Formal Faculty Mentoring in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Promising Practices 347the practical concerns of their K–12 educational world (Coleman et al., 2006). When they
were doctoral students, these professors were mentored around their practitioner goals at the
near expense of their scholarly goals (Creighton et al., 2008).
In addition, the hectic life of interacting with children or staff, parents, teachers, and
stakeholders shifts to a slower, more reflective space when the practitioner educated leader
enters the university as an assistant professor. University life for education leadership faculty
focuses on teaching aspiring school administrators (Brown & Vornberg, 2005), conducting
research that results in publishable writing (Coleman et al., 2006), and, importantly,
deciphering expectations for research, teaching, and service (Coleman et al., 2006; Mullen &
Forbes, 2000).
Moreover, leaders who enter the professoriate on tenure tracks encounter an unfamiliar
culture, complete with its own codes, rituals, and politics. Survival for many new educational
leadership faculty therefore depends on the assistance provided by experienced, altruistic
insiders, particularly successfully transitioned principals, superintendents, and other leaders
receptive to taking newcomers under their wing.
Underlying this changing professional context and the seemingly elusive expectations of
tenure and promotion is the struggle to develop an identity and place commensurate with the
life of a professor (Coleman et al., 2006; Mullen & Forbes, 2000). A review of the literature
across disciplines (Coleman et al., 2006; Hensley, Erickson, Kinsey, & Stine, 2006; de Janasz
& Sullivan, 2004) confirms the shortage of formal mentoring programs that provide new
university professors with the level of support they need to succeed as developing academics
and in research, teaching, and service. Faculty members who are systemically mentored
demonstrate greater productivity in leadership, receive more competitive grants, and publish
more than faculty without mentors (Coleman et al., 2006; Johnson, 2006; Mullen, 2008).
Thus, formal mentoring programs for education leadership faculty, and indeed all new
university faculty, are sorely needed. They are gaining popularity nationwide but need greater
representation in the educational literature (Gibb, 1999).
How do practitioners with solid experience in school leadership obtain the know-how and
experience needed to thrive in the changing university setting? Upon entry into their new jobs
as assistant professors, they cannot afford to flounder and so must quickly adapt. Expectations
for scholarly productivity in the highly challenging and competitive arena of refereed
publication have escalated for faculty seeking tenure and promotion in research institutions
where one’s work must be consistent with the core values and strategic directions of the
workplace (Brown, 2006; Tierney, 2001).
PROGRAM CONCEPTUALIZATION, STRUCTURE, AND APPROACHES
Leadership and Decision-Making
Positive cultural change occurs within learning organizations through the development of
collaborative support environments; moreover, these are strengthened when decisions are
made from the bottom up (faculty level) and top down (administrative level) (Fullan, 1999).
Through two-way communication, it is easier to solicit buy-in from faculty and administrators
and, importantly, to join representatives from both camps in genuine partnership. It is worth
noting that faculty-led initiatives probably have greater appeal and integrity for college
professors than those where administrators set the pace (Luna & Cullen, 1995). In education