Dataset Information

Negotiation in academic medicine: narratives of faculty researchers and their mentors.

ABSTRACT: Few researchers have explored the negotiation experiences of academic medical faculty even though negotiation is crucial to their career success. The authors sought to understand medical faculty researchers' experiences with and perceptions of negotiation.Between February 2010 and August 2011, the authors conducted semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews with 100 former recipients of National Institutes of Health mentored career development awards and 28 of their mentors. Purposive sampling ensured a diverse range of viewpoints. Multiple analysts thematically coded verbatim transcripts using qualitative data analysis software.Participants described the importance of negotiation in academic medical careers but also expressed feeling naïve and unprepared for these negotiations, particularly as junior faculty. Award recipients focused on power, leverage, and strategy, and they expressed a need for training and mentorship to learn successful negotiation skills. Mentors, by contrast, emphasized the importance of flexibility and shared interests in creating win-win situations for both the individual faculty member and the institution. When faculty construed negotiation as adversarial and/or zero-sum, participants believed it required traditionally masculine traits and perceived women to be at a disadvantage.Academic medical faculty often lack the skills and knowledge necessary for successful negotiation, especially early in their careers. Many view negotiation as an adversarial process of the sort that experts call "hard positional bargaining." Increasing awareness of alternative negotiation techniques (e.g., "principled negotiation," in which shared interests, mutually satisfying options, and fair standards are emphasized) may encourage the success of medical faculty, particularly women.

SUBMITTER: Sambuco D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3699307 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Negotiation in academic medicine: narratives of faculty researchers and their mentors.

Sambuco Dana D Dabrowska Agata A Decastro Rochelle R Stewart Abigail A Ubel Peter A PA Jagsi Reshma R

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 20130401 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>Few researchers have explored the negotiation experiences of academic medical faculty even though negotiation is crucial to their career success. The authors sought to understand medical faculty researchers' experiences with and perceptions of negotiation.<h4>Method</h4>Between February 2010 and August 2011, the authors conducted semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews with 100 former recipients of National Institutes of Health mentored career development awards and 28 of t ...[more]

PMID: 23425992

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDespite the increasing diversity of individuals entering medicine, physicians from racial and sexual minority groups continue to experience bias and discrimination in the workplace. The objective of this study was to determine the current experiences and perceptions of discrimination on the basis of race and sexual orientation among academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of EM faculty across six programs. Survey items included the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale adapted for race and sexual orientation, and the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination. Group comparisons were made using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and relationships between race or sexual orientation, and we evaluated physicians' experiences using correlation analyses.ResultsA total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Non-White physicians reported higher mean racial OGDW scores than their White counterparts (13.4 vs 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference, -7.7 - -2.9). Non-White EM faculty were also more likely to report having experienced discriminatory treatment based on race than were White EM faculty (48.0% vs 12.6%; CI for difference, 16.6% - 54.2%), although both groups were equally likely to report having observed race-based discrimination of another physician. EM faculty who identified as sexual minorities reported higher mean sexual minority OGDW scores than their heterosexual counterparts (11.1 vs 7.1; 95% CI for difference, -7.3 - -0.6). There were no significant differences between sexual minority and heterosexual faculty in their reports of experiencing or observing discrimination based on sexual orientation.ConclusionEM faculty from racial and sexual minority groups perceived more discrimination based on race or sexual orientation in their workplace than their majority counterparts. EM faculty regardless of race or sexual orientation were similar in their observations of discriminatory treatment of another physician based on race or sexual orientation.

Project description:ImportanceHow the COVID-19 pandemic has affected academic medicine faculty's work-life balance is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the association of perceived work-life conflict with academic medicine faculty intention to leave, reducing employment to part time, or declining leadership opportunities before and since the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, settings, and participantsAn anonymous online survey of medical, graduate, and health professions school faculty was conducted at a single large, urban academic medical center between September 1 and September 25, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-assessed intention to leave, reducing employment to part time, or turning down leadership opportunities because of work-life conflict before and since the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsOf the 1186 of 3088 (38%) of faculty members who answered the survey, 649 (55%) were women and 682 (58%) were White individuals. Respondents were representative of the overall faculty demographic characteristics except for an overrepresentation of female faculty respondents and underrepresentation of Asian faculty respondents compared with all faculty (female faculty: 649 [55%] vs 1368 [44%]; Asian faculty: 259 [22%] vs 963 [31%]). After the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty were more likely to consider leaving or reducing employment to part time compared with before the pandemic (leaving: 225 [23%] vs 133 [14%]; P < .001; reduce hours: 281 [29%] vs 206 [22%]; P < .001). Women were more likely than men to reduce employment to part time before the COVID-19 pandemic (153 [28%] vs 44 [12%]; P < .001) and to consider both leaving or reducing employment to part time since the COVID-19 pandemic (leaving: 154 [28%] vs 56 [15%]; P < .001; reduce employment: 215 [40%] vs 49 [13%]; P < .001). Faculty with children were more likely to consider leaving and reducing employment since the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic (leaving: 159 [29%] vs 93 [17%]; P < .001; reduce employment: 213 [40%] vs 130 [24%]; P < .001). Women with children compared with women without children were also more likely to consider leaving since the COVID-19 pandemic than before (113 [35%] vs 39 [17%]; P < .001). Working parent faculty and women were more likely to decline leadership opportunities both before (faculty with children vs without children: 297 [32%] vs 84 [9%]; P < .001; women vs men: 206 [29%] vs 47 [13%]; P < .001) and since the COVID-19 pandemic (faculty with children vs faculty without children: 316 [34%] vs 93 [10 %]; P < .001; women vs men: 148 [28%] vs 51 [14%]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, the perceived stressors associated with work-life integration were higher in women than men, were highest in women with children, and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The association of both gender and parenting with increased perceived work-life stress may disproportionately decrease the long-term retention and promotion of junior and midcareer women faculty.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to the American Association of Medical Colleges, women comprise 26% of full professors and 19% of medical school department chairs. African American and Latino faculty comprise 4.6% of full professors and 6.9% of department chairs.ObjectiveBecause of the lack of representation of women and racial/ethnic minority faculty at the highest levels of academic medicine, this study examines the perceptions of barriers to advancement by men and women academic medical school faculty of differing races and ethnicities to explore potential differences in perceptions by demographic group.DesignSemi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted between July and September 2017.ParticipantsIn order to give all faculty a chance to participate, faculty of all ranks and specialties were recruited from one southeastern medical school to participate in the study.ApproachInterviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by 3 members of the research team using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. Participants were organized into 4 groups for analysis-underrepresented in medicine (URiM) women, majority women, URiM men, majority men.Key resultsSixty-four faculty consented to participate in the study (56.2% women, 34.4% URiM). Subthemes were grouped under three main themes: Perceptions of Barriers to Advancement of Women Faculty, Perceptions of Barriers to Advancement of African American and Latino Faculty, and Perceptions of the Institutional Climate for Diversity. Majority men tended to voice distinctly different perspectives than the other three demographic groups, with the most notable differences between majority men and URiM women. Majority men tended to suggest that the advancement of women and URiM faculty was acceptable or getting better, the lack of URiM faculty in leadership was due mainly to pipeline issues, and women choose not to advance to leadership positions.ConclusionWe found that participant gender and race/ethnicity shaped perspectives of medical school faculty advancement in distinct ways.

Project description:BackgroundFaculty productivity is essential for academic medical centers striving to achieve excellence and national recognition. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether and how academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation.MethodsWe surveyed the Chairs of academic Departments of Medicine in the United States in 2012. We sent a paper-based questionnaire along with a personalized invitation letter by postal mail. For non-responders, we sent reminder letters, then called them and faxed them the questionnaire. The questionnaire included 8 questions with 23 tabulated close-ended items about the types of productivity measured (clinical, research, teaching, administrative) and the measurement strategies used. We conducted descriptive analyses.ResultsChairs of 78 of 152 eligible departments responded to the survey (51% response rate). Overall, 82% of respondents reported measuring at least one type of faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation. Amongst those measuring faculty productivity, types measured were: clinical (98%), research (61%), teaching (62%), and administrative (64%). Percentages of respondents who reported the use of standardized measurements units (e.g., Relative Value Units (RVUs)) varied from 17% for administrative productivity to 95% for research productivity. Departments reported a wide variation of what exact activities are measured and how they are monetarily compensated. Most compensation plans take into account academic rank (77%). The majority of compensation plans are in the form of a bonus on top of a fixed salary (66%) and/or an adjustment of salary based on previous period productivity (55%).ConclusionOur survey suggests that most academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity and convert it into standardized units for the purpose of salary compensation. The exact activities that are measured and how they are monetarily compensated varied substantially across departments.

Dataset Information

Negotiation in academic medicine: narratives of faculty researchers and their mentors.

Publications

Negotiation in academic medicine: narratives of faculty researchers and their mentors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets