The Mentoring Implementation Subcommittee has reviewed issues related to mentoring at the Gladstone Institutes (recommendations 11–14). The actions we suggest for each recommendation are summarized below.

Recommendation 11: Mentoring should be made a priority item by Gladstone’s top administrators and by the PIs. Mentoring skills should be included as one of the performance categories for which PIs are evaluated. The committee recommends that “mentoring standards” be established based on input both from postdoctoral fellows concerning their mentoring needs and from PIs concerning the types of mentoring they can provide. This process and the subsequent merging of input from the two groups would be managed by HR. Steps should be taken to insure that all Gladstone fellows and mentors receive training in these standards and are thoroughly familiar with them both in principle and in practice. We also recommend that HR organize and disseminate information about mentoring opportunities beyond the postdoctoral fellow’s immediate supervisor (the PI). Such a mentoring network could include other PIs at Gladstone or elsewhere, Gladstone alumni, and established mentoring programs such as the Association for Women in Science program at UCSF. Finally, we strongly recommend that mentors receive feedback from the postdoctoral fellows about their performance in meeting the mentoring standards. Such feedback would be part of a constructive dialog between fellow and mentor, serving to identify areas in which the mentor is doing well and areas that need improvement. More research and discussion are needed to determine if the feedback should be anonymous. The evaluation should be incorporated into the annual performance review of the postdoctoral fellow and of the PI.

Recommendation 12: Consider a periodic training session for PIs on aspects of good mentoring. The subcommittee agreed that PIs should receive periodic training in mentoring. We recommend that the sessions be organized by HR and be focused on the areas identified as needing improvement, as outlined in the discussion of recommendation 11.

Recommendation 13: Develop a neutral and confidential means of addressing issues or problems between postdoctoral fellows and mentors. The issue of conflict resolution was extensively discussed and was considered to be an important part of the postdoctoral program review process. We suggest that more discussion and research be devoted to this issue, and that the guidelines on conflict resolution in the NIH Fellows Handbook be used as a framework. These guidelines outline a process that begins with informal discussion between the fellow and the PI or a designated facilitator. If the conflict is not resolved within a specified period, the fellow could initiate a formal process that begins with a presentation of written concerns to the PI. We believe the NIH guidelines have been well considered and could be implemented at Gladstone with only two minor modifications. First, the facilitator could be either the Director of the appropriate Institute or an HR representative trained in conflict resolution. Second, HR should have the option of calling in an external conflict resolution specialist.

Recommendation 14: Develop a handbook for Gladstone postdoctoral fellows that discusses key aspects of postdoctoral training and identifies means by which this training can be obtained at Gladstone. The subcommittee agreed that a handbook for postdoctoral fellows should be developed, with HR taking responsibility for organizing the effort. The handbook could be modeled on the NIH Fellows Handbook.