Purpose To investigate which mentor similarity characteristics women faculty in academic medicine rate most important and to determine whether the importance of similarity differs among women faculty based on current and prior mentoring, demographic and personal factors, and career factors. Method Cross-sectional survey data from 3,100 women faculty at 13 purposively sampled U.S. medical schools were collected in 2012. The preferences of participants regarding the importance of mentor similarity in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, personal and career interests, and department and institution were studied. Analysis entailed chi square tests and multivariable ordered logistic models. Results Overall, respondents ranked having a mentor in the same department and institution as most important. Same department and institution were less important for those without a current mentor and for senior faculty, and were more important for Asian faculty. Same career and personal interests were less important for older faculty and more important for those with a doctorate only. Same gender was more important for Black faculty, faculty at the rank of instructor, and those without current mentoring. Overall, same race/ethnicity was rated least important; however, it was more important for racial/ethnic minorities, foreign-born faculty, and those who had never had a mentor. Conclusions Mentor preferences, as indicated by level of importance assigned to types of mentor similarity, varied among women faculty. To advance effective mentoring, characterized by high degree of mentor-mentee fit, the authors provide recommendations on matching strategies to be used in academic medicine when considering the diverse mentor preferences of women faculty.

BACKGROUND: Business literature has demonstrated the importance of networking and connections in career advancement. This is a little-studied area in academic medicine. OBJECTIVE: To examine predictors of intra-organizational connections, as measured by network reach (the number of first-and second-degree coauthors), and their association with probability of promotion and attrition. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study between 2008 and 2012. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5787 Harvard Medical School (HMS) faculty with a rank of assistant professor or fulltime instructor as of January 1, 2008. MAIN MEASURES: Using negative binomial models, multivariable-adjusted predictors of continuous network reach were assessed according to rank. Poisson regression was used to compute relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for the association between network reach (in four categories) and two outcomes: promotion or attrition. Models were adjusted for demographic, professional and productivity metrics. KEY RESULTS: Network reach was positively associated with number of first-, last-and middle-author publications and h-index. Among assistant professors, men and whites had greater network reach than women and underrepresented minorities (p<0.001). Compared to those in the lowest category of network reach in 2008, instructors in the highest category were three times as likely to have been promoted to assistant professor by 2012 (RR: 3.16, 95 % CI: 2.60, 3.86; p-trend <0.001) after adjustment for covariates. Network reach was positively associated with promotion from assistant to associate professor (RR: 1.82, 95 % CI: 1.32, 2.50; p-trend <0.001). Those in the highest category of network reach in 2008 were 17 % less likely to have left HMS by 2012 (RR: 0.83, 95 % CI 0.70, 0.98) compared to those in the lowest category.CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that coauthor network metrics can provide useful information for understanding faculty advancement and retention in academic medicine. They can and should be investigated at other institutions.