Chapter 11. Choosing, and Being, a Good Mentor 171

Mentor to Telemachus, encouraging him to defy the suitors of his mother Penelope and go abroad in search of his father. It is interesting that some scholars argue that Mentor was ineffective, and that it was Athena, when disguised as Mentor, who provided the critical guidance that Telemachus needed in a time of crisis. This underlines the point that a good mentor can be an elusive entity, and mentoring often involves multiple individuals. Because of Athena aka Mentor’s nearpaternal relationship with Telemachus, over time the term “mentor” in English has become synonymous with a fatherlike teacher, or trusted advisor, friend, or wise person.

A more contemporary reintroduction of the term was in 1699 by the French author Francois Fenelon in the book Les “Aventures de Telemaque,” which was intended to describe the educational travels of Telemachus and his tutor, Mentor, by summarizing many of Mentor’s speeches and advice on how to rule.6

Modern Definition and Primer

Today, mentoring is best described as a series of complex interactions between two individuals who have as their primary purpose the growth of the mentee, although this process often results in the personal and professional growth of both parties. Mentoring can involve a transfer of knowledge, patterns of behavior, skills, and an approach to an accumulated body of information. It sets the stage for mentees to approach, define, and mold their future and develop networks of peers, co-investigators, and colleagues.

Generally, a mentor is a more experienced person who can take several forms. Mentoring, as described by the joint committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine consensus statement on mentoring, is a personal and professional “dyadic” relationship between a more experienced or senior person (mentor) and a less experienced or junior person (mentee). Informal mentoring occurs serendipitously when two individuals are drawn together by mutual interests and

172 J.A. Sosa

appeal, resulting in a kind of “spontaneous or accidental mentoring [that] almost always works.” This type of mentoring is characterized by a long-term, mutually satisfying relationship that is not initiated, managed, or structured by an institution or organization. Hallmarks of the relationship are support, mutual respect, and compatibility. It is characterized by institutional proximity and by primarily direct, face to face contact. This generally excludes support from a distant site provided mostly through electronic media (“e-mentoring,” or “virtual mentoring”), which, although similar to peer support in that it can be used for teaching, supervising, and counseling, can rarely by itself provide mentoring functions related to navigating the unique institutional environment and advocating for the mentee. It should be used as an adjunct, rather than a substitute, for an in-person relationship in order to maintain established bonds over time, particularly when the mentor/mentee moves or changes institutions, or when serendipitous associations are formed at national or international venues such as meetings or study sections. Mentoring is not synonymous with peer support, tutoring, teaching, coaching, supervising, advising, counseling, sponsoring, role-modeling, or preceptoring.

The traditional functions of the mentor have been viewed as almost exclusively supportive, such as writing letters of recommendation, assisting with publications, writing grants, and preparing for key negotiations. A mentor also acts as an advocate for the mentee. The mentor should promote the mentee in the department and the academic community at large, while at the same time protecting the mentee from the sometimes harsh interactions of academic surgery.Networking is an important and complex aspect of the mentoring experience that requires action by both the mentor and the mentee. The mentor can help the mentee gain access to otherwise

“closed” but important academic circles, and they should be willing to share their network of contacts and resources. Mentors can teach mentees how to promote themselves, as well as the “rules of the game” of academic politics and networking. In the end, the effective mentor sets the stage for success by recognizing the potential of the mentee.

Chapter 11. Choosing, and Being, a Good Mentor 173

The mentor must know the mentee well enough to envision possibilities.

A mentor is called upon to advise, advocate for, sponsor, and, when appropriate, constructively criticize the mentee in order to advance the mentee’s interests and/or career. For mentorship to work, there must be a relationship or state of connectedness that is built on mutual trust and respect, as well as some personal chemistry; it generally develops over an extended period of time. As a result, it is the product of intense commitment and effort on the part of both the mentee and the mentor, and can come closer to a parent–child relationship than a teacher–student association. Mentees need to remember that most mentoring relationships are with a more senior faculty member and can result in a power differential where the mentee may be vulnerable.

In order for a mentee to choose the “right” mentor, it is essential for the mentee to first understand what is needed and expected from the mentor to afford success. Insight comes from introspection. For example, is the mentee optimistic or pessimistic, and does the mentee respond to a more gentle or tough approach with regard to feedback and guidance? The mentee should be up front with a mentor about personal strengths and weaknesses, and about personal and professional goals: expectations should be clarified. To make the right choice of mentor, it is useful for mentees to “interview” potential mentors as part of the selection process in order to find the optimal working, communication, and relational style. It may even be necessary to experiment with several different potential mentors in order to find the right match.

Some academic departments of surgery provide a formal mentorship program and “designate” a faculty mentor for incoming interns, fellows, and junior faculty members; others suggest the creation of a contract between the mentor and mentee. Institutions should make women and minority mentors available to faculty members, but not assume that all mentees would prefer a mentor who is of the same gender or race. Most mentors in the National Faculty Survey of 3,013 full-time faculty in academic medicine were white men, a fact that likely

174 J.A. Sosa

highlights the limited numbers of women and minorities in senior positions in academic medicine.7 Ideally, potential mentors and mentees would meet in social as well as professional settings to begin the networking process. This can serve as a starting point, but it should not be limiting. If a mentoring relationship set up by an institution feels forced or artificial, it is essential to acknowledge the problem. The mentee almost always should take the initiative of seeking out potential mentors, and patience and perseverance are required.

The best mentors are people who are excited about learning and who are continuing their own development, regardless of whether they are junior or senior academic surgeons. They should be respected, and demonstrate good interpersonal skills and judgment. Good mentors actively participate in others’ learning and growth. They also encourage and motivate mentees to move beyond their comfort zone to independence. In so doing, they achieve a sense of personal satisfaction from seeing others succeed. In this way, they are selfless. Mentees should seek out potential mentors who set high standards for their own work, thereby setting a real-life working example for their mentee(s). Finally, it is imperative to be honest with a potential mentor about why you want or need a mentor, and why you have selected him/her. Mentors should be willing to make a significant time commitment to the process, and both parties must keep the content of all communication confidential.

Overall, it is best if a mentor has an area of relative expertise that at least overlaps with that of their mentee, but it does not have to be an exact fit. For example, it is possible to have multiple mentors who complement each other with regard to the skill sets they can offer mentees; in particular, it is not uncommon for mentees to have different mentors for their research and clinical development, or for their local or national/international advancement. In addition, it is possible to have a professional career mentor and another mentor who offers advice about life outside of surgery. The downside of having more than one mentor is that it may mean having many different opinions about the appropriate course of action,

Chapter 11. Choosing, and Being, a Good Mentor 175

leaving the mentee to sort through all of the disparate opinions before reaching a final decision about course of action.

A common tradeoff that must be made is between the time commitment that can be offered to counseling by the mentor and the academic rank or seniority of the mentor. Assistant and associate professors tend to have fewer competing commitments and therefore more time to spend with mentees, but this comes at the expense of less experience and real-life wisdom acquired from rising through the ranks of academic surgery. The opposite is true among full professors and local and national leaders in academic surgery. Regardless of whether a junior or senior surgeon is selected to be a mentor, it is essential that an overcommitted person not be chosen. Mentors who cancel meetings with their mentees or who are out of town, in the operating room or meetings, or simply unavailable in person, by phone and/or email are unlikely to make good sounding boards or counselors, particularly in times of crisis, since these are often unexpected and demand rapid counsel. Intermediaries, such as laboratory directors or administrative assistants, should not then become surrogates.

One way to predict accurately who is more likely to make a good mentor is to examine a mentor-candidate’s track record of training or mentorship. As part of the promotion process at most academic institutions, it is common practice for academic surgeons to keep a record of medical students, graduate students, postdoctoral or clinical fellows, residents, and more junior faculty to whom they have served as an advisor or mentor; it is important to tease out the level of involvement the mentor had in the careers of each of the people on this list.

To do this, it is reasonable to ask a mentor to see their training record, and to examine that record for surgeon-sci- entists. It is also appropriate to contact former mentees’ and ask them (in confidence) about their experiences. Finally, it can be useful to examine the mentor’s publication list to see who serves as first author and senior author on peer-reviewed manuscripts. The best mentors propel their mentees’ careers by placing them in the position of first author, while taking the senior author position.