Sarah A. Bunton

Predictors of workplace satisfaction for U.S. medical school faculty in an era of change and challenge.

Purpose To examine the current state of satisfaction with the academic medicine workplace among U.S. medical school faculty and the workplace factors that have the greatest influence on global satisfaction. Method The authors used data from the 2009 administration of a medical school faculty job satisfaction survey and used descriptive statistics and &khgr;2 analyses to assess levels of overall satisfaction within faculty subgroups. Multiple regressions used the mean scores of the 18 survey dimensions and demographic variables to predict three global satisfaction measures. Results The survey was completed by 9,638 full-time faculty from 23 U.S. medical schools. Respondents were mostly satisfied on global satisfaction measures including satisfaction with their department (6,506/9,128; 71.3%) and medical school (5,796/9,124; 63.5%) and whether they would again choose to work at their medical school (5,968/8,506; 70.2%). The survey dimensions predicted global satisfaction well, with the final models explaining 51% to 67% of the variance in the dependent measures. Predictors across models include organization, governance, and transparency; focus of mission; recruitment and retention effectiveness; department relationships; workplace culture; and nature of work. Conclusions Despite the relatively unpredictable environmental challenges facing medical schools today, leaders have opportunities to influence and improve the workplace satisfaction of their faculty. Examples of opportunities include fostering a culture characterized by open communication and occasions for faculty input, and remaining vigilant regarding factors contributing to faculty burnout. Understanding what drives faculty satisfaction is crucial for medical schools as they continue to seek excellence in all missions and recruit and retain high-quality faculty.

Evolving Workplace Flexibility for U.S. Medical School Tenure-Track Faculty

Purpose The academic workplace has seen dramatic changes in recent decades, including growing faculty workloads, an increasingly demographically diverse faculty population, and changing expectations about workplace climate. Despite these significant changes, a typical medical facultys career trajectory is often still quite linear and follows decades-old tenure policies. The authors describe the existence of flexible faculty policies related to tenure at U.S. medical schools to understand better the ways in which institutions are responding. Method Data primarily reflect responses from faculty affairs leaders at medical schools accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education to a 2008 faculty personnel policies survey. These data are supplemented with results from the same survey fielded in previous years. Results The number of medical schools that have lengthened their probationary periods for faculty has increased over time, and, in 2008, nearly half of the institutions offered a probationary period length of eight years or more to faculty. Over three-fourths of the schools in 2008 had a tenure-clock-stopping policy available, and a third had a policy allowing faculty to work less than full-time while remaining on a tenure-eligible track. Conclusions Findings suggest that many medical schools have made progress in making policy additions and modifications that acknowledge the changing academic workplace culture by adding flexibility to traditional tenure policies. Despite those efforts, significant opportunities remain for continued adoption of flexible policies so that faculty can achieve productive academic careers while balancing work, life, and family, and institutions can continue to recruit and retain high-quality faculty members.

Research centers and institutes in U.S. medical schools: a descriptive analysis.

Research centers and institutes are a common mechanism to organize and facilitate biomedical research at medical schools and universities. The authors report the results of a study on the size, scope, and range of activities of 604 research centers and institutes at research-intensive U.S. medical schools and their parent universities. Centers and institutes with primary missions of patient care, education, or outreach were not included. The findings indicate that, in addition to research, centers and institutes are involved in a range of activities, including education, service, and technology transfer. The centers and institutes the authors studied were more interdisciplinary than those included in previous studies on this topic. Most research centers and institutes did not have authority comparable to academic departments. Only 22% of centers directly appointed faculty members, and most center directors reported to a medical school dean or a department chair. A small group of centers and institutes (“power centers”), however, reported to a university president or provost, and may have considerable power and influence in academic decision making and resource allocation. Two main types of centers and institutes emerge from this research. The first type, which includes the vast of majority of centers, is modest in its scope and marginal in its influence. The second type—with greater amounts of funding, larger staffs, and direct access to institutional decisionmakers—may have a more significant role in the organization and governance of the medical school and university and in the ways that researchers interact within and across academic divisions.

AM last page. Understanding qualitative and quantitative research paradigms in academic medicine.

Qualitative research is becoming more prominent in academic medicine and health care fields, and an increasing number of publications using qualitative methods are featured in prominent journals1–3; thus, recognizing the different available approaches can benefit researchers of all types. While a debate may wage between proponents of qualitative versus quantitative research, both sets of methods—and often a blend of the two—offer important insights into the problems the academic medicine community faces.4–6

Characteristics, satisfaction, and engagement of part-time faculty at U.S. medical schools.

Purpose To describe the demographics of part-time faculty at U.S. medical schools and to examine their satisfaction with and perceptions of their workplace. Method Faculty from 14  Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S. medical schools participated in the 2011–2012 Faculty Forward Engagement Survey. The authors calculated descriptive statistics of part-time faculty respondents and used ANOVA and t test analyses to assess significant differences between and among demographic groups. Results The survey yielded an overall response rate of 62% (9,600/15,490). Of the part-time faculty respondents, most had appointments in clinical departments (634/674; 94%) and were female (415/674; 62%). Just over 80% (384/474) reported a full-time equivalent of 0.5 or higher. The majority of part-time faculty respondents reported satisfaction with their department and medical school as a place to work (372/496 [75%] and 325/492 [66%]); approximately half agreed that their institution had clear expectations for part-time faculty (210/456; 46%) and provided the resources they needed (232/457; 51%). Significant differences existed between part- and full-time faculty respondents regarding perceptions of growth opportunities and compensation and benefits, with part-time faculty respondents feeling less satisfied in these areas. Conclusions As institutions work to improve the satisfaction of full-time faculty, they should do the same for part-time faculty. Understanding why faculty choose part-time work is important in encouraging the recruitment and retention of the most talented faculty. The findings of this study indicate multiple opportunities to improve the satisfaction and engagement of part-time faculty.

Make the context work for you: faculty in a changing academic medicine landscape.

Academic medicine’s landscape is dynamically adjusting. The changes are accelerating and these alterations are impacting both the faculty workforce as a whole and individual faculty members. This article reviews workforce and institutional changes within academic medicine and supports the need for faculty members to adapt to this changing landscape. Resources to maintain an understanding of these ongoing changes are reviewed. A faculty life-cycle model is proposed as a context for developing a personal action plan. Career management steps are suggested to facilitate career productivity and satisfaction. Finally, we propose that psychologists, being human behavior experts, are well positioned to contribute within the transformation of academic medicine.

The impact of centers and institutes on faculty life: findings from a study of basic science and internal medicine faculty at research-intensive medical schools.

Purpose To examine the impact of organized research centers on faculty productivity and work life for basic science and internal medicine faculty at research-intensive medical schools. Method In 2005, the authors administered a questionnaire to a random stratified sample of full-time faculty in basic science and internal medicine departments at the top 40 research-intensive U.S. medical schools. The survey instrument asked faculty about the extent of their involvement in centers and institutes, the direction and extent of their activities, and their satisfaction with various dimensions of work. Results A total of 778 faculty members completed the questionnaire (72.0%). Basic science faculty with center affiliations produced more research publications and grants while devoting comparable effort to teaching as their non-center-affiliated peers. These faculty reported greater dissatisfaction in workload and in the mix of their activities. Internal medicine MD center-affiliated faculty were more productive in research activities and spent less effort in patient care and more effort in research than their non-center-affiliated peers. These faculty were more satisfied with promotion, opportunities for research, and the pace of their professional advancement. Conclusions Findings indicate that faculty from different departments and with different ranks and backgrounds interact with centers and institutes in multiple ways. For basic science faculty, center involvement appears to be an addition to, not a substitute for, their usual departmental obligations. For internal medicine MD faculty, center involvement appears to serve as an opportunity for protected effort in research away from the demands of clinical practice.

Post-tenure Review at U.S. Medical Schools.

Purpose To assess post-tenure review policies at U.S. medical schools by examining how prevalent post-tenure review is, what models of post-tenure review are employed, and what outcomes result from post-tenure review processes. Method In late 2014, a Web-based survey was sent to the associate dean for faculty affairs (or equivalent) at each U.S. medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (N = 141). The survey addressed elements of post-tenure review policies, including whether a policy was in place, the frequency of the review, and the review outcomes. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results Of the 94 responding schools with a tenure system, 39 (41%) had an established post-tenure review policy. Although these policies showed great variability across schools in duration, having been in place from 1 to 50 years, 12 (31%) were established within the last 5 years. The outcomes of post-tenure review also varied. Superior performance ratings generally resulted in notations in the faculty member’s personnel file and notifications to school leadership. Conversely, when a faculty member received an unsatisfactory rating, a remediation or development plan was sometimes required. Conclusions At least 40% of medical schools with a tenure system have post-tenure review, and it is becoming more common. These findings about the prevalence and use of post-tenure review across institutions can assist medical school leaders as they strive to shape policies to facilitate faculty engagement and productivity. They also can provide the foundation for future evaluative studies on the effectiveness, outcomes, and impact of post-tenure review.