Advancing the future of faculty mentoring at Ohio State
Higher education is critical to societal progress—a space where bold ideas take shape, innovation flourishes without boundaries, and faculty collaborate to advance the frontiers of knowledge. At the heart of this mission lies a critical yet often underappreciated element: faculty mentoring. Effective mentoring not only supports individual career development but also strengthens the academic ecosystem, fostering collaboration, retention, and long-term institutional success. Recognizing this, The Ohio State University has made faculty mentoring a strategic priority.
Faculty mentoring at Ohio State aspires to cultivate transformative connections, encourage shared expertise, and empower faculty at every career stage. By investing in mentoring, Ohio State affirms its commitment to creating an environment where faculty thrive—where professional growth is supported, scholarly impact is advanced, and the university’s mission of excellence is realized.
Previous work on Ohio State mentoring
In 2021, three Ohio State faculty members—Philip F. Binkley, James W. Overstreet, and Carole Anderson—developed a report titled “The State of Mentoring at The Ohio State University: A Preliminary Report and Recommendations for Its Advancement.” This report examined the state of mentoring at Ohio State and outlined steps to build a culture of intentional and inclusive mentorship. Their findings were informed by surveys of Associate Deans, faculty listening groups, discussions with the President and Provost’s Council on Women, and a review of the National Academies report on mentorship. The report reveals that while some colleges have structured programs, access and consistency vary widely. Faculty emphasized that mentoring is essential for career success, trust-building, and creating supportive academic environments. Barriers include limited time, formal training, and uneven access for underrepresented faculty.
To address these gaps, the report recommended adopting a clear university-wide definition of mentorship and developing best-practice guidelines for departments. It called for mentoring to be recognized as a core expectation in promotion and tenure, with success measured by mentee outcomes rather than numbers alone. Expanding mentor training—both online and in person—is critical, with an emphasis on culturally responsive practices and early-career preparation. Departments and schools should implement structured feedback systems to monitor effectiveness and address negative experiences proactively. The report also encouraged diverse mentoring models, including peer and cross-disciplinary approaches, and the use of tools like mentoring compacts and individual development plans. Finally, it recommended creating a central resource or council to coordinate efforts, share expertise, and foster collaboration, as well as advancing research on mentoring effectiveness and best practices.
Building on this foundation, this current work aims to continue cultivating a strong culture and community around faculty mentoring at Ohio State. In preparation of this effort, a comprehensive, multi-method study was conducted to understand existing mentoring models and practices. Specifically, this study sought to understand university-wide faculty mentoring programs, explore mentoring activities across Ohio State’s colleges and campuses, and gather perspectives from department and school leaders. Most importantly, it sought to understand faculty experiences and viewpoints.
Before that, an extensive literature review on faculty mentoring was conducted.
Literature summary on faculty mentoring
What is faculty mentoring and why it matters
Faculty mentoring is about supporting both the career and personal well-being of faculty members (Ivey & Dupré, 2020). More commonly, it is seen as a relationship where an early-career faculty member receives guidance, sponsorship, or protection from a more experienced colleague (Sands et al., 1991). Traditionally, mentoring has been seen as a step-by-step process. Kram (1983) describes four stages: initiation (building rapport), cultivation (mutual investment), separation (relationship shifts or declines), and redefinition (ending or transforming the relationship). Today, mentoring is often more flexible and reciprocal, focusing on partnership and co-learning (Dominguez & Kochan, 2020). Models have also expanded to include group and peer mentoring, which encourage collaboration and shared accountability (Mullen & Klimaitis, 2019).
Mentoring benefits both faculty and institutions. For faculty, it can mean clearer tenure and promotion expectations, skill development, better retention, and overall faculty well-being (Ramalho, 2011; Tran & Gibson, 2016; Giacumo et al., 2020; Mazerolle et al., 2018). Mentored faculty often report higher job satisfaction, faster salary growth, and quicker promotions compared to those without mentors (Baran & Zarzycki, 2021). Good mentoring also provides emotional support and informal feedback that reduce stress and improve retention (Tran & Gibson, 2016; Savage et al., 2004).
Institutions benefit too—mentoring helps with onboarding, boosts motivation, and lowers turnover costs (Dunham-Taylor et al., 2008; Mazerolle et al., 2018). It also strengthens professional networks by promoting knowledge sharing and collaboration across departments (Giacumo et al., 2020; Wikström et al., 2023). Involving emeriti faculty adds even more value, leveraging their expertise while supporting diversity efforts (Mendez et al., 2019). Overall, research consistently shows that mentoring improves retention, job satisfaction, scholarly productivity, and institutional growth (Houston, 2019; Wasserstein et al., 2007).
Faculty mentoring models
Mentoring programs vary in structure and goals:
- Formal mentoring: Institution-supported relationships with clear expectations and timelines. These programs improve productivity, speed up promotions, and help faculty integrate socially (Lumpkin, 2011; Morrison et al., 2014; Jackevicius et al., 2014). Matching mentors and mentees based on expertise and needs boosts satisfaction (Ullrich et al., 2020). Even long-distance mentoring works with good planning (Owens et al., 1998).
- Informal mentoring: Unstructured, relationship-driven, and often based on shared interests. It can offer deeper emotional support, especially for underrepresented faculty (Booker, 2025; Leslie et al., 2005). However, it is less consistent and may not meet all professional development needs (Leslie et al., 2005).
- Hybrid models: Peer and team mentoring combine structure with flexibility. Peer mentoring reduces isolation and builds community (Lumpkin, 2011; Shah, 2024), while team mentoring provides broader expertise and reduces risks of poor matches (Gray & Birch, 2007). Learning communities and network-based models promote collaboration and institutional integration (Meyer, 2002; Scutelnicu, 2023). Research-focused programs boost publication rates and confidence (Jackevicius et al., 2014).
Mentoring culture and program design
A strong mentoring culture is essential for faculty success and institutional growth. It requires leadership support, formal infrastructure, and accessible resources (Sheridan et al., 2015; Welch et al., 2012). Structured programs are especially important for new and early-career faculty, who often lack access to effective mentoring (Chew et al., 2003). Orientation and mentoring initiatives promote collegiality, clarify expectations, and ease the tenure process (Keating, 1996). Peer networks and mentoring committees provide diverse feedback and foster belonging (Murray et al., 2024). Mid-career and non-tenure-track faculty also benefit, highlighting the need for inclusive, adaptable programs (Buch et al., 2011; Munro-Stasiuk et al., 2019; St. Clair, 1994).
Mentoring programs work best when they are intentionally designed, well-supported, and adaptable. Strong programs include structured mentor-mentee matching, transparent processes, and ongoing feedback (Eisner, 2015; Bryant et al., 2015; Dawson, 2014; Karcher et al., 2006). Flexibility and inclusivity are essential—virtual and peer mentoring options can help reduce isolation and increase engagement (Faber et al., 2017; Schulte et al., 2022). Institutional backing, mentor training, and diversity-focused strategies further improve outcomes (Nick et al., 2012; Desselle et al., 2021; Fountain & Newcomer, 2016; Rodriguez-Arroyo et al., 2025).
Assessment is equally important. Programs should use clear benchmarks, structured evaluation tools, and consistent oversight. Unstructured or voluntary approaches can lead to uneven access and limited impact (Al-Jewair et al., 2019). Standardized instruments can measure relationship quality (Berk et al., 2005), while rigorous evaluation methods ensure both processes and outcomes are captured (Gilbreath et al., 2008). Regular assessment should be built into program design from the start (Lumpkin, 2011).
Equity, relationship quality and training
Mentoring should address challenges faced by women, ethnic minorities, and foreign-born faculty (Waxman et al., 2009; Lunsford et al., 2018; Coker & Rothblum, 2024). It is increasingly seen as a way to tackle inequities, foster belonging, and challenge traditional structures (Graham, 2019; Gibson, 2006; Goerisch et al., 2019; Estrada et al., 2018). Especially in these contexts, relational frameworks that promote mutual growth and non-hierarchical structures are recommended (Lewis & Olshansky, 2016), and peer mentoring circles can advance inclusion and institutional change (Thomas et al., 2015).
Moreover, the quality of the relationship is essential. Several interpersonal qualities and structured tools can strengthen it. Effective mentoring depends on mutual engagement, clearly defined roles, and thoughtful matching (Bell & Treleaven, 2011). Chemistry between mentor and mentee helps (Jackson et al., 2003), as do clear expectations, proactive communication, and shared responsibility (Marino & Yost, 1998; Zerzan et al., 2009). Good mentors are accessible, collaborative, emotionally intelligent, culturally sensitive, and supportive; mentees should take an active role and seek diverse mentors (Johnson, 2003; Gandhi & Johnson, 2016; Cheng & Hackworth, 2021; Perry & Parikh, 2018). Mentor training is vital to making mentorship a skill that can be learned and made assessable (Johnson, 2003).
Key Takeaways: Literature Overview
Faculty mentoring is a multifaceted process that supports career development, psychosocial well-being, and institutional success. Effective mentoring—whether formal, informal, or through hybrid models—enhances faculty retention, satisfaction, scholarly productivity, and collegiality. Best practices emphasize structured programs with clear expectations, mentor training, flexibility for local adaptation, and inclusive approaches that address the needs of underrepresented groups. Sustaining a strong mentoring culture requires institutional commitment, recognition of mentoring contributions, resource provision, and ongoing assessment to ensure responsiveness and impact.
The literature on faculty mentoring is extensive, and the key insights highlighted above offer a strong foundation. What we learned from this scholarship directly shaped the design of the 2025 faculty mentoring study at Ohio State. The next section outlines how that study was conducted and highlights central findings.