed to build a customized, diverse network of mentors aligned with their individual goals and needs.

Two faculty mentoring initiatives stand out in our review as exemplary models for their comprehensiveness and depth and emphasis on mission and vison for faculty and the institution. One is Northwestern University’s Provost’s Small Group Mentoring Program. This is an extended program that employs a mentoring pods modal to support the development and advancement of tenure-track assistant professors. The other is Georgia Tech University’s 2½-day off-site retreat for recently tenured faculty, designed to help participants reflect on the value of tenure, consider evolving roles, establish norms and expectations for tenured faculty, and explore new directions for research, risk-taking, and leadership.

Support, Affirmation, and Celebration

It is essential to support, affirm, and celebrate faculty mentoring at the university level. This commitment is demonstrated in several ways, beginning with incentives. Many peer institutions allocate financial resources to faculty mentoring efforts. This includes stipends for mentors participating in university organized mentoring programs that span a semester or more. Others offer grants for faculty interested in developing extended peer mentoring pods focused on an area of need or growth, related to perhaps their research or professional development. Some universities also provide funding for external mentoring relationships, covering travel costs for faculty to visit an external mentor or bring that mentor to campus. These financial investments signal the institution’s commitment to mentoring and its importance.

Beyond funding, universities foster a culture of mentoring by recognizing and celebrating faculty contributions. Examples include faculty mentoring awards, annual banquets for faculty mentors, or mentoring honor societies, such as UCLA’s Faculty Mentoring Honor Society. Public acknowledgment reinforces the value of mentoring and highlights its role in advancing faculty success.

Equally critical is clear and visible leadership support affirming that faculty mentoring matters and is a priority for the institution. University leaders specifically mentioned that clear and visible leadership commitment at the provost level is essential for cultivating and sustaining a strong faculty mentoring culture.

Faculty Engagement

Faculty participation is essential for an effective mentoring program. The engagement of tenured (full) professors is especially critical; next to the Provost’s Office, their commitment is vital to the success of faculty mentoring. However, faculty engagement grows as a culture of mentoring becomes established. For example, Michigan Technological University began its mentoring program over a decade ago, piloting it with support from a National Science Foundation grant. Today, it operates a robust, mandatory program for early career faculty, with more than 70% of senior faculty actively serving as mentors and who receive a modest stipend for their service. This high level of participation is attributed to the university’s intentional, long-term effort to embed mentoring into its culture, and making it a core expectation of faculty life. Still, it is equally important to avoid excessive programming. Some universities report low attendance to events and stress the need to use resources efficiently. While faculty often express interest in support, that interest does not always translate into active participation.

Key Takeaways: Big Ten (Plus) Peer Institutions

Universities implement a broad range of faculty mentoring programs, including one-on-one relationships, mentoring pods, peer learning circles, workshops, and initiatives tailored to specific identities or career stages such as early-career, mid-career, and recently tenured faculty. These programs aim to promote faculty retention, build community, and support career advancement. Establishing a strong mentoring culture requires intentionality, accountability, commitment, and clarity of purpose, along with sustained investment in institutional, material, and social resources. Success depends on clear, consistent messaging—led by the Provost’s office—affirming the value and purpose of faculty mentoring for both individual faculty and the university.

Ohio State Colleges and Regional Campuses: What We Learned?

Faculty Mentoring Goals

The primary goals of mentoring for our colleges and campuses are to clarify promotion and tenure (P&T) processes, support faculty success and retention, and encourage professional growth. Less commonly mentioned goals include faculty well-being and setting clear norms. Most programs focus on tenure-track assistant professors, but there is growing awareness of the need to support mid-career tenured faculty and Clinical, Teaching, and Practice (CTP) faculty, and even for some, tenured professors.

Faculty Mentoring Approaches

Mentoring approaches vary widely—from formal assignments and networking events to pod-based models and tech-supported matching systems. It is largely decentralized, with most colleges leaving the responsibility to departments and schools. This creates a lot of variation in how mentoring is structured and the quality of support faculty receive. Some colleges—like Medicine, Engineering, and Dentistry—have formal programs with committees, assigned mentors, and clear expectations. Others, especially smaller colleges such as Optometry, lean on informal systems and an open-door culture, or external mentoring opportunities, such as sending faculty to the College of Medicine’s Faculty Advancement Mentoring and Engagement (FAME). There are also hybrid approaches that mix structured mentoring with informal networking opportunities, as seen in colleges like John Glenn and Nursing and CFAES.

Formal mentoring programs typically involve assigned structures, which can take the form of one-on-one mentoring or mentoring pods. In pod models, early-career faculty are generally paired with multiple senior faculty who serve as mentors. Beyond these formal setups, colleges also use other approaches to foster connection and support. For example, some host “coffee talks,” where faculty at similar career stages gather to share their needs, goals, and experiences. Other common formats include panels on specific topics like grant writing or research strategies or the P&T process. Thus, there is a good deal of energy around creating spaces to share useful information and help faculty succeed—whether through traditional mentoring or more flexible, community-driven formats.

Faculty Mentoring Challenges

Though there is success, colleges note several challenges. These include inconsistent quality across departments and schools, gaps in mentorship for mid-career faculty—especially tenured associate professors who feel “stuck”—and workload barriers for clinician faculty. Other concerns include uneven engagement among tenured faculty, mentoring burdens falling on a few faculty, diversity gaps, and unclear expectations for career advancement.

Faculty Mentoring Recognition

Recognition and incentives for mentoring are, as of yet, limited. Faculty-to-faculty mentoring is not consistently documented in the P&T process or annual reviews, though interest in reward structures—such as service credit, stipends, and college-level awards—is growing.

University Support

College leaders have a strong interest in university-level support for mentoring, including clear OSU-wide standards, mentor and mentee training, best-practice toolkits, and opportunities to connect faculty across colleges. Other priorities include programs for mid-career faculty, resources for regional campuses, and initiatives that promote diversity and equity in faculty recruitment and retention. Finally, there is a call for support to strengthen the overall culture and structure of mentoring—by setting clear norms, creating spaces for peer mentoring and networking, evaluating program effectiveness, and promoting a university-wide philosophy that positions mentoring as essential to faculty success and retention.

Key Takeaways: OSU Colleges and Regional Campuses

College and regional campus leadership is well aware of the need for faculty mentoring, but only a minority of colleges have mentoring programming in place. Among those that do, some programs are highly structured and detailed, while others are more loosely organized. Mentoring takes many forms across the university, including assignment-based mentor-mentee programs, workshops, seminars, panels, and status-based peer groups. While many colleges are doing impressive work in this area, there is also a strong desire for the university to establish a broader culture of mentoring and provide clear guidance on what effective mentoring should look like within colleges and tenure initiating units.

Ohio State Department Chairs and School Directors: What We Learned?

Faculty Mentoring Goals

Department chairs and school directors emphasize that mentorship is essential for faculty success and departmental health. Its primary aims should include supporting promotion and tenure, career advancement, preparing faculty for leadership roles, and fostering a sense of community and belonging. Chairs note that mentoring helps reveal the “hidden curriculum,” clarifies expectations, and ensures faculty are on the right track by articulating goals and milestones. Formal programs are seen as inclusive, ensuring all faculty—tenure-track, tenured, and CTP faculty—receive support. While formal programs help spread the workload and ensure equity, chairs and directors note that informal mentoring remains essential for building trust and fostering organic connections. Beyond individual development, mentorship should also serve to ensure unit needs are fulfilled by promoting collaboration, retention, and engagement. Examples include mentoring tenure-track faculty on research expectations and involving tenured professors in leadership development initiatives.

Faculty Mentoring Recognition

Recognition and rewards for mentoring are seen as key motivators, including incorporating mentoring into annual reviews and the promotion and tenure process, as well as offering service credit, stipends, or awards. Chairs and directors also highlight the need for clear expectations and accountability, recommending that mentoring be defined as a core responsibility supported by structured systems that distribute workload fairly. Leadership incentives emerged as another related priority, with colleagues noting the importance of both recognizing faculty who lead mentoring efforts and creating structures that make it easier for faculty to step into leadership roles within their TIUs.

Challenges to Effective Faculty Mentoring

Despite strong support for mentoring overall, chairs and directors note several persistent challenges. A lack of accountability is a common concern, as there is no clear system for tracking mentoring contributions. Time constraints also pose a significant barrier, with tenured faculty often juggling heavy responsibilities that leave little room for mentoring. Some faculty, in their experience, question the value or impact of mentoring, which affects engagement. Communication issues—such as unclear expectations and limited receptiveness from mentees—further complicate the process. Additionally, mentoring responsibilities are often unevenly distributed, placing a disproportionate burden on a few faculty members. Tenured associate professors frequently lack adequate mentoring support, and trust issues related to institutional culture are also cited as ongoing challenges.

University Support

Department chairs and school directors express strong interest in university-level support to strengthen faculty mentoring. Key recommendations include providing best-practice documents that outline effective models and strategies, establishing a centralized mentoring center to serve as a hub for training and resources, and offering access to external mentors for specialized needs or diversity-focused initiatives. Chairs and directors also suggest creating resource pages and toolkits with practical tips, sample agreements, and templates, as well as implementing certification programs to formalize mentorship training. Additional ideas include dossier coaching and leadership development programs for faculty at all ranks to ensure mentoring is integrated into career advancement and professional growth.

Additional Thoughts

Equity and inclusion emerge as key issues, with chairs and directors noting gendered service burdens, salary inequities, and trust challenges within institutional culture. Participants emphasize the need for cultivating a faculty mentoring culture across all career stages, including associate professors, professors, and emeriti faculty. While formal programs provide structure and relieve pressure on tenure-line faculty, chairs and directors stress that informal, organic mentoring remains critical for building trust and authentic relationships. They also highlight the importance of clear objectives and measurable outcomes, such as defined goals and metrics for retention and satisfaction. Innovative approaches are encouraged, including leveraging faculty expertise through professional development workshops, panels, and thematic cohorts. Finally, chairs caution against over-programming, noting that faculty interest does not always translate into participation and that efficiency and resource management are essential.

Key Takeaways: OSU Chairs and Directors

Department chairs and school directors view mentoring as essential for faculty success, career advancement, and building community. They value both formal programs for structure and informal mentoring for trust and community. Motivators to get involved in mentoring include recognition in annual reviews, P&T documents, and clear accountability, while barriers include time constraints, uneven workload, and lack of clarity. Chairs and directors strongly advocate for university-level support through best-practice resources, centralized hubs, external mentors, and leadership development. Finally, they emphasize that equity, inclusion, mentoring across all career stages, measurable outcomes, and avoiding over programming are critical for success.

Ohio State Faculty: What We Learned?

Survey Findings: Tenure-line Faculty

See Appendix B for Charts with Descriptive Analysis

Overview

Tenure-line faculty at Ohio State are actively engaged in mentoring in a variety of ways. The tenure initiating unit serves as the central place where faculty experience mentoring. Most formal and informal mentoring occurs within the TIU. In fact, it is the most frequently cited source of support for faculty to learn what they need to succeed. Moreover, while formal mentoring serves an important role in the success of faculty, informal mentoring is consistently perceived as the most valued and impactful form of support across career stages and faculty statuses.
Despite this strength, significant barriers to effective mentoring remain. Interestingly—and somewhat paradoxically—the most commonly cited challenge is the limited time, interest, or engagement of senior faculty. TIUs are both the primary source of mentoring and, at the same time, perceived as the greatest barrier to effective mentoring. This seeming contradiction warrants closer examination.

Interviews with department chairs, school directors, and college leadership point to two possible explanations for the variation in mentoring experiences across TIUs. One explanation is that levels of engagement in mentoring can differ significantly across faculty, which leads to uneven distributions of mentoring responsibilities. Another is that mentoring activities may be concentrated among a smaller subset of faculty who take on a larger share of this work. A question in the tenured faculty survey provides useful context: tenured faculty were asked about their interest in mentoring early career colleagues. A substantial majority—59%—reported being “extremely” or “very” interested in serving as mentors, and another 28% indicated moderate interest. These results reflect a strong base of interest and willingness to support colleagues.

Taken together, the evidence aligns more closely with the first explanation: variation in available time, interest, or capacity among a smaller portion of faculty may contribute to the perception that senior faculty can be a barrier to effective mentoring within TIUs. At the same time, faculty consistently report relying on senior colleagues within their TIUs for essential information and guidance, underscoring the strength of local mentoring relationships and the shared commitment to supporting early career colleagues.

Additional patterns in the data show similar dynamics. For example, department chairs and school directors suggest that a lack of trust may serve as a barrier to effective mentoring, yet faculty themselves do not rank this among their top concerns. While some faculty mention trust related issues, no track identifies it as a top barrier.
Overall, these findings highlight the strong foundation of mentoring interest across the faculty while also illustrating how a relatively small set of experiences can influence broader perceptions. Recognizing this dynamic offers an opportunity to strengthen communication, clarify expectations, and build on the substantial mentoring capacity already present within TIUs. This perspective helps explain the paradox in which TIUs are viewed both as the primary source of mentoring and, at times, as a perceived barrier to it.

Beyond the TIU, tenure-line faculty also participate in other forms of mentoring at the college, university, and outside the university. They are engaged as both mentors and mentees in programs offered at Ohio State such as the FAME Program and Faculty Leadership Institute (FLI) in the College of Medicine, the BTAA Academic Leadership Program, President and Provost’s Leadership Institute (PPLI), and initiatives through the Drake Institute for Teaching and Learning. Many faculty also mention involvement in professional societies, where they receive mentoring or serve as mentors. Others highlight opportunities for coaching at the university, participation in workshops as attendees or leaders, and being a part of the National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity (NCFDD). Some have completed mentoring training, such as with the Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER). Still others note attending luncheons and networking events hosted by their colleges and the university.

In short, tenure-line faculty at Ohio State actively seek opportunities to learn and grow, drawing on resources from multiple sources. While the TIU remains the most critical space for mentoring, additional opportunities—whether at the college, university, or beyond—also play an important role. A significant minority of faculty participate in these programs. Importantly, mentoring may be formal or informal, and faculty often serve as both mentors and mentees.
Nevertheless, there are significant opportunities for growth, expansion, and innovation in how faculty mentoring is approached at Ohio State. Below, descriptive results from the faculty mentoring surveys are presented and key findings that reflect tenure-line faculty’s perspectives and experiences with mentoring by career stage are highlighted. These insights are essential for identifying specific, tailored strategies to better support faculty success.

Faculty Mentoring as Tenure-Track Assistant Professors

Among tenure-track assistant professors (TTAPs), mentoring is widespread but varies in form Most (59%) benefit from both formal and informal mentoring, while 30% rely solely on informal mentoring, 7% have only formal mentoring, and 4% report no mentoring at all. Moreover, informal mentoring stands out as the most valued resource—84% of TTAPs rate it as very important compared to 66% for formal mentoring, and 74% find informal mentoring very helpful versus 45% for formal mentoring. Tenured faculty share this view: 84% consider informal mentoring very important for TTAPs, compared to 61% for formal mentoring. Encouragingly, of TTAPs who have informal mentors, 80% report having at least one informal mentor within their TIU, with additional support from mentors at other universities (71%).

TTAP Mentoring and Professional Goal Achievement

The data suggests a strong relationship between mentoring and perceptions of professional success among tenure-track assistant professors. Those who receive both formal and informal mentoring report the highest sense of achievement, with 71% agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, “I am achieving most of my professional goals.” In comparison, 53% of faculty who have experienced only informal mentoring, 50% with no mentoring, and 44% with formal mentoring only share this view. Notably, strong agreement is most common among those with both types of mentoring (27%), while tenure-track assistant professors without any mentoring are the only group where some strongly disagree (17%) with the statement, “I am achieving most of my professional goals.” These findings highlight the critical role of informal mentoring—even as formal mentoring remains an important component of faculty development.

Barriers to Effective TIU TTAP Mentoring

The most frequently cited barrier to TTAP mentoring experienced by tenure-track assistant professors is limited time, interest, or engagement of tenured faculty within their TIU. Forty-two percent identify this as a challenge. When we look at tenured faculty’s thoughts on barriers to effective TTAP mentoring in their units, we see that an even larger share of them—73%—see it as a primary obstacle. Interestingly, 21% of TTAPs report no significant barriers. Overall, tenured faculty are far more likely than tenure-track assistant professors to identify barriers impacting effective TTAP mentoring in their units. This reveals a rather significant perception gap between tenure-track assistant professors and tenured faculty when it comes to TTAP mentoring. Qualitative research could help unpack this finding. At first glance, it may reflect tenured faculty’s access to the breadth of their peer colleagues’ perspectives and level of involvement.

Critical TTAP Mentoring Areas

Mentoring areas rated as very important for TTAPs by at least 50% of respondents reveal clear priorities:

Promotion and tenure guidance (89%)
Navigating departmental politics (73%)
Understanding department or school culture and expectations (67%)
Annual performance reviews (66%)

Interestingly, just 50% of TTAPs rated research and creative work as a very important mentoring area.

The tenured faculty survey asked participants to rate the importance of various mentoring areas for tenure-track assistant professors (TTAPs). Tenured associate professors show similar patterns as tenure-track assistant professors, while tenured professors emphasize fewer areas, prioritizing promotion and tenure (80%), department culture (65%), and research and creative work (60%). Notably, only tenured professors highly rate guidance on mentoring students or postdocs as very important (50%) for TTAP. Nevertheless, across all ranks, promotion and tenure direction dominates as the most critical mentoring area.

Sources of Success as TTAPs

When asked where they learned to succeed as TTAPs, tenured faculty most often cite senior colleagues within their own department or school (76%), followed by faculty peers inside or outside the department (64%). Department heads or school directors rank third (54%). Other resources include faculty outside the university, promotion and tenure documents, and dissertation advisors. This aligns with where tenure-track assistant professors say their informal mentors are employed. These findings also highlight the central role of faculty mentoring within academic units and that Ohio State TIUs have a strong base of faculty mentoring for TTAPs, an encouraging sign.

Key Takeaways: OSU Tenure-Track Assistant Professor Mentoring

Mentoring for tenure-track assistant professors at Ohio State is common but varies in form, with informal mentoring considered the most valuable. Faculty view TTAP mentoring as critical to tenure-track assistant professors’ professional success, especially when both formal and informal support are available. The primary barrier to effective mentoring of TTAPs is limited interest, time and engagement of tenured faculty, while key priorities include mentoring in promotion and tenure guidance, navigating departmental politics, and understanding departmental culture. Additionally, informal mentors are most often found within faculty members’ own units, and tenured faculty report learning to succeed as tenure-track assistant professors primarily through senior colleagues in their TIUs—suggesting that Ohio State has an already established foundation of mentoring for TTAPs at the department and school level.

Faculty Mentoring as Tenured Associate Professors

Among tenured associate professors (TAPs), 53% have only informal mentoring, 3% have only formal mentoring, 22% have both formal and informal mentoring, and a sizeable minority—22%—report no mentoring at all. Informal mentoring for TAPs occurs both within departments and beyond the university. The most common location for informal mentors is within the TIU (71%), followed closely by mentors at other universities (68%). A substantial minority also have mentors from other TIUs at Ohio State (46%).

When asked about the importance of mentoring, most TAPs rate informal mentoring as very important (64%), consistent with patterns seen among tenure track assistant professors. In comparison, 31% consider formal mentoring very important, and 10% report that formal mentoring is not important to them. Perceived helpfulness follows a similar pattern: 57% rate informal mentoring as very helpful, compared to 24% for formal mentoring, and 18% indicate that formal mentoring is not helpful. TAPs with only informal mentoring are the most likely to agree or strongly agree (57%) that they are achieving most of their professional goals, followed by those with both formal and informal mentoring (33%). These findings highlight the central role that informal mentoring plays in faculty success and its perceived effectiveness across ranks.

When reflecting on their time as tenured associate professors, most tenured professors report relying primarily on informal mentoring as well. Sixty six percent say they had only informal mentoring as TAPs, while 17% had both formal and informal mentoring, 16% had no mentoring, and just 1% had formal mentoring only. Consistent with what current tenured associate professors report, tenured professors also indicate that informal mentoring was far more important and helpful than formal mentoring. Sixty four percent rate informal mentoring as very important, compared to 31% for formal mentoring. In terms of helpfulness, 71% say informal mentoring was very helpful, while 44% say the same about formal mentoring. A small percentage found formal mentoring not helpful at all. Together, these findings reinforce the strong preference for informal mentoring and its perceived effectiveness.

College and University Formal Mentoring for TAPs

When it comes to formal mentoring programs offered by colleges for tenured associate professors, 60% of tenured faculty believe it is very important or somewhat important for colleges to provide such programs. Additionally, 46% of tenured faculty indicate that having a formal mentoring program for tenured associate professors at the university level is very or somewhat important. These data underscore a demand for structured support beyond informal networks and TIUs.

Sources of Success as Tenured Associate Professors

Tenured professors were asked where they learned to be successful during their time as tenured associate professors. Similar to findings for tenure-track assistant professors, the top three sources are:

Tenured professors within their TIU (69%)
Faculty peers, inside or outside their TIU (59%)
Their TIU head (51%)

This is encouraging, as it again suggests strong mentoring networks within departments and schools that help faculty navigate career success. Additional sources include tenured professors outside the university and TIU promotion and tenure documents.

Critical TAP Mentoring Areas

When focusing on mentoring areas rated as very important by at least 50% of respondents, four priorities emerge for tenured associate professors (TAPs):

Department or school culture and expectations (57%)
Career planning and advancement (57%)
University or college culture and expectations (57%)
Promotion and tenure process (54%)

Tenured professors identify two areas that meet the same threshold for TAP mentoring: career planning and advancement (50%) and the promotion and tenure process (56%). This comparison reveals an important insight: tenured associate professors are looking for broader guidance—especially around culture, expectations, and navigating their roles—while tenured professors tend to emphasize just advancement and promotion.

This gap highlights a meaningful opportunity

TAPs desire mentoring that helps them understand and navigate both departmental and institutional cultures, clarifies expectations for their roles, in addition to advancing their careers. Tenured professors, meanwhile, emphasize expertise in promotion pathways and long term career development. Together, these perspectives point toward an opportunity for a more aligned mentoring approach—one that integrates clarity on expectations with strategic career guidance and positions TAPs for continued success.

Barriers to Effective TIU TAP Mentoring

When examining barriers to effective mentoring within TIUs, we looked at the experiences of current tenured associate professors as well as tenured professors reflecting on their time in that role. A key pattern emerges: current tenured associate professors report higher levels of barriers than tenured professors recall experiencing. While this difference is understandable, it also highlights another important opportunity. If tenured professors do not perceive these barriers as strongly, they may be less aware of the support tenured associate professors are seeking—especially in areas such as department and college culture and expectations, which TAPs consistently identify as essential.

Even with these differences in intensity, both groups show strong alignment in how they rank specific barriers. The most significant challenge is the limited time, interest, or engagement of tenured professors. The second is the lack of prioritization of mentoring for tenured associate professors within TIUs. The third is the limited time, interest, or engagement of tenured associate professors themselves—many acknowledge they are not always able to fully invest in being mentored. Nearly 20% of tenured professors report experiencing no significant barriers when they were TAPs, further underscoring the perception gap and the need for clearer communication about current mentoring realities.
Tenured professors were also asked about barriers they currently observe within their TIUs. The most frequently cited challenge—by a wide margin—is again the limited time, interest, or engagement of tenured professors (67%). The second most common barrier, reported by 50%, is limited time, interest, or engagement among tenured associate professors. Third, 35% note that mentoring for TAPs is not prioritized within their TIU. Together, these responses suggest that there is room for departments and schools to strengthen their mentoring culture for tenured associate professors.

Current TAPs echo these observations. Sixty five percent report that limited time, interest, or engagement from tenured professors is a barrier to receiving effective mentoring. Fifty nine percent say mentoring is not prioritized in their department or school, and 42% acknowledge that their own limited time, interest, or engagement contributes to the challenge. This shared recognition—across both mentors and mentees—creates a promising foundation. It signals openness, honesty, and a collective desire to improve.

These findings point to a clear path forward: build a more intentional, visible, and supportive mentoring culture for tenured associate professors—one that affirms the value of mentoring for both those seeking guidance and those providing it. With shared commitment, TIUs can create environments where mentoring is not only available but actively valued, strengthening the professional growth and long term success of tenured associate professors as well as the TIUs themselves.

Key Takeaways: OSU Tenured Associate Professor Mentoring

Mentoring for tenured associate professors (TAPs) shows strong foundations and clear opportunities for growth. Most TAPs rely on informal mentoring, which they consistently rate as more important and more helpful than formal mentoring, and those with informal mentors are the most likely to feel they are achieving their professional goals—highlighting the strength of the organic networks within TIUs. At the same time, both TAPs and tenured professors identify limited time, interest, or engagement from tenured professors as the primary barrier to effective TAP mentoring, along with a shared sense that mentoring for TAPs is not always prioritized within TIUs. TAPs also articulate specific needs—clarity on expectations, career planning, and promotion processes—while tenured professors tend to focus more narrowly on advancement, suggesting an opportunity to align perspectives and broaden mentoring conversations.

TIUs remain central, as they are the primary source of informal mentors, and tenured professors overwhelmingly credit senior colleagues in their units for their own success as TAPs. Though formal mentoring by TIUs is not viewed as central to their success, many TAPs express interest in formal, structured mentoring at the college or university level. Because most have not experienced formal and informal mentoring together, the combined impact is not yet known, but TAPs clearly seek complementary support that reinforces the informal networks they value.
Taken together, strengthening informal mentoring within TIUs while developing well designed formal programs at higher levels can create a mentoring ecosystem that is both relationship rich and structurally supportive, better aligned with TAPs’ needs, and positioned to advance their long term professional success.

Faculty Mentoring as Tenured Professors

About half of Ohio State’s tenured professors in the study report having experienced mentoring—formal or informal—at this career stage. Yet only 15% consider mentoring for tenured professors to be very important, with the most common response (34%) being that it is mildly important. Among those who do have mentors, many (64%) look beyond Ohio State for support, though a substantial number find guidance within their own departments or schools (41%) or across the university in other TIUs (31%). Mentoring does not appear to dramatically shift perceptions of goal achievement, though those without mentors are slightly more likely to feel they are falling short: about 7% of tenured professors without mentoring disagree or somewhat disagree that they are achieving most of their professional goals.

Qualitative insights provide greater clarity on tenured professors’ mentoring experiences. They describe a mentoring landscape shaped largely by informal and peer relationships, with administrators and retired colleagues—highlighting the continued contributions of emeriti faculty to a supportive academic culture. Many tenured professors emphasize the value of sustaining mentoring relationships throughout their careers, maintaining ties with dissertation advisors and finding support through grant collaborations, writing groups, research partnerships, and professional networks. These patterns suggest that mentoring continues to influence tenured professors’ professional trajectories, even if it is not always formally recognized as such.

The data also demonstrate that mentoring needs do not end once faculty become tenured professors. Many express interest in continued growth and development, and their qualitative responses point to certain priorities. Leadership and administration top the list, with faculty seeking pathways into leadership roles, preparation for administrative responsibilities, and strategies for effective networking. Those already in leadership roles express interest in practical skills such as managing budgets and personnel. Career planning follows closely, including long term goal setting, strategic planning, salary negotiations, and retirement transitions. Research productivity and funding remain central, with interest in grant writing, securing large scale funding, and increasing research impact. Less frequent but still notable mentoring needs include guidance on teaching and mentoring, work life balance, and conflict resolution.

Key Takeaways: OSU Tenured Professor Mentoring

About half of Ohio State’s tenured professors report having experienced mentoring—mostly informal or peer based—yet only 15% view mentoring at this stage as very important. Many maintain long standing relationships with dissertation advisors and rely on networks connected to grant collaborations, writing groups, emeriti faculty, and peers in their TIUs for guidance. While mentoring does not strongly correlate with perceptions of goal achievement, those without mentors are slightly more likely to feel they fall short of achieving their professional goals. Qualitative responses reveal clear areas for continued growth: leadership and administration top the list, followed by career planning, research productivity, and funding, with additional needs in teaching, mentoring colleagues, work life balance, and conflict resolution. In short, mentoring needs do not end when faculty become tenured professors; there remain significant opportunities for development, and many tenured professors at Ohio State are eager to engage when meaningful avenues for support are available. With intentional support, Ohio State can continue to invest in the growth of its tenured professors—valuing their experience and expertise while helping them navigate the next stages of their academic careers.

Focus Group Findings: Clinical, Teaching, or Practice Faculty (CTP)

Most CTP faculty in the focus groups hold appointments primarily in teaching and clinical work, with a smaller number in research or practice roles. Across tracks, faculty express interest in more structure and community to support their work. Many note opportunities to bring greater clarity to promotion and reappointment expectations—criteria, timelines, and dossier requirements—and highlight the value of transparent guidelines, clear rubrics, and early communication from the start of their appointments. Several also emphasize the importance of including CTP perspectives on review committees.

Mentoring experiences vary widely, and many CTP faculty have built supportive relationships through peer networks, informal connections, and collaborations. At the same time, they see potential benefits in more coordinated, structured mentoring that begins at onboarding and continues through key career milestones, offering guidance on promotion, workload balance, and navigating departmental processes. Faculty also express interest in individualized, goal oriented mentoring that supports time management, advocacy, and understanding university culture.

Community and connection emerge as important themes. CTP faculty value peer learning circles, cross college networks, and opportunities to share teaching innovations, shadow colleagues, and build relationships—approaches that can be especially helpful for remote faculty. Some note that greater shared understanding of CTP roles across faculty tracks could further strengthen equity and belonging.

CTP faculty also express interest in deeper engagement with leadership and more centralized support, including sample dossiers, guidance on emerging trends such as AI in teaching, and shared resources that reduce duplication of effort. They are committed to their work and see meaningful opportunities for continued growth. Enhancing clarity, mentoring, and recognition through structured programs and strong networks could support long term success, morale, and retention for CTP faculty across the university.

Key Takeaways: OSU CTP Faculty Mentoring

CTP faculty describe opportunities to strengthen job clarity, mentoring, and recognition, noting that clearer structures in these areas would help them feel more connected to their units. Mentoring is widely viewed as important, and faculty express interest in approaches that are aligned with the specific responsibilities and career paths of CTP roles. In addition to cross college peer mentoring that supports community building and shared learning, they value programs that offer guidance on career advancement and navigating university systems. CTP faculty also note the benefits of targeted support to help them succeed in their positions; without it, there is a possibility of feeling less connected or fully understood, particularly given the substantial teaching and service responsibilities many carry.

Concluding Thoughts on the Findings

The findings from peer institution reviews, conversations with university leaders, input from deans, associate deans, chairs, and directors, and the perspectives of both tenure line and CTP faculty offer a comprehensive view of mentoring at Ohio State and a clearer understanding of faculty needs across the university. Across groups, there is strong agreement that mentoring plays a vital role in faculty development, advancement, and overall professional well being. Leaders at the TIU, college, and university levels consistently emphasize mentoring as a key pathway through promotion and tenure and as an important contributor to retention and a healthy academic culture. The insights also highlight the central role TIUs already play in supporting faculty success and point to meaningful opportunities to strengthen both informal and formal mentoring—fostering inclusive, relationship based cultures within units while building intentional structures at the TIU as well as college and university levels. The findings affirm that faculty at every rank and career stage benefit from continued mentoring and growth. The recommendations that follow provide a framework for leaders and faculty to build on these strengths and move toward an environment where all faculty can flourish and achieve their goals.