Raymond Lucas1, Ellen F Goldman, Andrea R Scott, Valerie Dandar. 1. R. Lucas is associate dean for faculty affairs and professional development and associate professor of emergency medicine, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC. E.F. Goldman is assistant dean for faculty and curricular development, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, and associate professor of human and organizational learning, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, Washington, DC. A.R. Scott is a doctoral candidate, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, Washington, DC. V. Dandar is manager, Faculty Forward and Academic Affairs, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the prevalence and characteristics of faculty leadership development programs (LDPs) offered by North American academic health centers (AHCs) and to uncover gaps in leadership training. METHOD: Faculty development/affairs deans of the 161 Association of American Medical Colleges member schools were surveyed in 2015 on their approach to faculty leadership training. For AHCs delivering their own training, the survey included questions about LDP participants, objectives, curriculum, delivery, resources, and evaluation. The literature on leadership and leadership development was used to develop a taxonomy of leadership competencies, which formed the basis of the survey questions related to program content. Survey results were analyzed with descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis for categorical data. RESULTS: Of the 94 respondents (response rate 58%), 93 provided some form of leadership training and 61 provided a formal internal faculty LDP. Content was variable and rarely based on a specific leadership competency model. Although programs described innovative approaches to learning, lectures and case discussions were the predominant approaches. Evaluation beyond participant satisfaction was uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty LDPs were common, with some programs describing elements informed by the leadership literature. However, nationally programs can improve by basing content on a leadership competency model, incorporating multiple approaches to teaching, and implementing more rigorous program evaluation.
PURPOSE: To identify the prevalence and characteristics of faculty leadership development programs (LDPs) offered by North American academic health centers (AHCs) and to uncover gaps in leadership training. METHOD: Faculty development/affairs deans of the 161 Association of American Medical Colleges member schools were surveyed in 2015 on their approach to faculty leadership training. For AHCs delivering their own training, the survey included questions about LDPparticipants, objectives, curriculum, delivery, resources, and evaluation. The literature on leadership and leadership development was used to develop a taxonomy of leadership competencies, which formed the basis of the survey questions related to program content. Survey results were analyzed with descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis for categorical data. RESULTS: Of the 94 respondents (response rate 58%), 93 provided some form of leadership training and 61 provided a formal internal faculty LDP. Content was variable and rarely based on a specific leadership competency model. Although programs described innovative approaches to learning, lectures and case discussions were the predominant approaches. Evaluation beyond participant satisfaction was uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty LDPs were common, with some programs describing elements informed by the leadership literature. However, nationally programs can improve by basing content on a leadership competency model, incorporating multiple approaches to teaching, and implementing more rigorous program evaluation.
Authors: Caryn Lerman; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Mary Falcone; David M Gosky; Roy A Jensen; Kelvin P Lee; Edith Mitchell; Kunle Odunsi; Jennifer W Pegher; Elisa Rodriguez; Yolanda Sanchez; Reuben Shaw; George Weiner; Cheryl L Willman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-09-09 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Elisha Brownfield; David J Cole; Richard L Segal; Elizabeth Pilcher; Darlene Shaw; Gail Stuart; Gigi Smith Journal: J Healthc Leadersh Date: 2020-11-17
Authors: Emily A Vail; Nandita R Nadig; Sarina K Sahetya; Lisa K Vande Vusse; Allan J Walkey; Vincent Liu; Kusum S Mathews Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-04
Authors: Suzanne C Danhauer; Janet A Tooze; Natalie Am Barrett; Jamie S Blalock; Carol A Shively; Mary Lou Voytko; Sonia J Crandall Journal: Glob Adv Health Med Date: 2019-07-16