“It’s a Little Different for Men”—Sponsorship and Gender in Academic Medicine: a Qualitative Study

Abstract

Background

Women remain underrepresented in top leadership positions in academic medicine. In business settings, a person with power and influence actively supporting the career advancement of a junior person is referred to as a sponsor and sponsorship programs have been used to diversify leadership. Little is known about how sponsorship functions in academic medicine.

Objective

To explore perceptions of sponsorship and its relationship to gender and career advancement in academic medicine.

Design

Qualitative study using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with sponsors and protégés.

Participants

Twelve sponsors (clinical department chairs) and 11 protégés (participants of a school of medicine executive leadership program [N = 23]) at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Key Results

All sponsors were men and all were professors, six of the 11 protégés were women, and four of the 23 participants were underrepresented minorities in medicine. We identified three themes: (1) people (how and who): women seek out and receive sponsorship differently; (2) process (faster and further): sponsorship provides an extra boost, especially for women; and (3) politics and culture (playing favorites and paying it forward): sponsorship and fairness. Informants acknowledge that sponsorship provides an extra boost for career advancement especially for women. Sponsors and protégés differ in their perceptions of how sponsorship happens. Informants describe gender differences in how sponsorship is experienced and specifically noted that women were less likely to actively seek out sponsorship and be identified as protégés compared to men. Informants describe a tension between sponsorship and core academic values such as transparency, fairness, and merit.

Conclusion

Sponsorship is perceived to be critical to high-level advancement and is experienced differently by women. Increased understanding of how sponsorship works in academic medicine may empower individual faculty to utilize this professional relationship for career advancement and provide institutions with a strategy to diversify top leadership positions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Ash AS, Carr PL, Goldstein R, Friedman RH. Compensation and advancement of women in academic medicine: is there equity? Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141(3):205-12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Freund KM, Raj A, Kaplan SE, Terrin N, Breeze JL, Urech TH, et al. Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study. Academic Medicine. 2016; 91(8):1068-73. OVID

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Griffith KA, Rangarajan S, Ubel PA. Sex differences in attainment of independent funding by career development awardees. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(11):804-11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jena AB, Khullar D, Ho O, Olenski AR, Blumenthal DM. Sex Differences in Academic Rank in US Medical Schools in 2014. JAMA. 2015; 314(11):1149-58.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Carr PL, Raj A, Kaplan SE, Terrin N, Breeze JL, Freund KM. Gender Differences in Academic Medicine: Retention, Rank, and Leadership Comparisons From the National Faculty Survey. Acad Med. 2018; 93(11):1694-9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pololi LH, Civian JT, Brennan RT, Dottolo AL, Krupat E. Experiencing the culture of academic medicine: gender matters, a national study. J Gen Intern Med. 2013; 28(2):201-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    U.S. Medical School Deans by Dean Type and Sex. 2019. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/faculty-institutions/interactive-data/us-medical-school-deans-dean-type-and-sex. Accessed February 14 2020.

  8. 8.

    U.S. Medical School Department Chairs by Chair Type and Sex. 2019. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/faculty-institutions/interactive-data/us-medical-school-department-chairs-chair-type-and-sex. Accessed February 14 2020.

  9. 9.

    Why Diversity Matters. 2013. http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/why_diversity_matters_catalyst_0.pdf. Accessed December 16 2019.

  10. 10.

    Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Jones R, Perumalswami CR, Ubel P, Stewart A. Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Experiences of Academic Medical Faculty. JAMA. 2016; 315(19):2120-1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bates CK, Jagsi R, Gordon LK, Travis E, Chatterjee A, Gillis M, et al. It Is Time for Zero Tolerance for Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine. Acad Med. 2018; 93(2):163-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dobbin F, Kalev A. The promise and peril of sexual harassment programs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(25):12255-60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Carapinha R, Ortiz-Walters R, McCracken CM, Hill EV, Reede JY. Variability in Women Faculty’s Preferences Regarding Mentor Similarity: A Multi-Institution Study in Academic Medicine. Acad Med. 2016; 91(8):1108-18.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Blood EA, Ullrich NJ, Hirshfeld-Becker DR, Seely EW, Connelly MT, Warfield CA, et al. Academic women faculty: are they finding the mentoring they need? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012; 21(11):1201-8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006; 296(9):1103-15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sege R, Nykiel-Bub L, Selk S. Sex Differences in Institutional Support for Junior Biomedical Researchers. JAMA. 2015; 314(11):1175-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Jones RD, Griffith KA, Ubel PA, Stewart A, Jagsi R. A Mixed-Methods Investigation of the Motivations, Goals, and Aspirations of Male and Female Academic Medical Faculty. Academic Medicine. 2016; 91(8):1089-97. OVID

  18. 18.

    Levine RB, Lin F, Kern DE, Wright SM, Carrese J. Stories from early-career women physicians who have left academic medicine: a qualitative study at a single institution. Acad Med. 2011; 86(6):752-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Carr PL, Ash AS, Friedman RH, Szalacha L, Barnett RC, Palepu A, et al. Faculty perceptions of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in academic medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2000; 132(11):889-96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Westring A, McDonald JM, Carr P, Grisso JA. An Integrated Framework for Gender Equity in Academic Medicine. Acad Med. 2016; 91(8):1041-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. 2007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9815. .

  22. 22.

    Ginther DK, Kahn SS, Walter T. Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and National Institutes of Health R01 Research Awards: Is There Evidence of a Double Bind for Women of Color? Academic Medicine. 2016; 91(8):1098-107. OVID

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Edmunds LD, Ovseiko PV, Shepperd S, Greenhalgh T, Frith P, Roberts NW, et al. Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence. Lancet. 2016; 388(10062):2948-58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Bates C, Gordon L, Travis E, Chatterjee A, Chaudron L, Fivush B, et al. Striving for Gender Equity in Academic Medicine Careers: A Call to Action. Acad Med. 2016; 91(8):1050-2.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Sexton DW, Lemak CH, Wainio JA. Career inflection points of women who successfully achieved the hospital CEO position. J Healthc Manag. 2014; 59(5):367-83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Travis EL, Doty L, Helitzer DL. Sponsorship: a path to the academic medicine C-suite for women faculty? Acad Med. 2013; 88(10):1414-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Gottlieb AS. Promoting academic careers of women in medicine. Maturitas. 2017; 96:114-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Roy B, Gottlieb AS. The Career Advising Program: A Strategy to Achieve Gender Equity in Academic Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;

  29. 29.

    Rochon PA, Davidoff F, Levinson W. Women in Academic Medicine Leadership: Has Anything Changed in 25 Years? Acad Med. 2016; 91(8):1053-6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Shakil S, Redberg RF. Gender Disparities in Sponsorship-How They Perpetuate the Glass Ceiling. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;

  31. 31.

    Boggs W. Gender disparity in academic medicine sponsorship. 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-academicmedicine-mentorship/gender-disparity-in-academic-medicine-sponsorship-idUSKBN1662BR. Accessed December 13 2017.

  32. 32.

    Foust-Cummings H, Dinolfo S, Kohler J. Sponsoring women to success. 2011. http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/sponsoring_women_to_success.pdf. Accessed November 14 2019.

  33. 33.

    Hewlett SA. Forget a Mentor Find a Sponsor. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Ibarra H, Carter NM, Silva C. Why men still get more promotions than women. Harv Bus Rev. 2010; 88(9):80-5, 126.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hewlett S, Peraino K, Sherbin L, Sumberg K; the Center for Work-Life Policy. The Sponsor Effect: Breaking Through the Last Glass Ceiling. Harvard Business Review Research Report 2010. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing; 2010. https://hbr.org/product/the-sponsor-effect-breaking-through-the-last-glass-ceiling/10428-PDF-ENG.

  36. 36.

    Ayyala MS, Skarupski K, Bodurtha JN, Gonzalez-Fernandez M, Ishii LE, Fivush B, et al. Mentorship Is Not Enough: Exploring Sponsorship and Its Role in Career Advancement in Academic Medicine. Acad Med. 2019; 94(1):94-100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Patton EW, Griffith KA, Jones RD, Stewart A, Ubel PA, Jagsi R. Differences in Mentor-Mentee Sponsorship in Male vs Female Recipients of National Institutes of Health Grants. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;

  38. 38.

    Miller WL, Crabtree BF. Clinical Research: a multi-method typology and qualitative roadmap. In: Crabtree BF MW, ed. Doing qualitative research. 2nd Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1999:3-30.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Raphael JL. The Role of Sponsorship in Achieving Workforce Diversity in Academic Pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2019; 144(2): https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019,1532.

  40. 40.

    Perry RE, Parikh JR. Sponsorship: A Proven Strategy for Promoting Career Advancement and Diversity in Radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16(8):1102-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Heilman ME, Haynes MC. No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. J Appl Psychol. 2005; 90(5):905-16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Eagly AH, Karau SJ. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev. 2002; 109(3):573-98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Eagly AH, Carli LL. Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harv Bus Rev. 2007; 85(9):62-71, 146.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Uhlmann E, Cohen GL. Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychol Sci. 2005; 16(6):474-80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Heilman M. Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder. Journal of Social Issues. 2001; 57:657.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Isaac C, Lee B, Carnes M. Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2009; 84(10):1440-6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Trix F, Psenka C. Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse Soc. 2003;14:191–220.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kaatz A, Lee Y, Potvien A, Magua W, Filut A, Bhattacharya A, et al. Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference? Academic Medicine. 2016; 91(8):1080-8. OVID

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Carnes M, Devine PG, Baier Manwell L, Byars-Winston A, Fine E, Ford CE, et al. The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Acad Med. 2015; 90(2):221-30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Devine PG, Forscher PS, Cox WTL, Kaatz A, Sheridan J, Carnes M. A Gender Bias Habit-Breaking Intervention Led to Increased Hiring of Female Faculty in STEMM Departments. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017; 73:211-5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Pololi LH, Krupat E, Civian JT, Ash AS, Brennan RT. Why are a quarter of faculty considering leaving academic medicine? A study of their perceptions of institutional culture and intentions to leave at 26 representative U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2012; 87(7):859-69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Westring AF, Speck RM, Dupuis Sammel M, Scott P, Conant EF, Tuton LW, et al. Culture matters: the pivotal role of culture for women’s careers in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2014; 89(4):658-63.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Monroe AK, Levine RB, Clark JM, Bickel J, MacDonald SM, Resar LM. Through a Gender Lens: A View of Gender and Leadership Positions in a Department of Medicine. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2015; 24(10):837-42.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Kuo IC, Levine RB, Gauda EB, Bodurtha J, Clements J, Fivush B, et al. Identifying Gender Disparities and Barriers to Measuring the Status of Female Faculty: The Experience of a Large School of Medicine. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019; 28(11):1569-75.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

RBL: study conception and design, literature search, development of data collection tool, data collection, analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing

MSA: literature search, development of data collection tool, data collection, analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing

KS: literature search, development of data collection tool, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing

JB: development of data collection tool, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing

MGF: development of data collection tool, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing

LI: development of data collection tool, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing

BF: development of data collection tool, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel B. Levine MD, MPH.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Ethics Committee Approval

This study has approval from a Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Board.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levine, R.B., Ayyala, M.S., Skarupski, K.A. et al. “It’s a Little Different for Men”—Sponsorship and Gender in Academic Medicine: a Qualitative Study. J GEN INTERN MED (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05956-2

Download citation

KEY WORDS

  • academic medicine
  • sponsorship
  • leadership
  • gender disparities