"A Much Wider Field in Which to Operate": Early Black Women Physicians in Public Health.

In a profession shaped by Whiteness and masculinity, the few Black women physicians who earned medical degrees prior to the Second World War found some of their rare professional opportunities in public health. Though their choices were often constrained by racism and sexism, they embraced public health work as a means of carrying out their "mission" in marginalized communities and as a way of practicing medicine with a more expansive definition than treating individual patients or illnesses. Black women physicians shaped public health by creating unique programming to meet the needs of the communities they served, including mobile health clinics and community health weeks. The first Black women physicians who worked in public health in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries applied the new tool of public health "vital" statistics to Black lives and questioned the limits of their utility when created by White practitioners with racial biases. In the 1930s, some Black women physicians began earning some of the first master's degrees in public health, just as the field was beginning to professionalize. Throughout the twentieth century, Black women physicians pioneered community health programming and, though born from exclusionary policies that limited where they could practice, experimented with alternative clinical spaces, even as the hospital and laboratory became the primary sites of medicine for White clinicians. By embracing public health, Black women physicians shaped the field and used it as a tool to address racial health disparities in the communities they served, acting on their belief that Black health could be improved, thereby contesting notions of biological inferiority.

Gender inequity in the medical profession: the women doctors in Spain (WOMEDS) study.

BACKGROUND: The long-standing underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in medicine is well-known, but poorly documented globally. There is some evidence of the gender gap in academia, medical society leadership, or specific problems in some specialties. However, there are no investigations analyzing all medical specialties together and reporting the glass ceiling from a 360º perspective that includes positions in academia, research, professional organizations, and clinical activity. Additionally, the majority of studies have a US perspective, and we wonder if the perspective of a European country might be different. The WOmen in MEDicine in Spain (WOMEDS) project ( https://womeds.es ) aims to describe and characterize, in a systematic and detailed way, the gender bias in the medical profession in Spain in order to monitor its evolution over time and contribute to prioritizing gender policies. METHODS: We retrieved data for the calendar years 2019-2021 from several sources and selected surveys. We built four groups of indicators to describe leadership positions in the medical profession: (i) leadership in healthcare according to specialty and region; (ii) leadership in scientific and professional bodies; (iii) academic career; and (iv) leadership in clinical research activity. As a summary measure, we reported the women ratios, calculated as the percentage of women in specific top positions divided by the percentage of women in the relevant population. RESULTS: We found gender inequity in leadership positions in all four settings. During the observed period, only 27.6% of the heads of departments in hospitals were women compared to 61.1% of women in medical staff. Ten of the 46 medical societies grouped in the Spanish Federation of Medical Societies (FACME) (21.7%) had a women president at some point during the study period, and only 4 annual congresses had ratios of women speakers higher than 1. Women were over-represented in the lower positions and underrepresented in the top academic ones. Only 26% and 27%, respectively, of the heads of departments and deans were women. The applications for public funding for research projects are led by women only in 45% of the cases, and the budget granted to women in public calls was 24.3% lower than that of men. CONCLUSION: In all the areas analyzed, the leadership positions are still mostly occupied by men despite the feminization of medicine in Spain. The severe gender inequity found calls for urgent interventions within a defined time horizon. Such measures must concern all levels, from national or regional regulation to changes in organizational culture or incentives in specific organizations.

RESUMEN EN ESPAÑOL: ANTECEDENTES: La prolongada infrarrepresentación de las mujeres en los puestos de liderazgo en medicina es bien conocida, pero está poco documentada de forma global. Hay evidencia sobre la brecha de género en la universidad, en el liderazgo en sociedades médicas o en determinadas especialidades. Sin embargo, no hay investigaciones que analicen el techo de cristal de cada una de las especialidades médicas desde una perspectiva 360º que incluya el liderazgo en la universidad, en la investigación con fondos públicos, en la representación en sociedades científicas y colegios profesionales y en la actividad clínica. Además, la mayoría de los estudios tienen una perspectiva estadounidense y nos preguntamos si la perspectiva de un país europeo podría ser diferente. El proyecto Mujeres en Medicina en España (WOMEDS) ( https://womeds.es ) tiene como objetivo describir y caracterizar de forma sistemática y detallada sesgo de género en la profesión médica en España, para monitorizar su evolución en el tiempo y contribuir a priorizar las políticas de género. MéTODOS: Construimos cuatro grupos de indicadores sobre liderazgo de mujeres médicos: (i) en la asistencia sanitaria; (ii) en las organizaciones científicas y profesionales; (iii) carrera académica, y; and (iv) l en la investigación basándonos en datos públicos y resultados de encuestas propias s referidas a los años 2019­2021. Como medida de análisis, calculamos los ratios de mujeres, definidos como el porcentaje de mujeres en puestos altos específicos dividido por el porcentaje de mujeres en la población relevante. RESULTADOS: Encontramos un sesgo de género en los cuatro ámbitos. Durante el periodo observado, solo el 27.6% de los jefes de servicio de los hospitales eran mujeres, frente al 61.1% de mujeres en la plantilla. Diez de las 46 sociedades médicas agrupadas en la Federación de Asociaciones Científico Médicas Españolas (FACME) (21.7%) tuvieron una mujer como presidente en algún momento del periodo de estudio y sólo 4 congresos anuales tenían ratios de mujeres ponentes superiores a 1. Las mujeres estaban sobrerepresentadas en los cargos inferiores e infrarrepresentadas en los cargos académicos superiores. Sólo el 26% y el 27%, respectivamente, de los jefes de departamento y decanos eran mujeres. La solicitud de proyectos de investigación con financiación pública fue liderada por mujeres en un 45% de los casos y la financiación media de los proyectos concedidos a las mujeres fue un 24.3% inferior a la de los hombres. CONCLUSIóN: En todos los ámbitos analizados, las posiciones de liderazgo siguen siendo mayoritariamente ocupada por varones a pesar de la feminización de la medicina. Para cambiar esto, será necesario tomar medidas, tanto regulatorias -a nivel nacional y nacional regional como promover cambios en la cultura organizativa o en los incentivos en organizaciones concretas.

Systemic structural gender discrimination and inequality in the health workforce: theoretical lenses for gender analysis, multi-country evidence and implications for implementation and HRH policy.

This commentary brings together theory, evidence and lessons from 15 years of gender and HRH analyses conducted in health systems in six WHO regions to address selected data-related aspects of WHO's 2016 Global HRH Strategy and 2022 Working for Health Action Plan. It considers useful theoretical lenses, multi-country evidence and implications for implementation and HRH policy. Systemic, structural gender discrimination and inequality encompass widespread but often masked or invisible patterns of gendered practices, interactions, relations and the social, economic or cultural background conditions that are entrenched in the processes and structures of health systems (such as health education and employment institutions) that can create or perpetuate disadvantage for some members of a marginalized group relative to other groups in society or organizations. Context-specific sex- and age-disaggregated and gender-descriptive data on HRH systems' dysfunctions are needed to enable HRH policy planners and managers to anticipate bottlenecks to health workforce entry, flows and exit or retention. Multi-method approaches using ethnographic techniques reveal rich contextual detail. Accountability requires that gender and HRH analyses measure SDGs 3, 4, 5 and 8 targets and indicators. To achieve gender equality in paid work, women also need to achieve equality in unpaid work, underscoring the importance of SDG target 5.4. HRH policies based on principles of substantive equality and nondiscrimination are effective in countering gender discrimination and inequality. HRH leaders and managers can make the use of gender and HRH evidence a priority in developing transformational policy that changes the actual conditions and terms of health workers' lives and work for the better. Knowledge translation and intersectoral coalition-building are also critical to effectiveness and accountability. These will contribute to social progress, equity and the realization of human rights, and expand the health care workforce. Global HRH strategy objectives and UHC and SDG goals will more likely be realized.

The current status of gender equity in medicine in Korea: an online survey about perceived gender discrimination.

BACKGROUND: Although the number of women doctors has increased in South Korea, and efforts to improve gender awareness have gained importance in recent years, the issue of gender equity in the medical field has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this study was to determine the current status of gender equity in the medical profession in Korea. METHODS: An online survey on perceived gender discrimination was conducted for 2 months, with both men and women doctors participating. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 1170 doctors responded to the survey (9.2% response rate). The survey found that 47.3% of the women respondents and 18.2% of the men had experienced gender discrimination in the resident selection process (P < 0.05), 17.2% of the women and 8.7% of the men had experienced discrimination during the fellowship application process (P < 0.05), and 36.2% of the women and 8.0% of the men had experienced discrimination during the professorship application process (P < 0.05). Both men and women cited the issue of childbirth and parenting as the number one cause of gender discrimination against women doctors. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed the presence of perceived gender discrimination in the Korean medical society. To address discrimination, a basic approach is necessary to change the working environment so that it is flexible for women doctors, and to change the current culture where the burden of family care, including pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare, is the primary responsibility of women.

Intersectionality and global health leadership: parity is not enough.

There has been a welcome emphasis on gender issues in global health in recent years in the discourse around human resources for health. Although it is estimated that up to 75% of health workers are female (World Health Organization, Global strategy on human resources for health: Workforce 2030, 2016), this gender ratio is not reflected in the top levels of leadership in international or national health systems and global health organizations (Global Health 50/50, The Global Health 50/50 report: how gender responsive are the world's leading global health organizations, 2018; Clark, Lancet, 391:918-20, 2018). This imbalance has led to a deeper exploration of the role of women in leadership and the barriers they face through initiatives such as the WHO Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health: Workforce 2030, the UN High Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth, the Global Health 50/50 Reports, Women in Global Health, and #LancetWomen. These movements focus on advocating for increasing women's participation in leadership. While efforts to reduce gender imbalance in global health leadership are critical and gaining momentum, it is imperative that we look beyond parity and recognize that women are a heterogeneous group and that the privileges and disadvantages that hinder and enable women's career progression cannot be reduced to a shared universal experience, explained only by gender. Hence, we must take into account the ways in which gender intersects with other social identities and stratifiers to create unique experiences of marginalization and disadvantage.

Gender equity in planning, development and management of human resources for health: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Gender equity remains a challenge across various labor markets with the health market being no exception. Despite the increased influx of women into health professions, horizontal and vertical occupational gender inequities persist. MAIN BODY: The objective of this scoping review is to map the studies on gender equity in healthcare systems in terms of workforce planning, development, and management, as well as to identify the barriers and facilitators for integrating gender equity into healthcare systems. We reviewed the literature on the topic using nine electronic and two grey literature databases with the search strategy combining medical subheadings and keywords for each of the following four concepts of interest: "gender equity," "human resources for health," "healthcare setting," and "management processes." The scoping review included studies focusing on the examination of gender equity at the level of the health workforce. Out of 20,242 studies identified through the database search, the full text of 367 articles was assessed for eligibility and 110 were included in the qualitative analysis. The data of those studies was abstracted and analyzed into themes. Results do not only reveal a global dearth of studies focused on this important topic, but also the concentration of such studies in a few countries around the globe, mainly in North America and Europe. Four out of each five studies included in this review focused on physicians, followed by nurses (14%). In terms of design, an overwhelming majority of studies utilized quantitative designs (75%), followed by qualitative designs and database analyses. Studies were categorized into four pre-determined main themes: facilitators and barriers, workforce planning, HRH management, and HRH development. CONCLUSION: Future research is needed to better understand poorly covered sub-themes such as mentorship, professional development, and training, as well as recruitment and retention among others. It is also equally needed to fill in the gaps in professional groups, study type, methodology, and region. While the review unearthed a number of well-studied themes, significant aspects of the topic remain untapped especially in developing countries and at the level of health professionals other than physicians.

Research to support evidence-informed decisions on optimizing gender equity in health workforce policy and planning.

Women constitute 70% of the global health and social care workforce, but important knowledge gaps persist to effectively support decision making to optimize gender equity. In this Editorial introducing a new thematic series on 'Research to support evidence-informed decisions on optimizing gender equity in health workforce policy and planning,' we are calling for submissions focusing on research concerning the monitoring, evaluation and accountability of human resources for health policy options through a gender equity lens. We are particularly interested to receive manuscripts advancing the innovative use of data and methodologies in the areas of occupational segregation, decent work, gender pay gap and gendered leadership in the health workforce that could be reproducible across different country contexts.

How are gender inequalities facing India's one million ASHAs being addressed? Policy origins and adaptations for the world's largest all-female community health worker programme.

BACKGROUND: India's accredited social health activist (ASHA) programme consists of almost one million female community health workers (CHWs). Launched in 2005, there is now an ASHA in almost every village and across many urban centres who support health system linkages and provide basic health education and care. This paper examines how the programme is seeking to address gender inequalities facing ASHAs, from the programme's policy origins to recent adaptations. METHODS: We reviewed all publically available government documents (n = 96) as well as published academic literature (n = 122) on the ASHA programme. We also drew from the embedded knowledge of this paper's government-affiliated co-authors, triangulated with key informant interviews (n = 12). Data were analysed thematically through a gender lens. RESULTS: Given that the initial impetus for the ASHA programme was to address reproductive and child health issues, policymakers viewed volunteer female health workers embedded in communities as best positioned to engage with beneficiaries. From these instrumentalist origins, where the programme was designed to meet health system demands, policy evolved to consider how the health system could better support ASHAs. Policy reforms included an increase in the number and regularity of incentivized tasks, social security measures, and government scholarships for higher education. Residential trainings were initiated to build empowering knowledge and facilitate ASHA solidarity. ASHAs were designated as secretaries of their village health committees, encouraging them to move beyond an all-female sphere and increasing their role in accountability initiatives. Measures to address gender based violence were also recently recommended. Despite these well-intended reforms and the positive gains realized, ongoing tensions and challenges related to their gendered social and employment status remain, requiring continued policy attention and adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: Gender trade offs and complexities are inherent to sustaining CHW programmes at scale within challenging contexts of patriarchal norms, health system hierarchies, federal governance structures, and evolving aspirations, capacities, and demands from female CHWs. Although still grappling with significant gender inequalities, policy adaptations have increased ASHAs' access to income, knowledge, career progression, community leadership, and safety. Nonetheless, these transformative gains do not mark linear progress, but rather continued adaptations.

A cross-sectional study of the income sources of primary care health workers in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

BACKGROUND: In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the state system to remunerate health workers is poorly functional, encouraging diversification of income sources and corruption. Given the central role that health workers play in health systems, policy-makers need to ensure health workers are remunerated in a way which best incentivises them to provide effective and good quality services. This study describes the different sources and quantities of income paid to primary care health workers in Equateur, Maniema, Kasai Occidental, Province Orientale and Kasai Oriental provinces. It also explores characteristics associated with the receipt of different sources of income. METHODS: Quantitative data on the income received by health workers were collected through baseline surveys. Descriptive statistics explored the demographic characteristics of health workers surveyed, and types and amounts of incomes received. A series of regression models were estimated to examine the health worker and facility-level determinants of receiving each income source and of levels received. Qualitative data collection was carried out in Kasai Occidental province to explore perceptions of each income source and reasons for receiving each. RESULTS: Nurses made up the majority of workers in primary care. Only 31% received a government salary, while 75% reported compensation from user fees. Almost half of all nurses engaged in supplemental non-clinical activities. Receipt of government payments was associated with income from private practice and non-clinical activities. Male nurses were more likely to receive per diems, performance payments, and higher total remuneration compared to females. Contextual factors such as provincial location, presence of externally financed health programmes and local user fee policy also influenced the extent to which nurses received many income sources. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of government payments was unreliable and had implications for receipt of other income sources. A mixture of individual, facility and geographical factors were associated with the receipt of various income sources. Greater co-ordination is needed between partners involved in health worker remuneration to design more effective financial incentive packages, reduce the fragmentation of incomes and improve transparency in the payment of workers in the DRC.

Integration of gender-transformative interventions into health professional education reform for the 21st century: implications of an expert review.

BACKGROUND: Gender discrimination and inequality in health professional education (HPE) affect students and faculty and hinder production of the robust health workforces needed to meet health and development goals, yet HPE reformers pay scant attention to these gender barriers. Gender equality must be a core value and professional practice competency for all actors in HPE and health employment systems. METHODS: Peer-review and non-peer-review literature previously identified in a review of the literature identified interventions to counter gender discrimination and inequality in HPE and tertiary education systems in North America and the Caribbean; West, East, and Southern Africa; Asia; the Middle East and North Africa; Europe; Australia; and South America. An assessment considered 51 interventions addressing sexual harassment (18), caregiver discrimination (27), and gender equality (6). Reviewers with expertise in gender and health system strengthening rated and ranked interventions according to six gender-transformative criteria. RESULTS: Thirteen interventions were considered to have transformational potential to address gender-related obstacles to entry, retention, career progression, and graduation in HPE, when implemented in core sets of interventions. The review identified one set with potential to counter sexual harassment in HPE and two sets to counter caregiver discrimination. Gender centers and equal employment opportunity units are structural interventions that can address multiple forms of gender discrimination and inequality. CONCLUSIONS: The paper's broad aim is to encourage HPE leaders to make gender-transformative reforms in the current way of doing business and commit to themselves to countering gender discrimination and inequality. Interventions to counter gender discrimination should be seen as integral parts of institutional and instructional reforms and essential investments to scale up quality HPE and recruit and retain health workers in the systems that educate and employ them. Implementation challenges spanning financial, informational, and cultural barriers need consideration. The application of core sets of interventions and a strong learning agenda should be part of ongoing HPE reform efforts.

Time to address gender discrimination and inequality in the health workforce.

Gender is a key factor operating in the health workforce. Recent research evidence points to systemic gender discrimination and inequalities in health pre-service and in-service education and employment systems. Human resources for health (HRH) leaders' and researchers' lack of concerted attention to these inequalities is striking, given the recognition of other forms of discrimination in international labour rights and employment law discourse. If not acted upon, gender discrimination and inequalities result in systems inefficiencies that impede the development of the robust workforces needed to respond to today's critical health care needs.This commentary makes the case that there is a clear need for sex- and age-disaggregated and qualitative data to more precisely illuminate gender-related trends and dynamics in the health workforce. Because of their importance for measurement, the paper also presents definitions and examples of sex or gender discrimination and offers specific case examples.At a broader level, the commentary argues that gender equality should be an HRH research, leadership, and governance priority, where the aim is to strengthen health pre-service and continuing professional education and employment systems to achieve better health systems outcomes, including better health coverage. Good HRH leadership, governance, and management involve recognizing the diversity of health workforces, acknowledging gender constraints and opportunities, eliminating gender discrimination and equalizing opportunity, making health systems responsive to life course events, and protecting health workers' labour rights at all levels. A number of global, national and institution-level actions are proposed to move the gender equality and HRH agendas forward.

"I am the doctor": gender-based bias within the clinical practice of emergency medicine in Canada-a thematic analysis of physician and trainee interview data.

OBJECTIVES: While women comprise about half of current Canadian medical students and physicians, only 31% of emergency medicine physicians identify as women and women trainees are less likely to express interest in emergency medicine compared to men. Gender-based bias continues to negatively impact the career choice, progress, and well-being of women physicians/trainees. Although instances of gender-based bias are well documented within other medical specialties, there remains a gap in the literature addressing the role of gender specific to the Canadian emergency medicine clinical environment. METHODS: Using a qualitative study with a thematic analytical approach, participants were purposively and snowball sampled from a cross-section of centers across Canada and included emergency medicine attending physicians and trainees. A thematic analysis using an inductive and deductive approach was undertaken. All data were double coded to improve study trustworthiness. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. RESULTS: Thirty-four individuals (17 woman-identifying and 17 man-identifying) from 10 different institutions across 4 provinces in Canada participated in the study. Six themes were identified: (1) women experience gender bias in the form of microaggressions; (2) women experience imposter syndrome and question their role in the clinical setting; (3) more women provide patient care to women patients and vulnerable populations; (4) gender-related challenges with family planning and home responsibilities affect work-life balance; (5) allyship and sponsorship are important for the support and development of women physicians and trainees; and (6) women value discussing shared experiences with other women to debrief situations, find mentorship, and share advice. CONCLUSIONS: Gender inequity in emergency medicine affects women-identifying providers at all levels of training across Canada. Described experiences support several avenues to implement change against perceived gender bias that is focused on education, policy, and supportive spaces. We encourage institutions to consider these recommendations to achieve gender-equitable conditions in emergency medicine across Canada.

ABSTRAIT: OBJECTIFS: Bien que les femmes représentent environ la moitié des étudiants et des médecins en médecine au Canada, seulement 31 % des médecins d'urgence qui s'identifient comme des femmes et des femmes stagiaires sont moins susceptibles d'exprimer leur intérêt pour la médecine d'urgence que les hommes. Les préjugés fondés sur le sexe continuent d'avoir une incidence négative sur le choix de carrière, les progrès et le bien-être des femmes médecins/stagiaires. Bien que les cas de biais fondés sur le sexe soient bien documentés dans d'autres spécialités médicales, il reste une lacune dans la documentation traitant du rôle du sexe propre au milieu clinique de la médecine d'urgence au Canada. MéTHODES: À l'aide d'une étude qualitative avec une approche analytique thématique, les participants ont été échantillonnés à dessein et en boule de neige dans un échantillon représentatif de centres à travers le Canada et comprenaient des médecins urgentistes et des stagiaires. Une analyse thématique utilisant une approche inductive et déductive a été entreprise. Toutes les données ont été codées en double pour améliorer la fiabilité de l'étude. Des statistiques descriptives ont été utilisées pour caractériser la population étudiée. RéSULTATS: Trente-quatre personnes (17 femmes et 17 hommes) de 10 établissements différents de quatre provinces canadiennes ont participé à l'étude. Six thèmes ont été cernés : (1) les femmes sont victimes de préjugés sexistes sous la forme de microagressions; (2) les femmes sont victimes du syndrome d'imposteur et remettent en question leur rôle dans le milieu clinique; (3) plus de femmes prodiguent des soins aux patientes et aux populations vulnérables; (4) les défis liés au genre que posent la planification familiale et les responsabilités familiales ont une incidence sur l'équilibre entre le travail et la vie personnelle; (5) l'alliance et le parrainage sont importants pour le soutien et le perfectionnement des femmes médecins et stagiaires; (6) les femmes apprécient de discuter des expériences partagées avec d'autres femmes pour faire le point sur des situations, trouver du mentorat et partager des conseils. CONCLUSIONS: L'inégalité entre les sexes en médecine d'urgence touche les fournisseurs de soins qui identifient les femmes à tous les niveaux de formation au Canada. Les expériences décrites appuient plusieurs avenues pour mettre en œuvre des changements contre les préjugés sexistes perçus qui sont axés sur l'éducation, les politiques et les espaces de soutien. Nous encourageons les établissements à tenir compte de ces recommandations afin de parvenir à des conditions équitables entre les sexes en médecine d'urgence partout au Canada.

Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties. METHOD: A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.