really good stuff Correspondence: Tarsis de Mattos Maia, Nutrition School, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Avenida Fernando Correa da Costa, 2.367, Bairro Boa Esperancßa Cuiaba, Mato Grosso 78060-900, Brazil. Tel: 00 55 65 3615 8824; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12569
Speed mentoring: establishing successful mentoring relationships Jennifer Kurr e, Eva Schweigert, Gerhild Kulms & Andreas H Guse What problem was addressed? Mentoring has gained popularity in academic medicine. Several benefits for mentees, mentors and institutions have been reported. Finding the right mentor can be difficult for medical students. Mismatches in mentee–mentor relationships are quite common and often lead to a lack of support or simply the termination of the mentoring relationship. Previous research has addressed the importance to effective mentoring of mentee–mentor compatibility in terms of personal, professional and attitudinal similarities.1 This raises the question of how mentee–mentor compatibility can be fostered. Mentoring in academic medicine is challenged by clinical, research and administrative demands. Thus, an effective mentor represents a precious resource, and the successful connecting of mentors with mentees is greatly important to the avoidance of negative experiences for both parties. What was tried? In December 2011, we introduced an innovative method termed ‘speed mentoring’ with the aim of connecting 37 students (in Years 2 and 3) with faculty mentors at University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. The approach is based on that of speed dating and conceptually addresses some of the matching issues mentioned above. Students in the speed-mentoring cohort spent 5 minutes with each mentor to discuss questions relevant to mentorship, including personal, professional and research issues. Students were able to prepare their questions based on the mentors’ online profiles. Likewise, the respective mentors received applications from each of the students who were intending to see them prior to the speed mentoring event. Afterwards students and mentors used a ranking method and noted their preferred choice. Our study describes the results of a comparison between the speed-mentoring process and a conventional procedure conducted in 2010 when a cohort of students chose their mentors
according to their online profiles. We conducted: (i) a survey (six items that illustrate characteristics of the mentoring relationship using a 1–6-point Likert scale) among both mentoring cohorts after they had each participated in a mentoring programme for 6 months, and (ii) focus groups with mentors and mentees in order to gain an in-depth understanding of speed mentoring as an innovative matching method. What lessons were learned? Twenty-nine of 37 (78.4%) students in the online-profile cohort and 35 of 37 (94.6%) students in the speed-mentoring cohort completed the survey after 6 months of mentorship. Overall, the ratings of mentees in the speed-mentoring cohort were substantially higher than those of students in the online-profile cohort. An analysis of the longevity of the mentoring relationship indicated that more than a third of students in the online-profile cohort quit mentoring after 1 year. In comparison, only one of 37 students in the speed-mentoring cohort resigned from the mentor– mentee relationship. Six mentors and eight mentees participated in separate focus groups. According to both groups, speed mentoring largely benefits from its efficiency and the fact that it allows participants to make comparisons among candidates. Furthermore, the timeframe facilitated a focus on important issues, including academic interests as well as personal similarities. The expectations of both parties were made clear. Thus, speed mentoring served as a valuable aid in decision making. Nearly all of the focus group participants were convinced that a speed mentoring encounter can provide an excellent starting point for a long-term mentoring relationship. The findings suggest that speed mentoring serves as an efficient tool to initiate long-term mentoring relationships because it overcomes common barriers to successful mentoring, such as a lack of fit between the mentor and mentee. REFERENCE 1 Straus SE, Johnson MO, Marquez C, Feldman MD. Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across two academic health centres. Acad Med 2013;88 (1):82–9.
Correspondence: Andreas H Guse, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University Medical Center HamburgEppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Hamburg 20246, Germany. Tel: 00 49 40 7410 52828; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12555
ª 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2014; 48: 1104–1132
1131
Speed mentoring: establishing successful mentoring relationships Jennifer Kurr e, Eva Schweigert, Gerhild Kulms & Andreas H Guse What problem was addressed? Mentoring has gained popularity in academic medicine. Several benefits for mentees, mentors and institutions have been reported. Finding the right mentor can be difficult for medical students. Mismatches in mentee–mentor relationships are quite common and often lead to a lack of support or simply the termination of the mentoring relationship. Previous research has addressed the importance to effective mentoring of mentee–mentor compatibility in terms of personal, professional and attitudinal similarities.1 This raises the question of how mentee–mentor compatibility can be fostered. Mentoring in academic medicine is challenged by clinical, research and administrative demands. Thus, an effective mentor represents a precious resource, and the successful connecting of mentors with mentees is greatly important to the avoidance of negative experiences for both parties. What was tried? In December 2011, we introduced an innovative method termed ‘speed mentoring’ with the aim of connecting 37 students (in Years 2 and 3) with faculty mentors at University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. The approach is based on that of speed dating and conceptually addresses some of the matching issues mentioned above. Students in the speed-mentoring cohort spent 5 minutes with each mentor to discuss questions relevant to mentorship, including personal, professional and research issues. Students were able to prepare their questions based on the mentors’ online profiles. Likewise, the respective mentors received applications from each of the students who were intending to see them prior to the speed mentoring event. Afterwards students and mentors used a ranking method and noted their preferred choice. Our study describes the results of a comparison between the speed-mentoring process and a conventional procedure conducted in 2010 when a cohort of students chose their mentors
according to their online profiles. We conducted: (i) a survey (six items that illustrate characteristics of the mentoring relationship using a 1–6-point Likert scale) among both mentoring cohorts after they had each participated in a mentoring programme for 6 months, and (ii) focus groups with mentors and mentees in order to gain an in-depth understanding of speed mentoring as an innovative matching method. What lessons were learned? Twenty-nine of 37 (78.4%) students in the online-profile cohort and 35 of 37 (94.6%) students in the speed-mentoring cohort completed the survey after 6 months of mentorship. Overall, the ratings of mentees in the speed-mentoring cohort were substantially higher than those of students in the online-profile cohort. An analysis of the longevity of the mentoring relationship indicated that more than a third of students in the online-profile cohort quit mentoring after 1 year. In comparison, only one of 37 students in the speed-mentoring cohort resigned from the mentor– mentee relationship. Six mentors and eight mentees participated in separate focus groups. According to both groups, speed mentoring largely benefits from its efficiency and the fact that it allows participants to make comparisons among candidates. Furthermore, the timeframe facilitated a focus on important issues, including academic interests as well as personal similarities. The expectations of both parties were made clear. Thus, speed mentoring served as a valuable aid in decision making. Nearly all of the focus group participants were convinced that a speed mentoring encounter can provide an excellent starting point for a long-term mentoring relationship. The findings suggest that speed mentoring serves as an efficient tool to initiate long-term mentoring relationships because it overcomes common barriers to successful mentoring, such as a lack of fit between the mentor and mentee. REFERENCE 1 Straus SE, Johnson MO, Marquez C, Feldman MD. Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across two academic health centres. Acad Med 2013;88 (1):82–9.
Correspondence: Andreas H Guse, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University Medical Center HamburgEppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Hamburg 20246, Germany. Tel: 00 49 40 7410 52828; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12555
ª 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2014; 48: 1104–1132
1131
