Copyright © 2018, New Forums Press, Inc., P.O. Box 876, Stillwater, OK 74076. All Rights Reserved.

Increasing Leadership Capacity for

Senior Women Faculty through Mutual Mentoring
By Karen List & Mary Deane Sorcinelli

Mentoring has long been viewed as a powerful means of enhancing the professional success and personal wellbeing
of early-career faculty; however, little is known about its benefits for senior faculty. Using data from a peer mentoring
community of six senior faculty women in leadership roles at a research university, this study explores the impact of
mutual mentoring on leadership development. Members shared experiences and expertise, provided support and feedback
regarding current work issues, and deepened social connections and relationships with other advanced-career women.
The findings underscore the importance of mentoring for senior women in leadership positions and of a mutual mentoring
model as an approach that promises significant benefits.

“I F THERE’S NO SEAT AT THE TABLE, pull

up a folding chair.” That advice was given to
women in 1968 by the first black woman candidate
for President of the United States, Shirley Chisholm.
The co-authors of this study proposed bringing to-
gether a community of six women who had followed
Chisholm’s advice for decades to create a late-career
peer mentoring group. All participants, including
the co-authors, were senior women colleagues with
challenging responsibilities as academic leaders
and busy schedules packed with research, teaching
and service. We came from different departments
and held different roles in academic affairs within
a large university setting. Our titles included an as-
sociate provost, two associate deans of colleges, two
department chairs and a program director. Each of
us had learned a lot pulling up folding chairs, and
we all now had seats at the table.
As women leaders we were recognized as
successful in our respective positions, but we were
leading in isolation. In proposing this study, we
wondered: could a peer network of mutual mentors
support senior women colleagues in being more ef-
fective as leaders? Could this process help them to
gain self-knowledge, resolve specific institutional
problems more easily, and broaden their perspec-
tives on their professional career paths? Could it
have broader salutary effects in terms of engaging
faculty in our departments, colleges and University
generally?
Not to spoil the end of the story, but four years
later, we’re still meeting. And over the course of
the four years, our senior women mentoring group
has developed into an ongoing, finely tuned web of
professional and personal support. Members report
contributing to and drawing from the mutual men-
toring process in ways that support them not only
in increasing their abilities as leaders, but also in
feeling more satisfied in their work and home lives.
This article focuses on the design, development
and outcomes of the mutual mentoring network
we created to help one another through the stresses
and complexities of our academic leadership posi-
tions. Our story, the strategies that we developed,
and the successful outcomes we realized attest to
the effectiveness of this approach to mentoring and
professional networking for senior women leaders
at colleges and universities.
Conceptual Design
Mentoring has been recognized as a key
component of a successful faculty career, particularly
for women and faculty of color (Blake-Beard,
1999; Ragins, 1999; Stanley & Lincoln, 2005).
Yet the form of mentoring most frequently cited
in literature is a traditional, top-down, expert-to-
novice, one-on-one relationship model. This model,
in which a new faculty member is supported by
an experienced faculty member, does not lend
itself well to supporting advanced-career faculty,
Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2018 / 7
whose professional and psychosocial mentoring on our work with the Lilly Teaching Fellowship,
needs are unlikely to be addressed by a single which enables promising junior faculty to cultivate
mentor with a similar level of expertise (Mathews, teaching excellence in a special year-long, learning
Russell, Trower, & Crutsinger, 2010). Instead, community (Austin, Sorcinelli & McDaniels, 2007;
to develop our mentoring model, we turned to Sorcinelli, 1994; Sorcinelli & Austin, 1992). One of
more recent literature that documents emerging us had developed and guided that highly regarded
mentoring forms in which early-career faculty work program for some 20 years; the other had been a
with “multiple mentors” (de Janasz & Sullivan, fellow, three-time mentor and had conducted two
2004), “constellations” of mentors (van Emmerik, separate assessments of the program (List, 1997;
2004), “networks” of mentors (Girves, Zepeda, List, 2003).
& Gwathmey, 2005), “developmental networks” Determining criteria for participation in this
(Dobrow, Chandler, Murphy & Kram, 2012) and mentoring experiment and a selection process
a “portfolio” of mentors who address a variety of seemed an important matter to resolve. Early on
career competencies (Higgins & Kram, 2001). in our discussions, we decided that involvement
We were drawn to a model that involved with the Lilly Teaching Fellowship would be the
mutual mentoring because it is a flexible, network-common denominator among those participating.
based model of support in which faculty work with It was not important that everyone in the group be
multiple mentors who provide support in their friends or even know each other, but a mutual love
respective area(s) of expertise, rather than a single
of and dedication to good teaching, we thought,
mentor who is less likely to be able to address thewould help us bond and give us a common back-
wide variety of opportunities and challenges faced ground, providing fodder for early discussion and
by faculty members in a modern academic career. engendering trust.
The model encourages faculty to focus on initiating The two of us had worked together for about 15
mentoring relationships that address their profes- years as part of a four-person team that selected each
sional needs, taking a proactive and empowering class of eight Lilly Fellows based on applications
approach to mentoring, and creating opportunities and in-person interviews. Applications always num-
to both be mentored and mentor others. Sorcinelli bered in the dozens, and along with considerations
(co-author of this study) and her colleague Yun of gender, diversity and discipline, we had tried to
(Sorcinelli & Yun, 2007, 2008) developed the “Mu- assess how well potential fellows might work in a
tual Mentoring” initiative to support early-career group setting. We knew that one member who was
faculty in their career development (see also Yun &too dominant or one who was too reticent could
Sorcinelli, 2009). Evidence from these studies and dictate an unhappy result for the entire group, so
others supported that faculty members who partici- that was a consideration. We also knew we wanted
pated in the Mutual Mentoring initiative were more to work with women faculty who had taken on
likely to regard mentoring as a career-enhancing significant positions of academic leadership, which
activity as well as to develop mutually beneficial would provide another common bond. We thought
relationships with participating peers (Yun, Baldi,that women who represented different disciplines
& Sorcinelli, 2016). However, this model had not would bring different perspectives to the table. And
been adapted or operationalized to support senior we were interested in late-career faculty, character-
faculty, and more specifically late-career women ized by individuals who had served as professors
faculty in leadership roles. for 20 or more years and were at least 55 years old,
whose distinctive needs and contributions are often
Program Design overlooked (Baldwin & Zeig, 2013).
Our first task was to convince other senior
As co-authors of this study with decades of
mentoring experience and a shared understand- women leaders that participating in this pilot re-
ing regarding the lack of mentoring options for search project was worth their time. That was not a
late-career faculty, we recognized the need for given for a number of reasons. First, we knew that
research in this area. We had considerable experi- the faculty members we were seeking, who were
ence forming faculty learning communities based successful, late-career leaders in their respective
8 / The Journal of Faculty Development
areas, were typically overextended in terms of their
commitments and guarded what little free time
they had. Women, studies have shown, routinely
take on heavy service loads, which tend to involve
many meetings, making the prospect of yet more
meetings—even those focused on mutual mentor-
ing—undesirable (Gibson, 2006; Misra, Templer
& Lundquist, 2012). In addition, senior faculty
were typically required, as part of their service,
to mentor junior faculty, graduate students and
the undergraduates in their classrooms, and their
understanding of mentoring was that it was a pro-
cess focused almost exclusively on junior faculty
who were working toward tenure (Trower, 2012)
and occasionally on mid-career faculty seeking
promotion (Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw & Moretto,
2008). All had surpassed these markers, already
having advanced in their careers over a period of
many years, “leaning in,” as Sandberg (2013) had
advised in her work about how women could move
ahead. Could these experienced leaders, who had
accomplished so much on their own, be convinced
that the art of “leaning on” also would be mutually
beneficial and worth their time?
While we were certain that the intrinsic sat-
isfactions of positive peer mentoring relationships
would be a drawing card, we also believed it im-
portant to incentivize mentoring for women faculty
who had many demands on their time and talent.
During this planning phase, we applied for and
were awarded a grant administered by our teach-
ing and faculty development center that provided
a financial incentive of a modest stipend ($1,200)
for each potential group member.
Method
Our selection of participants was purpose-
ful; we wanted to select group members who could
best increase our understanding of the impact of a
mutual mentoring community for senior women
leaders on leadership development. With this in
mind, we first reviewed a list of former Lilly Fel-
lows, half of whom were women, seeking women
who were recognized natural scientists, social
scientists, humanists and creative artists with well-
developed administrative as well as teaching and
scholarly acumen. We coded the list by disciplinary
areas/colleges and by academic leadership positions
at the department, college and university, identify-
ing four women who represented a diversity of
departments, colleges, leadership roles and experi-
ences. We hoped that given their past experience in
the Lilly faculty learning community, these women
would be open to the idea of additional mentoring.
Because of our experience over the years with
various mentoring projects, we wanted both to take
part in and assess this senior women mutual men-
toring experiment. We chose a participant/observer
methodology (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2001),
whereby we would join the group and at the same
time track its inception and subsequent progress
over the course of a year. Beginning with our ini-
tial meeting in September 2012, the two co-authors
took turns taking detailed notes during our monthly
sessions, recording both conversation and impres-
sions. We shared and discussed the notes after each
meeting. At the end of the first year, we asked all
participants to reflect on a few questions: Was this
group helpful to you as an academic leader, and, if
so, what made the experience successful? Are there
ways to make it more effective?
Our initial plan entailed a one-year experiment,
but we met for four. In the subsequent three years,
detailed note-taking during our sessions ended. In-
stead, we noted and discussed observations after our
meetings, identifying two or three key themes. We
also asked for participant feedback on our observa-
tions to ensure that we were accurately depicting
the participants’ experiences and the accuracy of
conclusions drawn from the data.
Group Structure and Process
We set out to learn how a senior women’s
mentoring group could best be designed to maxi-
mize impact on leadership development. Early
on, we addressed questions involving the group’s
structure and process, including scheduling and
length of meetings, general procedure and how to
respect privacy when issues discussed were sensi-
tive. How to facilitate a mutual mentoring group
also is important. As co-authors, we were also
co-leaders who, after much discussion with each
other and the group, determined a way forward
in terms of the frequency, timing, framework for
and content of meetings. To begin, we used email
exchange to settle on a 90-minute to two-hour time
slot near the end of a working day once each month
from September through May. We thought two
Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2018 / 9
hours might be optimum, but wanted participants
to be able to come together between the work day
and dinner with their families. We created a set
schedule of meetings on the third Tuesday of each
month, negotiating very occasional changes in the
calendar over time based on group schedules, and
breaking routine for a celebratory dinner at the end
of each semester.
We called a preliminary meeting, prepared to
convince the group of the potential benefits of late-
career mutual mentoring. These women had loved
their Lilly years, they all missed them and they all
signed on to our experiment immediately, seeing
it as a second opportunity to form a supportive
group around mutual interests. We agreed that all
of us would have the opportunity to speak at each
meeting and that our conversations would remain
confidential. This assured each member that she
would have enough time to work through a problem
and a safe atmosphere for doing so. As well, we
considered assigning relevant readings or a theme
for each meeting but gave up that idea because it
sounded too much like homework, deciding to focus
instead on where our conversations took us and then
supplementing with readings if warranted.
What our community’s outcomes might be was
not so obvious from the start. But those outcomes
became clear over time as the group developed the
necessary trust on which it depended. Creating
an atmosphere in which women leaders felt safe
working on difficult issues was paramount. In fact,
“trust (so important),” “absolute trust” and other
variations on that theme were mentioned multiple
times when we asked participants about the neces-
sary components of a group such as ours, along
with “smarts, curiosity, give-and-take, humor and
goodwill.” “It was so wonderful,” one participant
said, “to walk away from [my building] once a
month and enter a ‘safe’ space where I was not
responsible for anyone or anything.” Another said:
“The trust quotient is not the same in a department,”
an atmosphere that another participant described as
having a “shared insecurity.”
The commonality of the Lilly Fellowship
helped boost the group’s prospects for reflecting
together on aspects of leadership. One member
noted that “the group was well-rounded and valued
teaching in addition to scholarship.” She also noted
that the members’ strong record of service and ad-
10 / The Journal of Faculty Development
ministration “demonstrated that they could think
and be interested in the success of others and the
community, making them a receptive audience for
our sharing time.” Another noted that “the range of
leadership knowledge across the group—finances,
diversity, and development to name a few—height-
ened everyone’s institutional acumen.”
As co-creators of this project, we always felt
that time—specifically lack of it—was our big-
gest enemy. But with no coaxing at all, the six of
us agreed we could find the time—and we rarely
if ever missed a meeting. Monthly meetings were
scheduled by semester and they immediately be-
came a calendar priority. Our first year segued
into two, which easily stretched to three, then four.
We started with “check-ins,” allowing each partici-
pant to share what was on her mind and others to
respond. If one woman’s problem was particularly
prickly, she would ask to go first—or occasionally
even call for a meeting sooner than planned. Fewer
meetings, one woman noted, “would be a loss.”
Once a month was just right, she said, for staying
connected and remembering the importance of
following up on issues raised during the previous
meeting. Very occasionally, someone would miss a
meeting because of an extra pressing schedule or a
conflict, but generally all of us were present every
month through the first three years of meetings. By
the fourth year, one of our members was guiding a
major grant and was able to attend less often. But
for the most part, we were inspired enough to persist
through four years—and counting.
In terms of our professional conversations, the
term “cone of silence” came to be used regularly
as we discussed problems with funding, difficult
colleagues and administrators, searches, tenure
and professional passages. During this four-year
period, one of us transitioned from a center director
to an associate dean of a college, another became
department chair, while one of us retired and one
stepped down as chair. We won grants and went on
sabbaticals.
Over time, we progressed from a largely pro-
fessional conversation to one that included more
of a balance between work/life topics. When this
experiment started, we were not necessarily friends,
but that too changed over time. As we talked more
about our personal lives, family issues sometimes
led the discussion. A year before we started meet-
ing, one of us had lost a daughter. In Fall 2012, we
had 10 children among us, all in college or beyond.
During these four years, they graduated from col-
lege, got internships and jobs and got engaged and
married. One of us lost a husband and several of
us, parents. Through all of the convolutions of our
jobs and our lives, we talked and listened; advised
and supported one another; became stronger men-
tors and better leaders. “It’s been soothing to know
there is a group to whom I could bring work and
sometimes other problems,” one participant noted.
“These women are simply wonderful, caring souls
who listened well, shared frankly and very much
wanted equality among members.”
Results and Discussion
After four years of conversation, some
conclusions seem clear. Mutual mentoring among
this group gave us: a forum for professional problem
solving among women academic leaders, including
decisions on leadership transitions; a safe space,
sounding board and source of perspective for solving
more confidential professional issues; an opportunity
to recognize personal leadership achievements, take
credit for and build on them; and a lifeline—a place
where we could expect any concern—professional
or personal—to be met with compassion.
A Forum for Leaders’ Professional
Problem Solving
Much like the Lilly Teaching Fellows Program
had allowed us to learn about teaching in different
departments, this mutual mentoring group gave us a
much broader awareness of and perspective on lead-
ership across the University, allowing participants
to share and improve their leadership skills. Some
of the questions we discussed were major ones, for
example, the number of women full professors in
our departments; the likelihood that women will
take on more service than men and how women are
still expected to do it all. In relation to the latter,
one participant said as she thought about the issue,
“I felt like my head was blowing off. Everything
was framed as personal choice. It isn’t. These ques-
tions are institutional and structural.” Another said,
“Women don’t expect to have it all anymore. If
they do, they can’t do anything as well,” to which
someone responded: “I was expected not only to
have it all but to DO it all.”
We also discussed the value of leadership. “It
can’t be for self-promotion,” one woman said. “It
has to be about something larger that you value.”
For another participant, that larger “value” was stu-
dents’ welfare. She talked about making decisions
based on what was best for students and sought
the group’s advice on several difficulties that could
stem from “putting students first.” And we talked
about personal leadership decisions, questioning
and re-assessing priorities as we let go of certain
positions to take on others or as we planned routes
to promotions that were sometimes stalled by too
much service—service that enhanced the depart-
ment/college but might not be valued or rewarded in
terms of individual recognition. We also discussed
the over-arching problem of time—the time it takes
to be a thoughtful leader, our shared inability to say
no and our always feeling rushed, often being late.
In addition to sharing our experiences in rela-
tion to these larger questions, we also talked about
specific leadership problems. How did faculty
searches work, for example, in one of our depart-
ments compared to another? What was the process
for assigning faculty courses? How much did teach-
ing, research, and service “count” in terms of tenure,
promotion, and award nominations? We often were
surprised that these basic leadership tasks were
handled quite differently in different departments,
and we gained both knowledge and perspective
to take back to our own areas. These discussions
not only helped us formulate and assess our own
actions, but gave us a richer knowledge base on
which to draw in discussions with our own faculty.
If one of us had a particular problem, we often
shared it at the start of a meeting and everyone at
the table would weigh in with ideas. If solutions
were sought, we offered them, but sometimes what
was needed was careful listening or comparative
perspectives. One participant noted: “The group
members, though part of the campus community,
were different enough from me that they could
look at my supervisory issues with fresh eyes, and
I came to appreciate different ways of thinking and
doing from hearing about everyone’s experiences.”
Another said: “This group has taught me a lot
about political savvy.” Yet another commented:
“This group has given me fresh and very helpful
perspective on my experiences as a woman in the
workplace. I’ve learned that my experiences are
Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2018 / 11
shared, and I think I’ve also gotten a better sense An Occasion for Acknowledging and
of where I want to put my energy at this university, Building on Leadership Successes
and how, in the coming years.” This group of women could best be described
as those who get on with their jobs and don’t talk
A Safe Space for Confidential Concerns
much about themselves or what they have accom-
Not surprisingly, as leaders of different aca- plished. Studies, in fact, show that women are slow
demic units, we often had problems beyond routine to talk about their successes (Daniell, 2006). Com-
process, and those problems often involved person- ments from one early meeting included thoughts
nel issues: What to do about a faculty member who like these: “I’m questioning my ambition,” “I feel
wanted special treatment? A tenure track assistant like I’m on the verge of failing at everything,” “I
professor who was not making sufficient progress? worry about what others think” and “How can I feel
“High maintenance faculty” who offended every- and project confidence as the person with ultimate
one? A staff person who was not working up to her responsibility for my area?” One participant com-
potential? mented: “Most strikingly, this group showed me that
We found that we could discuss these sensitive many of us had a sort of ‘morning after’ reaction—a
issues effectively as we very quickly established the rush of self-questioning and anxiety when we’ve
trust necessary to do so. These sorts of managerial acted publically as leaders in any way.”
problems were harder to discuss within units be- But again, this group was exceptionally tal-
cause of the need to maintain confidentiality, but in ented and accomplished—and we needed to see our-
our situation, we could describe the difficulties with- selves more clearly. So we encouraged one another
out identifying the person involved and, thereby, to recognize our successes—large and small—and
get much needed counsel. We all agreed that these to take credit for them. One participant described
issues involving colleagues were among the most this kind of sharing as “exploration into what we’ve
difficult, and getting new ideas and perspectives done that’s been good and why and how.” If we
from the group was especially helpful. orchestrated a successful negotiation, won an award
Generally before such an issue was broached, or published an article, this was a setting in which
one of us would ask: “Cone of silence?” And the we were encouraged to say so. In fact, one of us
rest would immediately agree. In fact, as noted often would prompt another to share such a story,
earlier, we had decided before our project began that and the group then could be counted on to discuss
conversations would remain absolutely confidential. it at length—how it happened and why we’d done
Here again, the speed at which we established this well. We asked one another not to demure but to
deep trust had to do with some common background take credit. When two of us were nominated for
and general familiarity with one another, which a University award that a male colleague won, we
quickly translated to the confidence in one another’s were encouraged to say that either of us would have
discretion necessary to these conversations. “It was been a better choice. In what other forum could that
useful to be able to complain and vent and share possibly have happened?
some of the stresses of the job with an open and Soon a portion of our meetings was devoted
caring group,” one woman said. not only to pending problems, but to positive news
And of course the thorny questions sometimes like this. “This group was a great morale booster
involved our own professional decisions: Should for me,” a participant said. Another said: “I learned
I put myself forward as a candidate for dean? For from this group of successful women. I . . . see how
department chair? Should I step down as chair? remarkable our group members are. They, like many
Should I pursue this grant opportunity or that award women on campus, have a vast array of talents
nomination? When do I know it is time to relinquish and they work incredibly hard—too hard maybe
a leadership role or to retire? How do I shape an for the respect and recognition they receive.” The
encore career? The collective perspective of the group helped provide some of that “respect and
mutual mentoring group quickly became a voice recognition” for its members. One member said:
of reason on which we all relied in relation to these In the company of this group, “I felt that I could
confidential concerns. rediscover some of myself that has been lost over
12 / The Journal of Faculty Development
the years. This group made me feel a bit special,
and I needed that.” Another noted: “It helped us
feel less overwhelmed or crazy and hopefully armed
with more self-knowledge and less self-judging.”
We also felt proud of specific outcomes on
which we’d taken leadership since starting our
mutual mentoring group—outcomes that were
discussed with the group as they were developed
and instituted. Each of us created an initiative to
change something within our department or col-
lege such as a panel on how female professors
and peers can encourage young women in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics, with a
follow-up reception for all women faculty; devel-
opment of a “clearing house” for female faculty
interested in joining or creating peer mentoring
groups; a departmental agenda on issues of gender
and under-represented students, and a “peer mentor-
ing in teaching for lecturers” initiative as part of an
external grant proposal.
A Compassionate Lifeline
Perhaps the most unexpected outcome of our
Mutual Mentoring group was the deep connec-
tion we developed that allowed us to expand our
professional discussions to include more personal
issues. The trust that allowed us to share sensitive
issues and to take credit for our achievements also
helped us create a space where we could expect any
concern—professional or personal--to be met with
genuine interest and compassion. This group rapidly
developed into one that was not only useful in terms
of decision making and self-regard, but necessary--a
place where we could air any life concern with the
sure knowledge that we would be heard. With the
possible exception of the Lilly Fellows program,
this was something that we’d never experienced,
certainly not in our departments where we could not
discuss many of the professional issues we broached
and certainly not the personal ones. “The spirit of
our meetings was similar to how I felt when I was
a Lilly fellow,” one participant said. “The camara-
derie was key to my experience, and that positive
spirit made it possible for me to talk about many
of the things I find challenging about working in a
department that is part of a huge university.”
We had found a group that served a purpose
ranging from targeted discussion of specific profes-
sional problems to general life support. McEwen
(2011) calls these “the infinitely healing conversa-
tions” (p. 33). One member said: “I appreciated
being able to speak frankly and think the University
and the world would be better places if truth had a
more prominent role in daily discourse.” Another
said she had at last felt comfortable admitting that
when she was alone, she “worked like a maniac
and felt panicky and overwhelmed.” The group had
helped her say “that’s not who I am.” Yet another
sent this email after a meeting: “Yesterday was
really something. Just plain moving to be among
women listening so well and connecting so thought-
fully.”
Our group had begun with an emphasis on
professional issues, but we quickly began to end
each session by going around the table to share
something about our personal lives. As noted earlier,
we experienced all of the personal issues that one
would expect in relation to late career women—and
more. We talked together about the loss of those
we loved; about the joy of children’s success and
marriages; about hobbies and travel. Prior to our
forming this group, these parts of our lives that were
central to who we are might never have come up on
campus. The fact that they now did at our monthly
meetings added to our perspective as professional
women leaders coping with all of life’s challenges.
“That is a big part of the success of this group,”
one participant said. “We have gotten to know each
other and are still getting to know each other, and
that is really interesting.” Another woman said: “I
learned that everyone—to a person—has struggles,
and it was very powerful and healing to know that
the ideal perfect life that is held up to us as reality
rarely exists. These women have succeeded through
hard work and grit. They are challenged every day
and yet they keep going. What an inspiration!” An-
other added that “the conversations on every level
are illuminating and empowering and have helped
me to better understand how I direct my energy
between work and family.”
Conclusion
In the end, all of these outcomes helped to
re-energize our job satisfaction and fulfillment, as
they deepened our relationships with other women
leaders on campus. One participant summed it up
this way: Our mutual mentoring group “provided
a sense of camaraderie among women who are all
Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2018 / 13
invested in the institution, which is good for the
institution as well as the women. It provided a way
for us to work out with each other what we bring
to the workplace and to figure out how to tap those
talents and that social awareness. This in turn al-
lowed us to lead—to do our best teaching, research
or committee work and to create better workplaces.”
We had redefined Sandburg’s advice to women
leaders to “lean in,” as we had learned to “lean on”
one another. It might have been a leap of faith to
start, but the outcomes we achieved were very real,
and they suggest best practices for others who may
want to try nourishing late career women’s leader-
ship in this way.
Future research is needed to evaluate how this
model could work with other late-career faculty who
may not have had similar opportunities to engage
in prior mentoring, as the participants in this group
had. However, given the degree to which senior
women faculty leaders often work in isolation
(Hannum, Muhly, Shockley-Zalabak, White, 2014),
studies with varied selection processes would be
well worth the effort. In the meantime, we believe
that this kind of formal, mentoring opportunity
for women leaders—and for any group belonging
to the same population demographic (e.g. women
faculty, post-tenure faculty, faculty of color) who
share a research, teaching, career stage or identity
interest—can be replicated and serve as a model
for mutual mentoring. Any of these demographic
groups could profit from a reframing of Shirley
Chisholm’s advice by creating their own table--and
pulling up a chair. They too might leave the table
with a deeper sense of identity, empowerment and
connection.
References
Austin, A. E., Sorcinelli, M. D., & McDaniels, M. (2007). Understanding
new faculty: Background, aspirations, challenges and growth. In J. C.
Smart & R. P. Perry (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning
in higher education: An evidence based perspective (pp. 39-92). New
York: Springer Publishers.
Baldwin, R., & Zeig, M. (2013, May) Tapping into the potential of late-career
professors. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.
insidehighered.com/advice/2013/05/10/tapping-potential-late-career-
professors-essay
Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008 September/
October). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research
university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change
Magazine, 46-55.
14 / The Journal of Faculty Development
Blake-Beard, S. (1999). The costs of living as an outsider within: An analysis
of the mentoring relationships and career success of Black and White
women in the corporate section. Journal of Career Development,
26, 21-36.
Daniell, E. (2006). Every other Thursday. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
de Janasz, S. C., & Sullivan, S. E. (2004). Multiple mentoring in academe:
Developing the professional network. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
64(2), 263-283.
Dobrow, S.R., Chandler, D.E., Murphy, W.M., & Kram, K.E. (2012). A review
of developmental networks: Incorporating a mutuality perspective.
Journal of Management, 38(1), 210-242.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2001). Participant observation
and fieldnotes. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, &
L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography.(pp: 356-357). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Gibson, S. (2006). Mentoring of women faculty: The role of organizational
politics and culture. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 63-79.
Girves, J. E., Zepeda, Y., & Gwathmey, J. K. (2005). Mentoring in a post-
affirmative action world. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 449-479.
Hannum, K., Muhly, S., Shockley-Zalabak, P., & White, J. S. (2014). Stories
from the Summit Trail: Leadership Journeys of Senior Women in
Higher Education, Higher Education Resource Services (HERS).
Retrieved from: http://hersnet.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/
StoriesfromtheSummitTrail.pdf
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at
work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 264-288.
List, K. (1997). A continuing conversation on teaching: The Lilly teaching
program at UMass, 1985-1995. To Improve the Academy, 16, 201-224.
List, K. (2003). The “conversation” continues: UMass Lilly teaching fellows
program builds on first 10 years. Journal of Faculty Development,
19(2), 57-64.
Mathews, K., Russell, B., Trower, C., & Crutsinger, C. (2010). Multi-
institutional perspectives on senior faculty engagement and vitality.
In Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in
Higher Education, St. Louis, MO, 5 Nov 2010.
McEwen, C. (2011). World enough & time: On creativity and slowing down.
Peterborough, NH: Bauhan Publishing.
Misra, J., Templer, A., & Lundquist, J. (2012). Gender, work-time, and care
responsibility among faculty. Sociological Forum, 29(2): 300-323.
Ragins, B.R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and
research agenda for the next decade. In G.N. Powell (Ed.), Hand-
book of gender and work (pp.347-370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Sandberg, Sheryl. (2013). Lean in: Women, work and the will to lead. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Sorcinelli, M.D. (1994). Effective approaches to new faculty development.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 72(5), 474-479.
Sorcinelli, M. D. & Austin, A. E. (Eds.). (1992). New Directions in Teaching
and Learning: No. 52. Developing new and junior faculty. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sorcinelli, M. D., & Yun, J. H. (2007). From mentors to mentoring networks:
Mentoring in the new academy. Change Magazine, 39(6), 58 -61.
Sorcinelli, M. D. & Yun, J. H. (April, 2008). Finding a mentor. Advocate:
Thriving in Academe, 26(5), 5-8.
Stanley, C., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Cross-race faculty mentoring. Change,
37(2), 44 -50.
Trower, C.A. (2012). Success on the tenure track: Five keys to faculty job
satisfaction. Baltimore, M.D.: The John Hopkins University Press.
van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2004). The more you can get the better: Mentoring
constellations and intrinsic career success. Career Development In-
ternational, 9(6/7), 578 -594.
Yun, J., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2009). When mentoring is the medium: Les-
sons learned from a faculty development initiative. To Improve the
Academy, 27, 365-384.
Yun, J. H., Baldi, B., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2016). Mutual mentoring for early-
career and underrepresented faculty: Model, research, and practice.
Innovative Higher Education, 41(1), 441-451.
Karen List, Ph.D. is Professor, Department of
Journalism, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
She has published book chapters and articles and
has won distinguished teaching awards at three re-
search universities and the National Freedom Forum
Journalism Teacher of the Year Award. She teaches
history of American journalism; journalism law;
journalism ethics; and gender issues in journalism.
She served as Department Chair for nine years.
Mary Deane Sorcinelli, Ed.D. is Senior Fellow,
Institute for Teaching Excellence & Faculty Devel-
opment, University of Massachusetts Amherst. She
has published over 100 books, book chapters and
articles on faculty professional development and
the role of teaching centers in fostering 21st century
faculty learning. She served as Associate Provost
and Founding Director, Center for Teaching &
Faculty Development, University of Massachusetts
Amherst for 25 years.
Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2018 / 15
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.