Kang, Ji Yun

Objective: To gain firsthand accounts from female physician leaders in academic medicine to better understand the challenges and success factors they have encountered in order to provide insights to early-career female physicians and inform organizations about the challenges faced by female physicians to build better systems and processes to support them in achieving more satisfying and fulfilling careers within an academic setting. Method: This qualitative research study is based on interviews with female physician leaders. Participants were selected based on their scores in multi-rater leadership assessments taken within the past three years, all ranking in the top 30% across four capabilities: Inspiring Values, Engaging Colleagues, Bold and Forward Thinking, and Driving Results. Coding and thematic analysis were used to categorize the challenges and success factors. Results: Data analysis revealed challenges experienced by these female physician leaders, including gender bias, time constraints, family responsibilities, change and innovation, self-doubt, and exclusion from networking. The strategies identified for navigating these challenges and achieving high performance included support from family and colleagues, building relationships and networking, maintaining a positive attitude, making powerful choices, seizing opportunities, finding value, meaning, and purpose, continuous learning, strategic planning, and gaining recognition. Conclusion: Challenges for female leaders in academic medicine are prevalent and evolve alongside changes in health care. Success factors can be generated at an individual level, such as attitudes, making powerful choices, and networking. However, societal and organizational support, including assistance with family responsibilities and providing opportunities, feedback, and mentorship, has also been identified as crucial.

Goal: The purpose of the research is to explore, through the lens of organizational performance and staff satisfaction, the characteristics of administrative leaders working as dyad partners with physician leaders. Methods: All 54 administrative leaders from 71 clinical departments at the three US Mayo Clinic sites were invited to participate in the study. We used an unsupervised cluster analysis machine learning method to group the leaders based on their characteristics, as measured by the 32-dimension Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ 32r), and we used a three-cluster model to explore the relationships between the clusters and the performance outcome. We took the department performance data from the previous year and compared the percentage of departments with the upward changes among the clusters. For staff survey data, we calculated the percentage of departments with scores that were above average among the three clusters for both physician and administrative staff responses. Principal Findings: Analysis of personality data revealed three different clusters. Cluster 1 leaders were caring and democratic, forward-thinking, strategic, optimistic, and trusting of others. Cluster 2 leaders were extremely hardworking and authoritative. Cluster 3 leaders were caring, modest, and rule-following. Cluster 1 leaders showed the best financial performance and sense of belonging among their followers, cluster 2 leaders elicited high engagement from their departments, and cluster 3 leaders encouraged lower burnout among staff members. Practical Applications: From this study, we obtained empirical evidence of administrative leaders’ characteristics that showed positive relationships with financial and staff-satisfaction metrics. The results showed that distinct types of leaders influence administrative staff and physician staff differently and that different situations require different styles of leadership. We can also conclude that implementing robust, scientifically validated tools to assess leadership traits and tendencies can positively affect leadership and organizational performance for healthcare organizations.