Faculty Affairs Update Alan Wasserstein, MD Vicki Mulhern

Faculty climate survey 73% response rate (n=1046) Distribution of respondents matches SOM as a whole (ranks, tracks, gender) Initial focus on assistant professors Overall satisfaction is not different from ’00 but there are significant improvements in mentoring, areas of concern, and likelihood of staying at Penn

Clinician educator track (CE) comparison with Tenure track (TT) No difference in overall job satisfaction:6.9 vs 7.2 on a ten-point scale Fewer CE than TT feel they understand promotion criteria:74% vs 83% More CE than TT think it likely they will be promoted: 57% vs 46% Similar work hours/wk (63 hr) CE produce more reviews (7.3 vs 4.5) and lectures (15.6 vs 10.8), TT produce more original papers (11.5 vs 17.0)

CE compared with TT: concerns CE more likely to be concerned with: –burnout (71% v 54%) –inadequate salary (62% v 41%) –control over daily work life (46% v 18%) –clinical practice hassles (64% v 31%) –inadequate recognition for clinical work (59% v 29%) –inadequate recognition for teaching (58% v 41%) –lack of support for research (50% v 39%) TT more likely to be concerned with: –too short time prior to promotion (14% v 25%) –difficulty keeping lab personnel (26% v 44%) –insufficient job security (27% v 47%)

CE and TT: Important career goals Teaching Award PromotionOutstand. Clinician Fully Funded Balance Work and Life National Expert CE TT

CE and TT: Conclusions Tenure-probationary assistant professors are worried about promotion and are more likely to think probationary period is too short. They want tenure and national recognition. Few aspire to a teaching award. CE assistant professors have too much clinical burden, too little support for scholarship, too little control over daily work, and less understanding of promotion. They want intramural recognition for clinical work. Both prize balancing work and personal life.

Research track comparison with Tenure track Less satisfaction: 6.4 vs 7.2 on a ten-point scale More likely to leave within 5 years: 55% vs 41% Work fewer hours per week: 57 vs 63 Fewer have secretarial support: 41% vs 64% Fewer have a mentor: 87% vs 98% Less happy with mentoring: 6.0 vs 7.4 on a ten- point scale Fewer understand promotion: 73% vs 83%

Research track vs Tenure track: concerns Research Support Collab’r’nJob Security Lab SpaceTime to Promotion Isolation RT TT

Research track: Conclusions Less well supported in research, lab space, mentoring, collaborations, secretarial help Less job satisfaction, understanding of promotion criteria Feel more pressured by brevity of probationary period More isolated and more likely to leave Penn

Women and Men (controlling for track) Job satisfaction: 6.8 vs 7.1 on ten-point scale –not statistically significant Likelihood of leaving Penn within 5 years: 40% vs 39% Women have modestly fewer peer reviewed papers (11.8 vs 14.5) and abstracts (7.8 vs 11), but same number of lectures, chapters, and reviews Fewer women expect to be promoted: 38% vs 59% (but half of our promotions and senior level appointments this year have been women!)

Work week differences Profess’n’lChildcareTotal Women Men652994

Women and Men: Problem areas Off hours meetings Weekend Work Childcare— emergency Childcare— on-site Inflexible Work Hours W M

Women and gender bias Women more likely to perceive: –unfair treatment because of gender: 27% vs 4% –women are disadvantaged at Penn:61% vs 23% –having been denied credit for work: 46% vs 31% –that their salary is too low for their accomplishments (53% vs 28%), but not their rank

Mentoring (assistant professors, all tracks) Proportion with a mentor is up to 92% from 80% in 2000 – superb progress Having a mentor is associated with increased job satisfaction: 7.0 vs 6.2 on ten- point scale Having a mentor is associated with understanding promotion requirements: 78% vs 66%

Mentoring by track (10-point scale) TenureCEResearch % with mentor Satisfact’n (those w. mentor) Satisfact’n (all asst. profs)

Tenure track gets more mentoring advice than CE from all sources MentorChiefColleague Career85% v 71%77% v 34%78% v 57% Promotion72% v 58%66% v 34%66% v 43% VisibilityNS50% v 21%NS Positive feedback 92% v 73%77% v 42 %83% v 70 %

Having multiple mentors is related to: 2 or more1No mentor Job satisfaction 7.3/106.7/106.2/10 Mentoring satisfaction 7.4/106.3/103.5/10 Mentoring “events” 26/5122/5113/51

Satisfaction with mentoring by gender Women are less satisfied with mentoring: –Assistant professors with mentor: 6.5 vs 7.2 on 10-point scale –All asst professors: 6.2 vs 7.0 on 10-point scale Yet women get virtually the same amount of mentoring as men We did not ask about mentoring on work/life balance

Mentoring: conclusions Mentoring has increased since ‘00, which may bode well for job satisfaction Tenure track gets most mentoring and is most happy with it, Research track least Value of multiple mentors CE faculty are less happy than tenure track with mentoring – too little? Or the wrong kind? Women are less happy with mentoring, though they do get as much

Job satisfaction (asst prof): trend since last survey (10-point scale) CETenureAll ‘ ‘ p=.09

Concerns: trend since last survey ’00‘03 Lack of Control46%35% Promotion too difficult60%51% Recognition for Clinical Work61%49% Collegial Support32%20% Stress52%44% Job Security45%35%

Likelihood of leaving Penn within 5 years ’00‘03 Asst. Prof.47%39% All faculty38%33%

Academic Clinician track Excellence of clinical care and teaching Title: assistant prof of clinical X No requirement for scholarship No up or out. MAY come up for promotion at 10 years – or thereafter Basis for promotion: superior performance Same benefits as standing faculty Three year appointments at asst prof, five years at senior ranks

Clinical performance evaluation Letters of recommendation Productivity – volume, RVUs, referral base Clinical portfolio: CQI, programmatic or procedural innovations Awards (eg Top Docs, Penn awards) Housestaff and fellow evaluations (analogous to teaching evals) COAP subcommittee on clinical performance evaluation

CE track No change in promotion criteria. Clinical research is still typical but not mandatory Clinical research training is highly recommended Specific research focus, time for research, mentoring, and support should be specified at appointment

Support for clinical research New training opportunities: CCEB, CRC, Masters programs Expansion of CRC Office of Human Research – Greg Fromell – help with grant preparation, regulatory issues, etc Informatics AC track

Gender equity Gender Equity Council: recruitment, retention, and environment Each department represented by faculty and faculty coordinator Search committees/outreach Off hours meetings Emergency childcare/concierge service

Underrepresented minority committee COAP chairs from all departments Chair, Dick Landis Charge: recruitment and retention of URMs

Mentoring Quality and focus Work life balance (FOCUS) Faculty Professional Development Developing as a clinician: AC mentoring Mentoring focus groups and workshop Multiple mentors, changing mentors % with mentors (CE and Research tracks) Use of experienced assistant professors, mentors outside department or even SOM

Annual performance review A staple of American corporations Other institutions, some departments Meet with chair or chief to review progress and credentials for promotion, set goals, negotiate service and scholarship time All ranks

Research track Revision of promotion criteria: associate prof requires collaborative work with a distinctive intellectual contribution; probationary period extended to 10 years Full professor continues to require independent investigation Teaching. Mentoring doctoral students Mentoring

Conclusion Faculty climate survey has confirmed some ideas and shown some interesting new directions We are enhancing support for CE track, Research track, mentoring, women, URMs

Search committees and affirmative action Vicki Mulhern