A cross-industry comparison of how women leaders experience gender bias

PurposeThis paper compares how women leaders in four US industries–higher education, faith-based non-profits, healthcare and law–experience 15 aspects of gender bias.Design/methodology/approachThis study used convergent mixed methods to collect data from 1,606 participants. It included quantitative assessment of a validated gender bias scale and qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses.FindingsResults suggest that, while gender bias is prevalent in all four industries, differences exist. Participants in higher education experienced fewer aspects of gender bias than the other three industries related to male culture, exclusion, self-limited aspirations, lack of sponsorship and lack of acknowledgement. The faith-based sample reported the highest level of two-person career structure but the lowest levels of queen bee syndrome, workplace harassment and salary inequality. Healthcare tended towards the middle, reporting higher scores than one industry and lower than another while participants working in law experienced more gender bias than the other three industries pertaining to exclusion and workplace harassment. Healthcare and law were the two industries with the most similar experiences of bias.Originality/valueThis research contributes to human resource management (HRM) literature by advancing understanding of how 15 different gender bias variables manifest differently for women leaders in various industry contexts and by providing HRM leaders with practical steps to create equitable organizational cultures.

Even Superheroes Need Rest: A Guide to Facilitating Recovery from Work for Health-care Workers during COVID-19 and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic burdens health-care workers (HCWs) worldwide. Amid high-stress conditions and unprecedented needs for crisis management, organizations face the grand challenge of supporting the mental health and well-being of their HCWs. The current literature on mental health and well-being primarily focuses on improving personal resilience among HCWs. However, this puts the responsibility for coping with COVID-19-related stress almost fully on the individual. This chapter discusses an important alternative framing of this issue - how health-care organizations (HCOs) can facilitate recovery from work processes (i.e., returning to a baseline level by engaging in nonwork activities after work) for their workers. Based on a narrative review of the occupational health psychology literature, we provide practical strategies for supporting the four key recovery experiences of detachment, control, mastery, and relaxation, as well as present general recommendations about how to promote recovery. These strategies can help HCOs facing the grand challenge of sustaining worker well-being and functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as during future pandemics and for workers facing high work pressure in general.

Addressing evolving patient concerns around telehealth in the COVID-19 era.

With a rapid shift to telehealth during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinicians, health care organizations, and policy makers must consider and address patients' evolving needs, concerns, and expectations.