Members of Faculty Development Task Force

Geraldine Downey, Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives

Katharine Conway, Director of Faculty Professional Development, Columbia University Medical Center

Patricia Culligan, Professor of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Laurie Hawkinson, Professor, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation

Margaret Edsall, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Office of the Vice President for Arts & Sciences

Nabila El-Bassel, Professor, School of Social Work

Jean Howard, George Delacorte Professor in the Humanities and Chair, Department of English

Robert Lieberman, Professor, Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs

Mae Ngai, Lung Family Professor of Asian American Studies and Professor of History

Fredrik Palm, Assistant Dean for Diversity and Faculty Development, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

James Valentini, Professor, Department of Chemistry

Brian Van Buren, Associate Director, Office of the Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives

I. Introduction

In Fall 2008, the Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives convened a Task Force comprised of Morningside faculty and academic deans to develop a set of recommendations for fostering faculty development. The impetus was the growing recognition both at Columbia and nationally that creating and maintaining a faculty that is both excellent and inclusive depend on careful attention to the recruitment, retention, and career advancement of all faculty. The faculty are the heart of the university, and universities benefit when high expectations about scholarship are combined with formalized efforts to support faculty in achieving and sustaining their scholarly potential. The Task Force viewed faculty development as a need that persists throughout one’s academic career.

At the untenured level, we recommend processes and structures that need to be in place at the departmental, school, and provostial levels to insure that all junior faculty are receiving the information, mentoring, work/life supports, and the career development opportunities that maximize their chances of being successful tenure candidates or to advance up the appropriate non-tenure ladder.

At the post-tenure level, we recommend leadership training opportunities for new chairs and for those entering administrative positions at every level.

We advocate for comprehensive faculty development programs that serve the needs of all faculty members. These programs should, however, be designed in a way that addresses the barriers and challenges faced disproportionately by faculty from groups that are traditionally and currently underrepresented in all or some areas of the university as well as faculty in emerging areas of knowledge generation that increasingly transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries.

This is a particularly opportune time for a systematic consideration of faculty development at Columbia. Over the past 15 years there has been a striking change in Columbia’s approach to junior faculty. There has been a shift from no expectation of being reviewed for tenure to a clear expectation of such a review pending satisfactory progress through the pre-tenure years in schools where tenure is a normative career step. In response to this shift, schools and departments are recognizing the need to foster the scholarly development of their junior faculty and to set appropriate expectations about the quality of scholarship that is required for appointment to tenure. Over the same period, the skills required to be effective academic leaders have expanded. Top universities have begun to provide opportunities through targeted academic leadership training and through rotating central administrative positions for faculty to develop the skills and experiences necessary for strong and effective leadership.

II. Sources of Information

The Presidential Advisory Committee on Diversity Initiatives, the Professional Schools Diversity Council, and the ADVANCE project team were key in focusing attention on faculty development across the life course. To gather information on faculty development issues, Vice Provosts Jean Howard and Geraldine Downey consulted a number of faculty groups and individuals involved in faculty development, including junior and senior faculty and members of the Faculty Development Committee in Arts and Sciences. A group of untenured faculty of color discussed some of the specific problems facing members of underrepresented groups on the Columbia faculty, focusing particularly on their exclusion from many of the informal networks and spontaneous mentoring groups where career advice is offered and crucial contacts formed. The ADVANCE project team provided particularly useful guidance about how universities can best support the development needs of interdisciplinary scholarship. The Task Force on Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering played a key role in researching and implementing pilot efforts on leadership development.

A number of informational sessions were undertaken at the provostial and school levels, and conversations at the departmental level with junior faculty were initiated. These sessions were extremely helpful in identifying key concerns of junior faculty about the tenure and pre-tenure evaluation processes. Finally, in developing the recommendations laid out below the Morningside Faculty Development Task force worked closely with a parallel advisory group convened by Anne Taylor, Vice Dean for Academic Affairs at CUMC, who were working on faculty development efforts for the Health Sciences schools.

The Morningside Task Force members were selected to include expertise at the departmental, school, and provostial level and within the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences of Arts & Sciences. Three of the professional schools were also represented (Engineering, Architecture, and Social Work). The group included faculty with expertise in the developmental needs of faculty of color and with expertise in the development of interdisciplinary scholars.

We begin with faculty development in the pre-tenure years and then turn to leadership development. Within each section we make recommendations specific to the topic. We end with recommendations for structures at the department, school, and provost levels through which the recommendations can be implemented.

III. Development of Junior Faculty

The following themes emerged as being of great concern to junior faculty in general:

A. Accurate information about the tenure process and pre-tenure evaluations

While discussion of the ad hoc process is on the Provost’s web site, many schools and departments do not adequately disseminate information about the local processes that will decide whether one gets recommended to the Provost for an ad hoc committee. Not every school, for example, posts information on the tenure process in that school on its web site. Not all chairs of departments are familiar with the latest tenure processes or communicate such knowledge in a timely and consistent way to all junior faculty. The most consistent complaints from beginning faculty involve their not being given information from their chairs about when materials for various reviews are due, or being given the wrong information.

Untenured faculty also emphasized that posting information on a web site, while extremely helpful and the easiest step to take to improve the information flow, is not in itself sufficient. Faculty want to know from their chairs and from trusted senior colleagues information about local customs and expectations. They also need to know how the process will play out in a particular department and school as well as at the University level.

The tenure evaluation process is complex and stressful. It is also a unique experience in the life of the junior faculty going through it. It is therefore helpful to have repeated exposure to information on the process and opportunities for clarification.

B. Mentoring structure for beginning faculty

By mentoring structure, we mean some system by which new faculty are regularly given helpful and accurate information and career advice about such issues as: how the tenure process works in his or her department, school, and in the University; normative standards for tenure in different fields; how one can promote an active research life while balancing the demands of teaching and service; what fellowships, grants, conferences, and research networks are available for new faculty to compete for or to join; and how Columbia helps new faculty in promoting their research careers and appropriate work/life balance. In some departments, the chair functions, often informally, as the primary source of such advice for untenured colleagues. The chair may be too busy to fulfill this role effectively, or he or she may not have all of this knowledge at his or her command. Moreover, research shows that successful mentoring in part depends on chemistry. No single individual will be successful at mentoring every candidate within a diverse faculty. Similarly, no single individual can provide all the guidance that a junior faculty could benefit from. However, like all other skills, mentoring skills can be developed.

A few schools do have more formal mentoring programs that spread the task of mentoring more evenly across the faculty, and these are detailed in Appendix A. Moreover, when formal mentoring systems are in place, it is important that senior colleagues themselves thoroughly understand the tenure process as well as the range of other information that untenured faculty need to know and that they are informed about what research has to say about successful mentoring relationships. Good mentoring requires skill and commitment. Lack of formal mentoring systems particularly impact adversely faculty from underrepresented groups. There is considerable evidence that a great deal of mentoring goes on informally and often is not even recognized as such. Whenever a senior faculty member has lunch with an untenured colleague or invites him or her to be part of a panel at a professional conference, valuable mentoring is probably occurring. However, when mentoring is a discretionary activity, women and faculty of color may be less likely to be included in these informal networking activities than are white men, and their careers appear to suffer more when there is a lack of such mentoring.

C. Supporting intellectual development

Junior faculty and, indeed, all faculty, make the decision to join and remain at Columbia primarily on the basis of the quality of the intellectual community it provides. Junior faculty need to be contributing members of strong intellectual communities that support them in achieving their scholarly potential. Scholarly reputation in one’s discipline is the basis of tenure. All groups consulted about faculty development were concerned with identifying ways to ensure that junior faculty were included in appropriate ways in relevant intellectual communities.

A frequent concern is that of how junior faculty can be appropriately included in departmental decision-making. While sensitivity to each junior faculty member’s need to devote significant time to research and scholarship is critical, the participation of all faculty in departmental affairs such as hiring decisions (i.e., service on search committees) or graduate admissions fruitfully enhances one’s status as a valued member of the community. One question that emerged is how can departments, schools, and the University support forums for intellectual exchange among senior faculty, junior faculty, and graduate students in specific subfields or subject areas that will foster community within departments and programs and will help enhance the scholarly reputation of junior faculty? These might include workshops and seminars, lecture series, and reading groups. These programs would not only promote collegiality within departments programs but they might also help junior colleagues connect with networks of scholars in their fields outside of Columbia.

Specific recommendations about the role of the department, the school, and the provost in addressing each of these aspects of junior faculty development are detailed in Section IX, pp. 13–17.

IV. Faculty Development for Racial and Ethnic Minority and Women Faculty

Racial/ethnic minorities (REMs) are underrepresented in all faculty ranks across universities in the United States. Additionally, women continue to be underrepresented in several fields, most notably science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). Ethnic/racial and gender diversity increases the likelihood of having access to a diverse mentor pool, promotes the development of innovative forms of knowledge, increases the likelihood of building relationships with communities outside the university, creates a work environment that appeals to a broad range of people, and better reflects the diversity of the student body. Although Columbia University has made efforts to address faculty underrepresentation, there is significant progress yet to be made. For example, in 2005, Black and Hispanic faculty each represented 3% of the full time faculty at Columbia while White faculty comprised 73%. Research at Columbia and elsewhere has identified three types of obstacles to the success of REM faculty and women in STEM fields.

A. Structural barriers

Structural barriers include the limited number of senior REM and women faculty in the University and especially the dearth of such faculty in academic leadership roles. Consequently, junior faculty have limited access to mentors who will be able to acknowledge and discuss the unique challenges facing REM junior faculty and women in STEM fields. Junior REM faculty and women in some fields can be at a disadvantage because their research is more often in areas with little prior scholarship, resulting in the need to spend more time and resources justifying the legitimacy of their research topic or population. REM and women junior faculty tend to be connected to a smaller social network of faculty, which increases institutional isolation, and decreases their level of knowledge about institutional culture and processes, including tenure. Tenure ad hoc committees may not have members who grasp the value of the type of research that REM faculty conduct and the challenges that REM faculty disproportionately face in their careers.

B. Additional demands

The small number of REM faculty in almost all disciplines and of women in STEM fields means that they are disproportionately called on for service activities as well as student advising. Committee work is usually undervalued by the department—at least in tangible ways—and at many institutions is not factored into the tenure decision, penalizing those who contribute a great deal of time and energy to this important institutional work. Because the student body is considerably more diverse in gender and race/ethnicity than the faculty, women and REM faculty face larger demands on their time from students who seek their advice and mentorship. Research activities integral to working with communities of color, such as collaborating with community stakeholders and conducting pilot research to supplement gaps in the literature, requires additional time and effort.

C. Subjective experiences

As a result of the difficult structural barriers and personal demands, REM faculty

and women in STEM fields may have to grapple with subjective experiences of

marginalization and isolation. This can reflect in part a lack of institutional

understanding of the cultural navigation and/or adaptation required of REM

faculty. Institutional isolation is more likely when groups lack the knowledge,

access to power, and support necessary for advancement. Ultimately, REM faculty

and women in STEM fields may be less interested in staying in academia due to

these barriers and subsequent demoralization.

Effective efforts to foster the development of REM faculty depend on putting in place mechanisms that reduce each of these barriers.

(1) There needs to be sustained institutional commitment to increasing the representation of REM faculty and women in the ranks of the senior faculty and senior leadership. Mentoring efforts need to provide REM junior faculty and women in STEM fields with opportunities to draw on national networks of faculty who would be effective in supporting their careers.

(2) Efforts must be made at the level of the department, school, and provost to ensure that the REM faculty and women in fields where they are underrepresented in the faculty are not formally or informally doing more teaching/service/advising than non-REM faculty.

(3) We recommend the establishment of a network of faculty at the University comprised of both REM faculty as well as faculty from majority groups, especially those in leadership positions, who can provide support, role modeling, and consultation on scholarship and diversity issues. Participation in the network must be recognized as a component of the faculty member’s teaching/service contribution to the university.

(4) We recommend the continuation of the very successful Diversity Fellowship program administered by the Professional Schools Diversity Council. This enabled the Office of the Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives to identify, support, and monitor the progress of junior faculty from groups historically underrepresented at Columbia.

V. Junior Faculty Development in the Sciences and Engineering

The University makes a large financial investment in start-up funds and research (laboratory) space preparation for new science and engineering faculty. The expectation is that external funds will be obtained to develop and sustain the kind of research programs that can lead to tenure. However, securing the first extramural grant is a significant hurdle. Thus, providing assistance to junior faculty in getting and effectively managing their first grant is likely to have a big payoff. With this goal in mind we make the following recommendations:

A. The Executive Vice President for Research (and other relevant bodies at the school or department level):

(1) identify a single person in Research Administration to act as grants coordinator for all non-tenured science and engineering faculty;

(2) expand efforts to provide timely information about funding opportunities for junior faculty. This can be done through web sites as well as through listservs;

(3) develop grant-writing workshops and opportunities for preliminary feedback on grant proposals;

(4) develop workshops and guides on managing large projects effectively;

(5) develop workshops on the multitude of issues involved on international research.

B. Departments/schools provide administrative support for non-tenured faculty

to assist in proposal preparation and submission.

C. Senior faculty in relevant units provide feedback and guidance on grant proposals.

VI. Interdisciplinary Scholarship

In addition to being within the heart of well-established disciplines, cutting-edge scholarship today is increasingly at the intersection of disciplines. Interdisciplinary scholarship seeks to foster links across disciplines that can lead to new theoretical and methodological paradigms and, sometimes, new disciplines (e.g., neuroscience). Because such exciting new scholarship does not fit neatly into traditional processes of evaluation or funding sources, we recommend focused attention on three aspects of the career development of junior interdisciplinary scholars:

A. Support for establishing a program of scholarship

It may be particularly difficult for junior scholars in emerging interdisciplinary areas to secure the external support needed to establish their program of scholarship. Thus, it is especially important for the university to provide funding that enables them to demonstrate the feasibility and value of their research. Excellent examples of such funding opportunities are the Diversity Fellowships administered through the Professional Schools Diversity Council as well as seed funds administered through the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy and the Robert Wood Johnson Faculty Scholars Program.

B. Promoting interdisciplinarity

The question of supporting interdisciplinary scholarship among junior faculty should be addressed within a more comprehensive consideration of how the University can create adequate opportunities for interdisciplinarity, and how it can support those faculty whose work exists within those spaces.

C. Streamlining joint and interdisciplinary appointments

The Provost should develop an explicit policy on interdisciplinary appointments, with particular attention to junior faculty mentorship and evaluations. Interdisciplinary scholars face an additional set of challenges when their work necessitates holding academic appointments in two or more units of the University. The difficulties posed by these situations are often administrative in nature (i.e., negotiating teaching loads or service and committee work), and the expectations of faculty with joint or interdisciplinary appointments are somewhat undocumented and perceived as arbitrary. This becomes especially salient when such scholars are considered for tenure or promotion. Departments and centers who house faculty with joint appointments often struggle with how best to assemble tenure cases that meaningfully address a candidate’s interdisciplinary scholarship, which increases the risk that the tenure review will undervalue or fail to recognize the unique, important contributions made to the University by that candidate’s interdisciplinary work.

If a faculty member is to be appointed to two departments (or to a department and a research center), the parameters of that appointment—including which department will take responsibility for the tenure review—must be clearly established upon the faculty member’s arrival. These scholars also need to be mentored by senior faculty who understand and are involved in interdisciplinary research themselves. Annual progress reports (i.e., FIF forms) and formal reviews (i.e., third and fifth-year) should include the input of both the chairs and/or directors of each department and/or center. Tenure reviews for these candidates should include evaluations of their interdisciplinary work (i.e., through external letters in which letter-writers are informed about (or experienced in) the nature of interdisciplinary research).

VII. Work/Life Issues

Increasing numbers of faculty are managing the demands of a young family while launching a program of scholarship. Recognition that arranging for one’s personal and family needs is crucial to successful progress in scholarship and teaching is an important part of promoting equity in career development efforts. Columbia’s awareness of and commitment to helping faculty balance a demanding career with family needs led to the development of the Work/Life Office directed by Associate Provost Carol Hoffman. The Office of Work/Life aims to promote awareness and utilization of Columbia University's existing work/life initiatives, and to improve work/life policies, benefits, services, programs, practices, and culture throughout the University. The portfolio of the office includes programs that assist with faculty relocation, including non-academic spouse/partner dual career and housing; child care, schooling, and elder care. However, two issues of critical importance to junior faculty remain to be addressed.

A. Child and dependent care

The cripplingly high cost of child care (up to $25,000 per child per year after tax) is a major financial burden and appears to have a significant influence on family decisions. Because competitive universities offer financial assistance for child care expenses, this lack of support at Columbia can provide an impetus for junior faculty to seek outside offers. A strong recommendation is for Columbia to consider alternative ways in which to lessen this financial burden on faculty who face concerns about child care affordability.

In addition to the costs of ongoing care of children and adults, travel to meetings and conferences pose additional financial burdens on faculty who are providing care for dependents. The backup care program is helpful for travel situations, however additional funds for travel related dependent care expenses, such as plane fare for children and/or their adult caregivers accompanying the faculty member to the meeting, would encourage parents and elder caregivers to be able to attend these professional gatherings so vital to career development.

B. Dual careers

All universities face the challenge of couples negotiating dual careers. In recognition that Columbia has traditionally dealt with this on an ad hoc basis, Vice Provost Howard initiated the launch of the Metropolitan New York and Southern Connecticut Higher Education Research Consortium (MNYSC-HERC), which lists and facilitates applications to employment opportunities in higher education in the New York metropolitan area. The HERC database allows couples to seek information on two jobs in a particular geographical area, which has been of use to couples who are relocating to New York. In addition, the Office of Work/Life provides non-academic spouse/partner career services through the directors of the Columbia professional schools career placement offices and outside community consultants. However, perhaps the most difficult problems arise when both members of a couple seek academic appointments at Columbia. There is a persistent danger that the University’s attempts to recruit faculty may be undermined by a candidate’s concerns about employment opportunities for his or her partner. Further resources and services to accommodate spouse/partner academic careers at Columbia are recommended for development.

VIII. Leadership Development

Training in scholarly disciplines does not include formal preparation for academic leadership. Yet, there is increasing recognition that academic institutions are best served when opportunities are created to identify faculty with the potential to be talented leaders and to help such faculty develop the skills needed for effective leadership. Particularly at the chair/division head level, the challenges may appear so burdensome that such positions are considered a service to be avoided rather than an important leadership opportunity within Columbia. Thus, we recommend that, under the Office of the Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives and Faculty Development, Columbia provide opportunities for a diverse pool of junior and mid-career faculty to develop the leadership skills necessary to take on administrative positions such as department chair or division director, dean, vice president, or provost. We make the following specific recommendations:

A. Leadership development programs

(1) Faculty preparing to enter leadership roles should be provided with the opportunity to compete for funds to attend one of several existing leadership programs (e.g., Harvard’s Management Development Program). The Provost’s Office and respective school dean might jointly sponsor attendance.

(2) Columbia should develop its own leadership program drawing on relevant experts in the Business School’s Management Division. An excellent model is Stanford’s Leadership Academy program (see Appendix B), which is supported by Stanford’s President. Topics covered might include recruitment, retention and promotion of a diverse faculty; financial management; mentoring faculty; developing strategic plans and road-maps for achieving departmental goals; time and people management; and fundraising and development.

B. Recruiting leaders from historically underrepresented groups in

leadership roles

The University should provide opportunities for faculty, especially those traditionally underrepresented in leadership, to consider leadership positions. Just as faculty from such groups may be less likely to receive informal academic mentorship than white men they may also be less likely to receive informal mentoring in leadership. Formal mentoring might include meetings with invited speakers to discuss building a resume for leadership positions, hiring processes for leadership positions, negotiating leadership offers, what it is like to hold a leadership position, etc. The idea here is to develop interest and skills among REM and women faculty that could cultivate a group of diverse leaders.

C. Rotating leadership positions for faculty including women and minorities

Part-time, duration-limited appointments in the Provost’s Office or a Dean’s Office can provide exposure to leadership environments. Positions would come with a specific portfolio and would include negotiated relief from teaching, administration duties, etc. The goal is to cultivate potential leaders within Columbia, in addition to engaging more faculty in important and timely university affairs.

IX. Implementing Recommendations

In developing the following set of recommendations, Task Force members sought to address (1) what structures, processes and personnel need to be in place at the level of the department, the school, and the Provost to implement the recommendations outlined above; (2) what resources are needed to support these structures and processes; and (3) how the effectiveness of these structures and processes can be assessed.

A. Department Level

As a faculty member’s most local and accessible administrative unit, the department plays a formative role in nurturing the development of junior faculty. As the front line of a faculty member’s experience, departments are encouraged to create an inclusive intellectual and professional community from which all faculty, junior and senior, will benefit.

(1) Departments will meet the needs of their junior faculty by incorporating into their administrative infrastructures a senior faculty member whose responsibilities include promoting faculty development on behalf of the chair (e.g., Director of Faculty Affairs). This individual would make transparent the schedules and policies of pre-tenure and tenure reviews and would serve as the “go to” person for questions about the process. For those schools not divided into individual departments, this position may best operate out of the office of the school dean.

(2) Junior faculty will benefit from honest, ongoing feedback on their scholarly work throughout their time on tenure-track more than they will from receiving feedback only as formal reviews (i.e., third-year, fifth-year, or tenure) approach. Schools are encouraged to develop and implement mentoring mechanisms that provide junior faculty with reliable guidance as they progress through the critical early stages of their careers, and these mechanisms should be carried out within the departmental structure.

(3) The department should create a robust intellectual environment in which all faculty members — and especially junior colleagues — can flourish as scholars and teachers. Departments should sponsor or promote forums for intellectual exchange among senior faculty, junior faculty, and graduate students in specific subfields or subject areas (e.g. seminars, lecture series, and reading groups). Faculty members should also be included in departmental decision-making as far as possible. Junior faculty members are, in fact, often closer to emerging trends in their disciplines than their senior colleagues so their input can be especially useful in departmental functions.

(4) Departments can take additional direct steps toward helping junior faculty improve their scholarly work, gain exposure in their fields, and navigate the complicated worlds of research funding and publishing. Examples include workshops for publishing articles or books, applying for grants, and mentoring graduate students.

B. School Level

Many of the functions at the departmental level as outlined below will have their counterparts at the school level. However, we single out four:

(1) Each school will insure that there is in place a well-documented and consistently applied process of pre-tenure evaluations such that in the pre-tenure years junior faculty are given the type of reviews that support the development of their careers. The Arts & Sciences have such a standardized process that could readily be adapted to other units and schools.

(2) Each school should have in place a requirement that junior faculty be mentored within their departments. Although we do not recommend any particular mentoring programs, we do make the recommendation that each department’s program be documented and that the academic leadership of the schools hold departments accountable for the effectiveness of their implementation as well as more generally for the development of their junior faculty.

(3) Each school should have a senior member of the administrative staff (i.e., an associate dean) who coordinates the school’s faculty development activities and is the liaison between the Provost’s office and each of the departments. This person should be the go-to person for junior faculty and for chairs.

(4) While the school deans cannot typically get to know all of the individual junior faculty, annual events such as receptions and workshops about the school’s tenure and review processes shall be arranged to allow the Dean to get direct feedback from the junior faculty are recommended.

C. Provost Level

The Provost has responsibility for overseeing the academic standards of the university and as such oversees the tenure review process. The Provost then is in the best position to evaluate the effectiveness of schools and departments in regard to junior faculty development.

In our peer institutions, overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and assessment of a comprehensive faculty development program is located in the Provost’s Office. Our first recommendation is that the Provost formally assign the responsibility of faculty development to the Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives and re-title the position appropriately. The Office of the Vice Provost would include an Associate Provost for Faculty Development who would have oversight and day-to-day management of faculty development initiatives and ongoing programs. That person would report to the Provost and the Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives and Faculty Development.

The responsibilities of the office would include the following:

(1) manage the content of that portion of the Provost’s web site dealing with faculty development, which should make easily available all the procedures governing promotion and tenure at the university level as well as all the support programs available to aid faculty in their academic development at each career stage;

(2) work with all the individual schools to make sure that their web sites have a clear link to the Provost’s faculty development page and prominently display all procedures and policies regarding tenure, pre-tenure evaluations, and promotion unique to each school;

(3) organize annual events in cooperation with each school to disseminate in person all rules and procedures pertaining to tenure, to answer questions, and to provide information about other faculty development initiatives and programs;

(4) work with the schools to develop or build on existing programs that support faculty development (such as grant-writing programs, negotiating workshops, and leadership training seminars) and to advertise and help to conduct such workshops and programs;

(5) work with the schools to help ensure that appropriate pre-tenure evaluation and mentoring processes are in place;

(6) work with the Office of the Vice President for Research to establish and improve support for junior faculty in generating external funding for their research;

(7) develop at the mid-career level a series of programs focused specifically on training for academic leadership and career renewal;

(8) in cooperation with the Office of Institutional Research regularly assess outcomes of faculty development efforts including but not limited to the relative percentages of men, women, and underrepresented minorities receiving tenure in various fields and schools and tracking retention rates at every rank for these groups, as well as tracking the percentages of men, women, and underrepresented minorities serving in leadership positions. This assessment data would be presented regularly to the Vice Provost for Diversity, the Provost, and the Deans of every school with the expectation that outcomes will differentially affect allocations of lines and resources at the school level;

(9) work with the Provost and President to determine how the university will create the expectation that senior faculty will serve as mentors and how their performance as mentors will be evaluated and rewarded;

(10) work with the Provost to ensure adequate support for career development of faculty traditionally underrepresented in the university. While we make no recommendations about specific programs for the development of faculty from traditionally underrepresented groups, we note the importance of provostial oversight and initiation of efforts to ensure such faculty are truly incorporated into the Columbia intellectual community. We specifically recommend that targeted efforts to support the development of faculty from groups traditionally underrepresented in departments and schools at Columbia should continue to include the particularly successful Junior Faculty Diversity Fellowships administered by the Professional Schools Diversity Council;

(11) work with the Associate Provost for Work/Life to ensure that rectifiable obstacles to career development in the context of family development are identified and policies and practices enacted, implemented, and disseminated that help faculty sustain the kind of work/life balance needed to enable productivity;

(12) work with the Assistant Provost for Academic Appointments to ensure the communication of information and policies on family-related and other pre-tenure leaves;

(13) work with the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Administration to help streamline the tenure process. The time period after initiating the tenure process is lengthy and contingent on the efficiency with which many people carry out many complex sub-processes.

(14) To accomplish these responsibilities, the Office of the Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives and Faculty Development would need to be expanded to include an Associate Provost for Faculty Development who would be supported by a Program Assistant of officer rank and who would have a claim on half the time of a person in the Office of Institutional Research.

(15) The Associate Provost for Faculty Development would need to be given a suitable programming budget to run workshops and symposia and to do data collection. Additionally, resources to develop a faculty leadership training program and resources to support initiatives that foster the intellectual development of junior faculty would be needed. These resources would be used to support (a) seed grants for pilot work on high risk activities; and (b) matching funds for scholarly conferences and seminars and other initiatives that foster intellectual development and show intellectual leadership.

Appendix A

Examples of Established Departmental and School Mentoring Programs

A. The Arthur J. Samberg Institute for Teaching Excellence, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University

Through the Samberg Institute, first-year faculty at Columbia’s Graduate School of Business are given a course release during their first semester of appointment and paired with senior faculty mentors who advise on teaching materials and classroom management. During the first semester, junior faculty observe the classes being taught by their assigned mentor, and teach one session of the class for their mentor. In addition, junior faculty attend workshops on classroom performance offered through the Samberg Institute. During the second semester, the mentor sits in on sessions taught by the junior faculty member to provide additional guidance and feedback.

B. Junior Faculty Mentoring Program, School of Social Work, Columbia University

In the School of Social Work, the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Research pairs each first-year faculty member with a senior colleague who is asked to serve as a mentor. The mentor and mentee meet regularly throughout the first year to discuss the candidate’s ongoing and developing research agenda, trajectory onto the tenure track, and acclimation to teaching and service obligations. The Associate Dean meets together with each of the mentors and his or her mentee annually to identify areas that require development (e.g. funding, publications, service) and determine with the mentee whether a different mentor should be selected going forward.

Junior faculty are also encouraged by the Associate Dean and the mentors to find a senior faculty or scientist “collaborator” who is familiar with the candidate’s area of research and will work with the candidate exclusively on developing a research program.

C. The Young Faculty Mentoring Program, Department of Medicine, Columbia University

In the Department of Medicine, the Vice Chair for Research oversees the mentoring program and is responsible for pairing those junior faculty members who have investigative activities with a senior colleague. The mentoring relationship primarily revolves around matters related to securing funding and publications, but may also include guidance on progress toward tenure or promotion. Mentors and mentees are expected to meet three times during each academic year, and mentors provide written reports to the Vice Chair.

At the conclusion of each academic year, the Department sponsors a mentorship symposium intended to showcase junior faculty research and publicly recognize mentors for their service to the Department.

Appendix B

The Stanford Leadership Academy

Sample Program, 2008-2009

Thursday, October 23, 2008

7:40 am Continental Breakfast Available

8:00 - 8:15 am Welcome, Introductions and Academy Overview

John Hennessy, Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

8:15 - 10:30 am Leading and Managing Faculty and Staff at Stanford University

John Hennessy, Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

8:15 - 9:15 am Managing a High Profile, Diverse Institution: Preventing and Responding to Highly Charged Events

9:15 - 9:30 am Break

9:30 - 10:30 am Creating and Managing Effective Employee Relations in a University

10:30 - 10:45 am Break

10:45 - 11:45 am Management, Leadership and Setting the Culture

John Morgridge

11:45 - 12:00 pm Summary of Subjects Covered in Session and How They Apply at Stanford

John Hennessy, Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

Monday, November 17, 2008

7:40 am Continental Breakfast Available

8:00 - 9:30 am Strategic Management in a Nonprofit Organization

Bill Meehan

9:30 - 9:50 am Break

9:50 - 11:20 am Strategic Change and Implementation

Garth Saloner

11:20 - 12:00 pm Summary of Subjects Covered in Session and How They Apply at Stanford

Bill Meehan, Garth Saloner, Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

Monday, December 1, 2008

7:40 am Continental Breakfast Available

8:00 - 9:30 am Strategic Leadership in Dynamic Environments

Robert Burgelman

9:30 - 9:50 am Break

9:50 - 11:20 am Dynamic Forces Driving Firm Evolution

Robert Burgelman

11:20 - 11:35 am Summary of Subjects Covered in Session and How They Apply at Stanford

Robert Burgelman, Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

11:35 - 12:00 pm Description of Special Project and Description of Communications Skills Program

Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

Kathy Davis, Director, Management Communication Program, GSB

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

7:40 am Continental Breakfast Available

8:00 - 10:15 am Personal Leadership: Having Influence Without Authority

David Bradford

8:00 - 9:00 am The Law of Reciprocity and Interpersonal Influence

Video Case:

The Doug-Warren Problem

9:00 - 9:15 am Break

9:15 - 10:15 am Attempting to Produce Organizational Change

10:15 - 10:30 am Break

10:30 - 11:30 am Panel Discussion on How Organizations Use 360˚ and Coaching Feedback

11:30 - 11:45 am Personal Development Option

11:45 - 12:00 pm Summary of Subjects Covered in Session and How They Apply at Stanford

David Bradford, Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

7:40 am Continental Breakfast Available

8:00 - 9:30 am To Be Determined

9:30 - 10:30 am Leadership and Ethics

Deborah Rhode

Overview of Research on Moral Leadership

10:30 - 10:50 am Break

10:50 - 11:50 am Leadership and Diversity

Deborah Rhode

11:50 - 12:00 pm Summary of Subjects Covered in Session and How They Apply at Stanford

Deborah Rhode, Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

7:40 am Continental Breakfast Available

8:00 - 9:30 am Organizations as Markets or Communities: A Fundamental Choice About the Nature of Relationships

Jeffrey Pfeffer

9:30 - 9:50 am Break

9:50 - 11:30 am Organizations as Markets or Communities (continued)

11:30 - 12:00 pm Summary of Subjects Covered in Session and How They Apply at Stanford

Jeffrey Pfeffer, Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

Monday, April 27, 2009

7:40 am Continental Breakfast Available

8:00 - 9:20 am Culture as a Source of Competitive (Dis)Advantage I

Charles O’Reilly

9:20 - 9:40 am Break

9:40 - 11:00 am Culture as a Source of Competitive (Dis)Advantage II

Charles O’Reilly

11:00 - 11:20 am Break

11:20 - 12:40 pm Change Management/Cultural Alignment

Charles O’Reilly

12:40 - 1:00 pm Summary of Subjects Covered in Session and How They Apply at Stanford

Charles O’Reilly, Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

7:40 am Continental Breakfast Available

8:00 - 9:30 am Project Reports

9:30 - 9:50 am Break

9:50 - 11:20 am Project Reports continue

11:20 - 12:00 pm Feedback and Discussion of Communication Techniques

Chuck Holloway and John Morgridge

12:00 - 1:30 pm Closing Luncheon