Edited by: Nina Pereza, University of Rijeka, Croatia
Reviewed by: Tereza Otcenaskova, University of Hradec Králové, Czechia
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Faculty development (FD) is foundational to advancing the quality of health professions education and, by extension, the healthcare system. While FD has traditionally emphasized teaching, its scope now includes educational leadership, scholarship, and systems-level change. This Perspective argues for the adoption of competency-based FD frameworks to not only support individual educator growth but also catalyze institutional transformation. Aligning FD programming with established educator competencies fosters professional identity, enables targeted skill development, and legitimizes educational contributions in academic medicine. Drawing from global models—including frameworks from the United States, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Lebanon—we illustrate how institutions can adapt existing structures to their specific needs. We describe our experience at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where a locally tailored competency framework was developed to define six core educator domains and associated metrics. This initiative has driven significant changes in FD offerings, educator recognition, and promotion processes. Key lessons include the importance of making educator work visible, aligning FD with promotion pathways, delivering flexible programming, and engaging stakeholders early. Adapting frameworks to local contexts clarifies institutional values, supports customized faculty programming, and strengthens advocacy for educational excellence. Ultimately, competency-based FD serves as a strategic tool to enhance faculty satisfaction, retention, and institutional impact. We encourage institutions to adopt a systems-oriented approach that integrates shared standards with local relevance to elevate educational practice and culture.
Faculty development (FD), defined as activities designed to enhance the knowledge, skills, attitudes or behaviors of health professionals in their roles as educators, has long been recognized as a cornerstone of health professions education (HPE) (
While the importance of FD is established, without deliberate integration, FD initiatives may fail to foster environments in which educators feel seen, supported, and empowered to succeed in their multifaceted roles. Using a competency framework can provide structure for thoughtful planning and evaluation of FD, however, faculty educator competencies are not comprehensively applied (
This perspective piece argues that faculty development for health professions educators extends far beyond teaching instruction—it is integral to scholarly activity, leadership, and administrative success. We share lessons learned from our own experience adopting a competency-based framework to design and implement comprehensive FD initiatives focused on developing the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors of our teaching faculty and also to support a shift in institutional support and recognition of educator faculty. We also share specific global models that highlight the breadth of ways that faculty development may take form, this is not meant to be an exhaustive review, but rather to give some varied examples for consideration. Our aim is to encourage readers to adopt an intentional, systems-oriented approach to FD that responds to institutional needs while leveraging shared language and standards to ensure quality and coherence within HPE.
Faculty development is essential not only for workforce development but also for cultivating and sustaining the professional identity of educators within academic health systems (
Framing faculty development as a tool for advocacy and organizational change requires skilled leadership to advocate more effectively for resources and institutional recognition. Faculty development that includes a focus on educational leadership equips faculty with the tools to take on strategic roles within their institutions—roles that require not only pedagogical skill, but also the capacity to build programs, influence policy, and shape institutional (
Moreover, faculty development can help to clarify and promote educational scholarship. By providing shared definitions and expectations for what constitutes scholarly work in education, FD initiatives support faculty in documenting their contributions and seeking promotion based on educational activities. This is particularly important in academic environments where research and clinical productivity are often more visibly valued than educational excellence (
Faculty development can take many forms. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to implementation. There is, however, a growing international consensus of core components of FD and we have much to learn from both shared experiences and local approaches (
Applying a competency framework to faculty development design offers strategic scaffolding for such efforts (
Although institutional contexts vary, a number of guiding frameworks can inform the design of tailored faculty development programs. In the United States, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) sponsored thought leaders to develop a comprehensive model of clinician educator milestones specifically designed for educators to use for self-assessment and self-directed learning. Training programs and other entities may use this framework to identify areas faculty development programming.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Academy of Medical Educators (AoME) has developed
The Netherlands Council of Deans of Medical Schools has taken a comparable approach by establishing a national task force to develop criteria for evaluating medical educator qualifications. They have developed domains across the micro, meso and meta levels. These domains provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the qualifications of medical educators, ensuring that they possess the necessary competencies to contribute effectively at multiple levels within the educational system. This model can be modified to fit local settings and needs (
Daouk-Öyry et al. focused on identifying and developing a competency framework tailored for academic physicians in a teaching medical center in Beirut, Lebanon (
The study involved semi-structured interviews with 25 academic physicians to explore behaviors in teaching, clinical, research, and administrative roles. Through content analysis, they identified 16 competencies, categorized into five “Supporting Competencies” common to all roles and 11 “Function-Specific Competencies” unique to specific roles.
The framework shares similarities with existing competency-based models but includes unique elements tailored to their specific organizational context. It aims to bridge the gap between the skills taught to medical students and those required of academic physicians, with a future orientation and a focus on administrative skills.
At our institution, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, we have used a competency framework to build on established longstanding skills-development focused FD programs. This expanded scope promotes institutional change, specifically around the recognition, support, and promotion of educator faculty. Our work started with a problem common to many academic health centers with multiple missions; faculty whose primary career focus is education do not feel valued and report slower career advancement (
The Educator Competencies and Metrics Committee (ECMC) formed by the Executive Vice Dean in 2019, comprised a diverse group of faculty and staff, from across the institution representing the educational continuum. The committee unanimously agreed that using a competency framework to describe the activities of educators would provide broad structure for the design of FD programming. The committee also understood that this framework lent itself to developing clear and meaningful metrics for recognizing educational excellence and scholarship, thus addressing a primary goal of the committee: academic promotion for educators (
After reviewing several educator competency frameworks as guides, we focused on describing what Johns Hopkins School of Medicine educators do in their daily work to develop a local framework that met our needs. The Johns Hopkins Educator Competencies and Metrics (ECM) framework includes 6 domains of educator work (Teaching and Facilitating Learning; Educational Leadership; Mentoring, Coaching and Advising; Program and Curriculum Development; Educational Scholarship; Assessment and Evaluation). Each domain includes subdomains with competencies. As our goal was also to ensure recognition and promotion of faculty educators, we also developed metrics for each domain which describe examples of educational activities and impact designed to align with local promotion criteria.
An example domain, sub-domain and associated competencies within our competency framework is the domain of
Solicits and incorporates ongoing feedback from all constituents.
Demonstrates an awareness of how their behavior affects others.
Seeks advice, feedback, or coaching from others in order to become a better leader.
Helps team members succeed and grow into future leaders.
The work of this committee has yielded significant changes, including the development of a comprehensive set of faculty development offerings. These offerings are aligned with the key domains of educator work and address specific competencies within those domains. They are available in various formats to meet the needs of educational programs and individual faculty. The framework has also been used to create a set of institutional educational awards to more fully reflect and celebrate the work of educator faculty.
As a tool for advocacy, we have also addressed the promotion process by using the domains in promotion materials to highlight the impact of educational activities. This includes creating a common language in the CV and required promotion nomination letter and using the metrics to successfully argue for major changes to the promotion system. The institution is considering the creation of a separate educator promotion track using the work of the ECMC as a guide. Lastly, having detailed descriptions of educator roles has provided a stronger basis for advocacy around compensation for teaching and other educational work.
The benefits of a competency framework for Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM) stakeholders.
| JHUSOM stakeholder | Benefit/use of competency framework |
|---|---|
| Faculty |
Professional development guide wherein a faculty member identifies domains of interest and pursues appropriate faculty development opportunities and training. |
| Mentors division/department directors |
Provides targeted guidance on career pathway. Advises on career advancement and readiness for promotion. |
| Faculty development |
Guides investments in faculty development resources. Focuses programming to ensure faculty are up-to-date with best practices in teaching, mentoring, coaching and advising, curriculum and program development and assessment and evaluation methods. |
| Educational leadership |
Supports workforce development efforts through the definition of educator roles and job descriptions for recruitment. |
| Promotions committees |
Supports consistent fair and transparent performance and promotion expectations. |
| Macro level – Accrediting bodies, learners, public, biomedical education |
Quality assurance. Ensures the institution is in compliance with national requirements for faculty training. Guides improvements and innovations in biomedical education. |
One key lesson learned from the evolution of our faculty development work is the importance of making educators’ work visible. The use of a competency framework not only guides individual growth and curriculum design but also creates a common language for evaluating and advocating for the role of educators in academic medicine (
There were many lessons learned in our institutional faculty development efforts. These include:
When considering how to build or enhance a faculty development program, one critical starting point is identifying and implementing a competency framework. Such frameworks provide structure and clarity by defining the core knowledge, skills, and attitudes educators need to thrive in their roles. For anyone undertaking this work, you might ask the first question:
Effective faculty development programs are critical to advocating for faculty educators and driving institutional change. In our own work, we have identified several key lessons learned that highlight the importance of designing flexible and responsive programming that can adapt to evolving faculty and institutional needs (
Lessons learned and best practices based in the literature and JHUSOM experience.
| Theme | Lesson learned/best practice |
|---|---|
| Adaptability | Design flexible and responsive programming that can evolve with institutional and faculty needs. |
| Developmental orientation | Meet faculty where they are by recognizing their varying stages of professional identity and growth. |
| Capacity building | Build individual and institutional capacity in teaching, leadership, and scholarship. |
| Stakeholder engagement | Engage diverse stakeholders early to align goals and foster shared ownership. |
| Visibility of educational work | Use competency frameworks to surface and legitimize the educational contributions of faculty. |
| Strategic communication | Communicate frequently and broadly to socialize ideas and galvanize institutional change. |
| Needs assessment | Conduct targeted assessments to inform programming and ensure relevance to faculty needs. |
| Inclusive innovation | Involve faculty developers in the planning and implementation of curricular and institutional change. |
| Change advocacy | Leverage faculty development as a platform for advancing educational equity and institutional reform. |
| Faculty well-being | Promote connection and satisfaction through community-building and shared purpose. |
| Recognition and value | Use FD to affirm the value of educational roles and support pathways for recognition. |
| Leadership pathways | Position faculty development as a conduit for leadership opportunities and promotion. |
| Program evaluation | Plan for program evaluation to demonstrate meaningful outcomes and advocate for ongoing resources and support. |
References: (
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
MR: Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RL: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.