Could an Empowered Patient Environment be the Catalyst for Women Healthcare Leaders to Thrive?

In today's Health 2.0, the patient is empowered. It's the patient's right to be kept abreast of what's happening with their health, so they can make informed choices about their health care. And, still, we've read and heard about too many instances when patients' concerns, interests, needs, and priorities have been minimized by a healthcare system that often values efficiency over empathy.

According to a Harvard Business Review report Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers, "... women’s leadership potential sometimes shows in less conventional ways—being responsive to clients’ needs, for example, rather than boldly asserting a point of view—and sometimes it takes powerful women to recognize that potential. But powerful women are scarce." Or are they?

This statement caused me to wonder: Could an empowered patient environment be a catalyst for women physicians and other female health practitioners to thrive?

There is data to support a difference in leadership abilities and traits between men and women. According to a 2011 survey of more than 7,000 leaders by Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman, women were voted to outrank men in 12 of 16 top leadership competencies.

These top leadership competencies include the ability to:

• Display high integrity and honesty
• Inspire and motivates others
• Build relationships

I've teased out these three competencies in particular as they correlate well not only with creating an empowering environment for their fellow colleagues, but also one for their patients. Equally important are other competencies in which women were viewed to excel in this survey, which one may argue could help to change the landscape of the healthcare system on a broader level, including the ability to:

• Take initiative
• Develop others
• Drive for results
• Champion change

Sounds great? Perhaps ... until we explore deeper to uncover the one competency in which women were ranked to excel less than men: the ability to develop a strategic perspective. Why were women perceived to be less strategic?

Is it a result of long-held stereotypes? Is it because of a lack of women in top leadership positions? Or, perhaps, both of these factors have led to a phenomenon called second-generation gender bias? As suggested by Herminia Ibarra, Robin Ely, and Deborah Kolb: "This bias erects powerful but subtle and often invisible barriers for women that arise from cultural assumptions and organizational structures, practices, and patterns of interaction that inadvertently benefit men while putting women at a disadvantage."

Is there a second-generation bias in healthcare? To answer that question, I suggest we explore the proposed criteria and any data that may support or disprove this assertion. Some of the data can be found in the 2013 XX in Health report: The State of Women in Healthcare.

• A paucity of role models for women

While 78% of the healthcare industry are women and 70% are administrators, only 19% are hospital CEOs -- and there are NO women CEOs that lead Fortune 500 healthcare companies

• Gendered career paths and gendered work

In addition to the above, women are not represented well at the board level -- where they would have more opportunity to make strategic decisions about the direction of their organizations and the industry at-large

• Women's lack of access to networks and sponsors

Many women are not perceiving the healthcare workplace to be supportive of their career goals -- 39% reported leaving their previous employers because of the company culture.

• "Double binds" 

Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb describe this concept as: "The mismatch between conventionally feminine qualities and the qualities thought necessary for leadership puts female leaders in a double bind." Perhaps this explains the low ranking for strategic abilities in the Zenger-Folkman study.

So, what do you think -- is there second-generation bias in healthcare? If, so will it impact women healthcare leaders ability to thrive and succeed?

I've written this article in recognition of XX in Health Week, to explore the issue of gender diversity in health leadership. I welcome your thoughts and reactions to this information as well as what you see happening in your organization. I'd encourage you to continue the dialogue here -- and to participate in (or initiate) discussions about this gender diversity in your city and community.

Do You Know What You Don't Know?

Five years ago when I began writing this blog, I told you why I believed focusing on your competent advantage TM was a great way to build and sustain your career. I've since learned that my "attraction" to competence may have something to do with me being a Type 3 according to Enneagram ... but more on that another time.

My fascination with competent advantage TM also comes from my work in Human Resources / Training & Development, observing how managers have used competencies to determine:

• Who gets hired
• Who gets fired
• Who gets promoted
• Who gets training - and on what skills/topics

In today's New Normal, I think there are benefits to "going back to basics" to revisit this theme of competence. One framework about how we learn that has always intrigued me was proposed by renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow - known as the Four Stages of Learning. I've listed the stages below with some insights to help you consider each stage, and how it might relate to your learning and achieving your goals in light of recent challenges/changes:

1. Unconscious Incompetence: "I don't know what I don't know." You don't even recognize that you need to learn how to do something.
2. Conscious Incompetence: "DING! Lightbulb goes on!" Now, you've just realized that you need to learn how to do something.
3. Conscious Competence: "I know that I'm doing it." You've just started to learn how to do it, and you're very aware as you keep practicing to get better at doing it.
4. Unconscious Competence: "It's a no-brainer!" You don't even think about it anymore -- you do it automatically whenever needed.

In today's New Normal, I believe it can be very helpful to use this framework to prepare yourself for new experiences, and figure out the best (and, perhaps, the quickest) ways to learn new things or enter new industries and markets. Here's a brief activity to help you:

Think about one skill or talent -- something that you do very well. Then, ask yourself four questions below to help you recall the four stages (insert your skill/talent in the spaces):

1. How did you realize that you needed to learn how to _____________________?
2. How did you find out what you needed to know/learn about _______________?
3. How did you practice and improve your ability to ___________________?
4. How do you _______________ now -- in ways that you don't even think about?

When I begin a new project, if I feel any anxiety about it, I ask myself similar questions to recall other times that I've been successful doing it. This not only boosts my confidence, but helps me think of tips, techniques and methods that worked before that I may be able to use again. Does this make sense to you?

So, do you know what you don't know? How will you figure out how to learn it? Share your comments, thoughts and reactions here -- or tweet me on Twitter.

Job-Hopper or Re-Careerist: How Often Should You Switch?

Thanks, Ram, for sharing your thoughts. It's cool to know that this NY-based blog can "ping" people in India!

Your comments about people with "high competencies and knowledge" who "want to venture in life, try new ideas, bring creative thoughts, [and] implement them" with different employers made me think. I can remember back-in-the-day when HR folks used to label people who changed jobs frequently as job-hoppers.

This typically didn't convey a positive image -- the connotation was: "This person doesn't have the ability or stick-to-it-ive-ness to hold down a job." Job-hoppers often were pre-judged to have been the cause of their own "demise" -- be it an attitude problem (didn't get along with the boss), a skill-deficiency (couldn't do the work) or a work-ethic issue (didn't get to work on-time).

Not to belittle the importance of the career success factors I just mentioned, I believe the hypothesis about people with high competencies and knowledge [like readers of this blog!] may be correct. Perhaps you've changed jobs to find the right "fit" (with your manager, team or company). Or, maybe you've made lateral moves to gain a cross-section of experience within a company.

These thoughts made me recall an MSN article I read last year about re-careerists. It didn't offer an exact definition, but suggested that re-careerists "challeng[e] established ideas about education, jobs, and careers, and [find] new opportunities for personal and financial growth in the changing job market." That's what Competent Advantage TM is all about -- people who are proactive about building their strengths to secure positions that enable them to achieve great things.

I figure I'm in my 9th "job" (not counting my teaching or independent consulting gigs while working for other employers) in my career. How about YOU?