Advertisement

Women in Leadership in Urology: The Case for Increasing Diversity and Equity

Published:September 19, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.07.079
      There is a persistent male gender predominance in urology, especially with respect to female representation in leadership. We review the current status of women in urology leadership, discuss challenges women face in leadership positions, present the case for adopting inclusive practices that increase diversity and gender equity in urology leadership, and review the potential benefits of such an expansion. We discuss practical strategies to grow the role of women in urologic leadership, including increasing mentorship, modifying academic promotion criteria, and addressing implicit bias, while presenting a roadmap toward achieving equity and diversity at the highest ranks of urologic leadership.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and PersonalCorporate R&D Professionals
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Nivet MA
        Commentary: diversity 3.0: a necessary systems upgrade.
        Acad Med. 2011; 86: 1487-1489
        • Cooper-Patrick L
        • Gallo JJ
        • Gonzales JJ
        • et al.
        Race, gender, and partnership in the patient-physician relationship.
        JAMA. 1999; 282: 583-589
      1. Rock D, Grant H. Why diverse teams are smarter. 2016.

      2. Kersley R, Klerk E, Boussie A, Longworth B, Matzkoff J, Ramji D. The CS Gender 3000 in 2019: The changing face of companies: Credit Suisse; 2019.

      3. Company Ma. Women matter: ten years of insights on gender diversity. 2017.

      4. Nancy M. Carter PD, Harvey M. Wagner PD. The Bottom Line: corporate performance and women's representation on boards (2004–2008): Catalyst; 2011.

      5. McKinsey&Company. Women matter 2 Oct 2008: Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/∼/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Organization/Our Insights/Women matter/Women re 3j?>matter_oct2008_english.ashx.

      6. Company Ma. Women matter: time to accelerate: ten years of insights into gender diversity; 2017.

      7. Mobasseri KAMS. Women create a sustainable future; 2012.

      8. Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, Van Engen M. Comparing transformational, transactional and laissez-faire styles; 2003.

        • Eagly AH
        • Johannesen-Schmidt MC
        The leadership styles of women and men.
        Journal of Social Issues. 2001; 57: 787-791
      9. Georges Desvaux, Sandrine Devillard, Alix de Zelicourt, Cecile Kossoff, Eric Labaye, and Sandra Sancier-Sultan. Published by McKinsey and company, 2017. Women matter time to accelerate ten years of insights into gender diversity; 2017. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/women-matter-ten-years-of-insights-on-gender-diversity#

      10. Leon G. Men and women in space. Vol 76:1. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2005.

      11. McKinsey. Delivering through diversity; 2018.

        • Bruckmüller S
        • Ryan MK
        • Rink F
        • Haslam SA
        Beyond the glass ceiling: The glass cliff and its lessons for organizational policy.
        Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 2014; 8: 202-232
        • Pepin JR
        • Sayer LC
        • Casper LM
        Marital status and mothers’ time use: childcare, housework, leisure, and sleep.
        Demography. 2018; 55: 107-133
        • Baumhakel M
        • Muller U
        • Bohm M
        Influence of gender of physicians and patients on guideline-recommended treatment of chronic heart failure in a cross-sectional study.
        Eur J Heart Fail. 2009; 11: 299-303
        • Roter DL
        • Hall JA
        • Aoki Y
        Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review.
        JAMA. 2002; 288: 756-764
        • Wallis CJ
        • Ravi B
        • Coburn N
        • Nam RK
        • Detsky AS
        • Satkunasivam R
        Comparison of postoperative outcomes among patients treated by male and female surgeons: a population based matched cohort study.
        BMJ. 2017; 359: j4366
        • Association AU
        The State of the Urology Workforce and Practice in the United States.
        Linthicum, Maryland, U.S.A.2019
      12. Association AU. Urology residency match statistics; 2020.

      13. Kane LM. Medscape physician compensation report 2019. 2019.

      14. Today A. The state of women in academic medicine statistics, 2015-2016. 2016.

        • Han J
        • Stillings S
        • Hamann H
        • Terry R
        • Moy L
        Gender and subspecialty of urology faculty in department-based leadership roles.
        Urology. 2017; 110: 36-39
        • Mayer EN
        • Lenherr SM
        • Hanson HA
        • Jessop TC
        • Lowrance WT
        Gender differences in publication productivity among academic urologists in the United States.
        Urology. 2017; 103: 39-46
        • Henderson AA
        • Murray KS
        • Ahmed H
        Female representation on journal editorial boards-is urology behind the times?.
        J. Urol. 2019; 201 (PMID: 30240690): 237-238https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.09.044
        • Hofler LG
        • Hacker MR
        • Dodge LE
        • Schutzberg R
        • Ricciotti HA
        Comparison of women in department leadership in obstetrics and gynecology with other specialties.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 127: 442-447
        • Hayes J
        • Kuo I
        Fixing the ‘leaky pipeline’: more women leaders in medicine.
        Medscape. 2019;
        • Flyckt RL
        • White EE
        • Goodman LR
        • Mohr C
        • Dutta S
        • Zanotti KM
        The use of laparoscopy simulation to explore gender differences in resident surgical confidence.
        Obstet Gynecol Int. 2017; 20171945801
      15. Miller* B, Azari D, Gerber R, Radwin R, Le B. PD27-02 female surgeons and surgical trainees tend to under rate technical skills on self-assessment. 2019.

        • Burgess DJ
        • Joseph A
        • van Ryn M
        • Carnes M
        Does stereotype threat affect women in academic medicine?.
        Acad Med. 2012; 87: 506-512
        • Lindeman MIH
        • Durik AM
        • Dooley M
        Women and self-promotion: a test of three theories.
        Psychol Rep. 2018; 122 (Epub 2018 Jan 29. PMID: 29375027): 219-230https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118755096
      16. Shipman C, Kay K. The confidence gap. 2014.

      17. Sarsons H. Interpreting signals in the labor market: evidence from medical referrals; 2017.

        • Meyerson SL
        • Sternbach JM
        • Zwischenberger JB
        • Bender EM
        The effect of gender on resident autonomy in the operating room.
        J Surg Educ. 2017; 74: e111-e118
      18. Deloitte. The 2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey: wnning over the next generation of leaders; 2016.

      19. Women matter: ten years of insights on gender diversity. 2017.

        • McGinn KL
        • Tempest N
        Heidi Roizen.
        Harvard Business School Case. 2010; (800-288)
        • Wong K
        There's a stress gap between men and women. here's why it's important.
        N.Y. Times. 2018;
      20. MacReady N. Female MDs likely to have educated spouses with careers. 2017.

      21. Eilperin J. How a White House women's office strategy went viral. 2016.

        • Van Vianen AEM
        • Fischer
        • Agneta H
        Illuminating the glass ceiling: The role of organizational culture preferences.
        Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2002; 75: 315-337
      22. Barrett M. #HeForShe: Why it matters to the individual (and to everyone) | surgery | Michigan medicine. 2019.

        • Filippou P
        • Mahajan S
        • Deal A
        • et al.
        The Presence of gender bias in letters of recommendations written for urology residency applicants.
        Urology. 2019; 134: 56-61
        • Awad MA
        • Gaither TW
        • Osterberg EC
        • et al.
        Gender differences in promotions and scholarly productivity in academic urology.
        Can J Urol. 2017; 24: 9011-9016
        • Breyer BN
        • Butler C
        • Fang R
        • et al.
        Promotion disparities in academic urology.
        Urology. 2020; 138: 16-23
      23. Misra J, Lundquist JH, Holmes E, Agiomavritis S. The ivory ceiling of service work | AAUP2011.

        • Fassiotto M
        • Simard C
        • Sandborg C
        • Valantine H
        • Raymond J
        An integrated career coaching and time-banking system promoting flexibility, wellness, and success: a pilot program at stanford university school of medicine.
        Acad. Med. 2018; 93 (PMID: 29298183; PMCID: PMC5976513): 881-887https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002121
        • Minter RM
        • Gruppen LD
        • Napolitano KS
        • Gauger PG
        Gender differences in the self-assessment of surgical residents.
        Am J Surg. 2005; 189: 647-650
        • Meyerson SL
        • Odell DD
        • Zwischenberger JB
        • et al.
        The effect of gender on operative autonomy in general surgery residents.
        Surgery. 2019; 166: 738-743
        • Babchenko O
        • Gast K
        Should we train and female and male residents slightly differently?.
        JAMA Surg. 2020; 55 (PMID: 32129814): 373-374https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.5887
        • Hoffman A
        • Grant W
        • McCormick M
        • Jezewski E
        • Matemavi P
        • Langnas A
        Gendered differences in letters of recommendation for transplant surgery fellowship applicants.
        J Surg Educ. 2019; 76: 427-432
        • Halpern JA
        • Lee UJ
        • Wolff EM
        • et al.
        Women in Urology Residency, 1978-2013: a critical look at gender representation in our specialty.
        Urology. 2016; 92: 20-25