Satisfaction of Women Faculty in Academic Medicine.

Purpose: Research about academic medicine women faculty has focused on comparisons of men and women or specific groups who achieved leadership. To better understand the low percentages of women in academic medicine leadership, attention should be paid to the career continuum within genders. Study findings will inform policies and programs to support women in building careers and acquiring leadership positions. Materials and Methods: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) StandPoint Faculty Engagement Survey data are used to describe and compare women assistant, associate and full professors' perceptions of (1) career development and advancement opportunities, and (2) a culture and climate that fosters diversity, equity, and inclusion. Specific similarities and differences with men are highlighted. Results: Fifty-nine percent of women respondents were assistant, 25% associate, and 16% full professors. Associate professors of both genders were the least satisfied on the main measures. Women were less satisfied than men at each career stage across the majority of variables. Among women, fewer than half of full and associate professors, and 52% of assistant professors believe they can express their opinions without fear of retribution. While the majority at all ranks (69%-75%) report feeling respected in the workplace, among those who did not, the highest percentage of disrespect based on gender was among associate professors. Conclusions: The perceptions of >7,500 academic medicine women faculty, representing different generations and ranks, underscore the need to broadly address gender inequity and sexism throughout the career continuum. It identifies the mid-career stage as a challenging experience for both men and women. Women, especially at the associate professor rank, remain a critically dissatisfied and underresourced group that is at risk for underutilization and potentially exit from academic medicine. All ranks of women need career development and equitable policies to support their sense of belonging and career advancement.

Power Reimagined: Advancing Women Into Emerging Leadership Positions.

Academic medicine is evolving from the traditional model of a medical school and teaching hospital owned by the same entity to one with complex academic medical centers and health systems. This increased complexity is evident not only in the funding streams and organizational priorities of these growing health systems but also in the evolution of leadership roles toward more matrixed positions and more individuals who hold both medical school and health system roles. Given this changing landscape, the authors of this commentary raise the following questions: Will the levers of power remain in the hands of those in traditional academic roles? Or are they moving toward those in roles that are more aligned with the clinical enterprise and health system? Then, if this shift is occurring, what is needed to prepare women to be competitive candidates for these new roles? Because of the long history of and current gender imbalance in academic leadership roles, professional development programs have traditionally focused on preparing women to advance through the faculty ranks and for department chair and decanal roles. With the shift to more complicated health systems, the definitions, responsibilities, and types of leadership roles in academic medicine are also evolving to include nontraditional academic positions in the health system, such as c-suite and other senior executive roles. In parallel to the gender inequities in traditional roles, women are also underrepresented in health system leadership roles. Therefore, it is critical to explicitly identify emerging roles in health care leadership, address systemic barriers, and actively train and prepare women with the knowledge, skills, and experience required for these positions. Only with consistent attention to outcomes and the implementation of intentional systems to engage, prepare, and advance women will the gender gap be closed.

Equal Pay for Equal Work in the Dean Suite: Addressing Occupational Gender Segregation and Compensation Inequities Among Medical School Leadership.

In 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges published data from its annual Dean's Office Staff Compensation and Dean's Compensation Surveys in a new report addressing salary equity among medical school leadership. These data, disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity, represent earnings of the senior most leaders in the dean suite and have historically been shared only with medical school Deans and principal business officers. The report shows that the highest-ranking decanal positions in U.S. medical schools are filled along the lines of traditional gender stereotypes (with men in clinical affairs and research affairs deanships and women in admissions, diversity affairs, faculty affairs, and student affairs deanships) and that the roles held mostly by men carry grander titles (e.g., senior associate dean vs assistant dean) and significantly higher salaries than those typically held by women. Additionally, within the same decanal positions, women earn lower median compensation than men. In this commentary, the authors describe limited advancement and lower compensation as foregone conclusions for women in medicine and science due to a professional model that places a premium on activities traditionally pursued by men. They define and characterize the impact of this occupational gender segregation in the dean suite and offer a roadmap for an alternative value system that recognizes complementary leadership activities across the mission areas of academic medicine and ensures that the contributions of women in the profession are appropriately recognized, valued, and rewarded.

Achieving Gender Equity Is Our Responsibility: Leadership Matters.

Across academic medicine, and particularly among faculty and medical school leadership, the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to gender diversity, equity, and inclusion. The Association of American Medical Colleges has launched a bold gender equity initiative, endorsed by its Board of Directors, to implore academic medical institutions to take meaningful and effective actions.Defining what progress should look like to guide these actions is worth deeper exploration. It is not enough to measure the representation of different genders at various levels of leadership within our institutions. Research and experience we share suggests more must be done, especially for women of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. What is needed is a fundamental conversation about privilege, intersectionality across different backgrounds, and progress.Institutional leaders have a choice to make. Will we make gender equity a top priority system-wide because we recognize that doing so leads to organizational excellence? Do we understand that establishing a robust, comprehensive definition of gender equity and how it is practiced will result in better outcomes for all? And are we ready and able to prioritize and be accountable for efforts that are measurable, with clear definitions of progress; driven and reinforced by leadership directives; inclusive of all, including men as well as women of diverse backgrounds and orientations; and systemic rather than ad-hoc? Implementing such actions requires initiating difficult conversations, making conscious choices, and modeling best practices from leaders who have successfully made gender equity a priority.

Women's Representation Among Members and Leaders of National Medical Specialty Societies.

PURPOSE: National medical specialty societies speak for their respective fields in policy debates, influence research, affect trainees' specialization decisions, provide career development opportunities, and confer awards and recognitions. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the gender demographics of society members and leaders. METHOD: In 2016, the Group on Women in Medicine and Science (of the Association of American Medical Colleges) sought to characterize the gender of members and leaders of specialty societies from 2000 to 2015. This report provides descriptive data, including how many of the responding societies (representing each of 30 major medical specialties) had substantial (> 10%) increases in women's representation among leadership between the first and second halves of the study period. RESULTS: The average proportion of full members who were female in responding societies was 25.4% in 2005 and 29.3% in 2015. The proportion of women among those serving as the highest-ranking elected leader between 2000 and 2015 in each specialty ranged from 0% to 37.5% (mean, 15.8%). The mean proportion of women on governing boards ranged from 0% to 37.3% (mean of means, 18.8%) in 2000-2007 and from 0% to 47.6% (mean of means, 25.2%) in 2008-2015. In 9 specialties, the mean percentage of women serving on governing boards increased by over 10% from the first to the second half of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Although many women are full members of specialty societies, women still constitute a minority of leaders. This report establishes a baseline from which to evaluate the effect of societies' efforts to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion.

A Timely Problem: Parental Leave During Medical Training.

Shifting demographics and concerns about burnout prevention merit a reexamination of existing structures and policies related to leaves of absence that may be necessary during medical training. In this Invited Commentary, the authors address the issue of parental leave for medical students and residents. Discussion about parental leave for these trainees is not new. Despite decades of dialogue, leave policies throughout the undergraduate and graduate medical education continuum lack standardization and are currently ill defined and inadequate. There are a number of barriers to implementation. These include stigma, financial concerns, workforce and duty hours challenges, and the historically rigid timeline for progression from one stage of medical training to the next. Potential solutions include parent-friendly curricular innovations, competency-based medical education, and provision of short-term disability insurance. Most important, adopting more flexible approaches to graduation requirements and specialty board examination eligibility must be addressed at the national level. The authors identify cultural and practical challenges to standardizing parental leave options across the medical education continuum and issue a call to action for implementing potential solutions.

It Is Time for Zero Tolerance for Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine.

While more women are in leadership positions in academic medicine now than ever before in U.S. history, evidence from recent surveys of women and graduating medical students demonstrates that sexual harassment continues in academic health centers. Academic medicine's ability to change its culture is hampered by victims' fear of reporting episodes of harassment, which is largely due to fear of retaliation. In this Perspective, the authors describe efforts in scientific societies to address the issue of sexual harassment and to begin to establish safe environments at national meetings. The authors contend that each institution must work to make it safe for individuals to come forward, to provide training for victims and for bystanders, and to abolish "locker room" talk that is demeaning to women.

Striving for Gender Equity in Academic Medicine Careers: A Call to Action.

Women represent approximately half of students entering medical schools and more than half of those entering PhD programs. When advancing through the academic and professional fields, however, women continually face barriers that men do not. In this Commentary, the authors offer ideas for coordinating the efforts of organizations, academic institutions, and leaders throughout the scientific and medical professions to reduce barriers that result in inequities and, instead, strive for gender parity. Specific areas of focus outlined by the authors include facilitating women's access to formal and informal professional networks, acknowledging and addressing the gender pay gap as well as the lack of research funding awarded to women in the field, and updating workplace policies that have not evolved to accommodate women's lifestyles. As academic institutions seek access to top talent and the means to develop those individuals capable of generating the change medicine and science needs, the authors urge leaders and change agents within academic medicine to address the systemic barriers to gender equity that impede us from achieving the mission to improve the health of all.