Author: NCFDD
For a long time, academic mentorship has followed a familiar formula: a junior scholar is paired with a more senior colleague—someone with experience, wisdom, and insider knowledge. This “guru model” was once the gold standard, designed for a time when faculty careers were more linear, roles more narrowly defined, and success pathways more predictable.
But that version of mentorship doesn’t reflect the reality of today’s academic landscape.
The modern faculty experience is more diverse, demanding, and dynamic than ever before. Faculty must navigate shifting job expectations, new modes of teaching and research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and an increasing call to do more with less. At the same time, institutions are grappling with resource constraints, shifts in political landscapes, etc.
In this environment, relying on a single mentor to meet every need isn’t just outdated—it’s ineffective.
The Problem with the “Guru Model”
The guru model often assumes that a single mentor—usually assigned or informally selected—can offer holistic guidance across all areas of professional development. However, faculty today require support across a range of domains: technical feedback, institutional navigation, emotional resilience, and strategic decision-making, to name a few.
“The idea of one guru-mentor is not just unrealistic—it’s problematic. Faculty members have a wide variety of needs, and it’s impossible for any one person to meet all of those needs effectively.”
— Dr. Kerry Ann Rockquemore, NCFDD Founder
And when mentoring doesn’t align with those needs, the fallout is measurable. COACHE data shows that mentoring quality is directly tied to key faculty outcomes. Faculty who report effective mentoring are more likely to be satisfied with their institutions (73.4% vs. 44.2%), to understand tenure and promotion expectations (70.1% vs. 44%), and to feel capable of balancing their workload (59.5% vs. 37%).
These outcomes don’t just matter to individual faculty—they have wide-reaching implications for institutions. When mentoring is effective, faculty are more likely to stay, feel connected to their departments, and navigate their careers with clarity. When it’s not, institutions risk losing talent, stalling progress, and weakening the culture they’re trying to build.
From One Mentor to Many: The Case for a Networked Approach
We believe the future of faculty development lies in mentoring networks, not solely mentor-mentee pairs. This model acknowledges that faculty need different types of input at different times, and from different people. It’s flexible. It’s intentional. And it’s deeply human.
Mentoring networks might include:
- A peer mentor for accountability and encouragement
- A senior colleague for promotion guidance
- A coach for navigating workload or burnout
- A cross-disciplinary contact for fresh perspectives on research
- An external mentor outside the institution for objective, high-trust support
This isn’t about more meetings or more work. It’s about strategic alignment—putting the right voices around the table, based on your goals, context, and needs.
Tools to Help Faculty Build Their Network
One of the most impactful tools we’ve seen is the Mentor Map—a resource thousands of faculty use through NCFDD programs. It helps faculty assess their current support systems, identify gaps, and build a mentoring network that evolves with them. It’s not about replacing your mentor. It’s about designing a system of support that actually works.
Faculty who use this approach report greater clarity, stronger relationships, and more confidence navigating their careers. Institutions benefit too—through increased retention, satisfaction, and productivity.
The Shift Is Already Happening
Some institutions are already beginning to move beyond traditional mentoring models in meaningful ways. At Emory University, for instance, campus leaders used faculty feedback and COACHE data to redesign how mentoring happens across the institution. Instead of assigning mentors and hoping for the best, they created flexible options: cross-departmental groups, mentoring cohorts, and access to external programs like NCFDD’s Faculty Success Program.
Those changes weren’t just cosmetic. They’ve led to higher satisfaction, better retention, and a more connected faculty community.
What’s clear from Emory—and from countless faculty stories—is that when mentoring is treated as a strategic priority rather than an informal tradition, it works. And when it works, everyone benefits.
Curious how faculty and institutions are moving beyond outdated models and what that shift looks like in practice? Read our new co-branded white paper with COACHE, Redefining Mentoring in Higher Education, to continue the conversation.