Author: NCFDD
If you ask most faculty whether mentoring matters, the answer is almost always yes. But if you ask whether their mentoring experiences are actually helping them thrive? That’s where the conversation shifts.
Many faculty enter academia expecting mentorship to be a meaningful part of their growth. They’re told they’ll get guidance on research, teaching, tenure, and leadership. But too often, what they encounter is inconsistent, informal, or simply not aligned with the challenges they’re facing.
It’s not that mentoring isn’t happening—it’s that it often isn’t effective.
The Gap Between Value and Impact
Recent national data from the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) at Harvard shows a clear trend: while nearly 90% of faculty say mentoring is important, significantly fewer report that their mentoring experiences are effective. And for early-career faculty, associate professors, and women, that gap is even wider.
This gap has real consequences for faculty satisfaction, retention, and success. In fact, among COACHE respondents:
- 73.4% of faculty who find mentoring effective are satisfied with their institution.
- Just 44.2% of those with ineffective mentoring say the same.
When mentoring falls short, it doesn’t just feel frustrating. I can also alter careers. We have heard stories of faculty who delayed major writing projects because a mentor told them to wait and mature intellectually, only to be penalized for lack of productivity at review time. Or those who received general encouragement but no real feedback on what it takes to succeed in their specific institutional culture.
Sadly, these aren’t isolated incidents. We view them as systematic signs that something needs to change.
Rethinking the Model
One of the biggest barriers to effective mentoring is the outdated idea that one mentor—usually a senior faculty member—can meet all the needs of a mentee. That model may have worked when academic roles were more uniform, but today’s faculty face a wide range of demands and challenges that no single person can fully support.
Mentoring, at its best, is not a static relationship. It’s a dynamic network. Faculty need different types of support: accountability, technical guidance, advocacy, community, and more. And they need different people to provide those things, depending on their goals, identity, and stage of career.
That’s why a growing number of faculty are turning to external and cross-disciplinary mentoring, which they consistently rate as more effective. In fact, 74% of faculty find mentoring outside their institution effective—a higher percentage than mentoring within departments or even across departments on the same campus.
The most impactful mentoring models today are flexible and intentionally networked—designed to meet real needs, not just replicate tradition.
The Shift Toward Needs-Based Mentorship
Rather than asking, “Who’s my mentor?” faculty benefit more from asking, “What kind of support do I need right now, and who’s best positioned to offer it?”
Some of the most promising approaches we’ve seen involve simple frameworks that help faculty identify their current needs and match them with the right people and resources. Others include structured programs that offer peer accountability, cross-disciplinary support, or targeted feedback on specific goals like grant writing or leadership development.
This shift—from person-based to needs-based mentoring—recognizes that effective mentorship isn’t about tradition. It’s about alignment, intentionality, and access.
Where to Go From Here
For institutions, this means moving beyond informal matching and one-time workshops. It means investing in systems that support mentoring as an evolving, strategic part of faculty development. And for faculty, it means giving yourself permission to seek mentoring beyond what’s offered internally—and to build networks that truly reflect your aspirations and realities.
If this resonates, you’re not alone. We’ve explored this shift—and the data behind it—in more depth through a collaboration with COACHE. You can read more about what’s working (and what’s not) in the full white paper, Redefining Mentoring in Higher Education.