Why Faculty Leaders Leave a School of Medicine?

Faculty attrition at academic health centers (AHCs) is significant at about 11% nationally, with one in five physicians intending to leave, and replacement costs averaging $500,000 per physician. Attrition among AHC faculty leaders is inadequately studied. This study compares reasons to leave between exiting faculty leaders and faculty non-leaders at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM SOM). The SOM deans interview all exiting faculty using a structured exit survey. 329 faculty non-leaders and 58 faculty leaders left UNM SOM between July 2017 and June 2022. Distributions of each variable were analyzed for statistically significant differences between the two groups using Fisher's 2-sided exact test. Text comments by leaders were analyzed qualitatively for content using a team-based, iterative process. As compared to non-leaders, exiting faculty leaders were more likely to be professors (51.7% vs 16.7%, p<0.001), and hold tenure (32.8% vs. 12.2%, p=0.001). Faculty leaders were more likely than non-leaders to cite high-level leadership as a reason to leave (41.4% vs. 24.3% p=0.01) and better leadership as a critical issue in development and retention (51.7% vs. 36.8% p=0.04). Qualitative analyses of textual leader comments showed a similar distribution of themes as the quantitative variables when examining open text related to the survey questions related to reasons to leave and the most critical issues. In addition, when asked what would need to change for them to return, qualitative data showed open-ended responses by exiting faculty leaders were twice as frequent to include leadership comments than those by non-leaders (34.2% vs. 16.2%). Exiting faculty leaders disproportionately cite high-level leadership as a reason to leave. The mediatory factors for this association are not known. Investigations to determine the causes for the study findings, and data-driven intervention strategies to retain faculty leaders at SOMs are needed.

Navigating Barriers and Challenges to Achieving Critical Career Milestones Among Faculty Mentees.

For faculty members, job satisfaction, compensation, and career advancement hinge on achieving 'critical' career milestones (e.g., external funding, tenure). Faculty face unique barriers to achieving career milestones (Bagley et al., 2018), and therefore must employ tailored strategies to overcome challenges. The current project extends research on barriers to career milestones (Soller et al., 2022) to examine strategies faculty employ to overcome barriers in the pursuit of critical career milestones. Thirty-seven faculty members participated across eight US academic institutions, including 22 under-represented minorities in science (URM-S; women or racial/ ethnic minorities). Respondents identified critical career milestones they achieved or will pursue within the next 24 months and then discussed strategies used and suggestions for achieving milestones during semi-structured qualitative interviews. The research team conducted a thematic, qualitative, descriptive analysis of qualitative data using NVivo software in a systematic, interactive, team-based process. Four key strategies emerged for navigating barriers in the pursuit of critical career milestones: 1) Careful engagement of mentors and allies; 2) Collaborate and network; 3) Set boundaries and prioritize; and 4) Reflect on values and use personal strengths. Administrators should aim to remove structural barriers, particularly those that reduce equity (Davis et al., 2022). Identifying strategies that faculty employ to overcome challenges can enhance mentoring by helping mentors understand how mentees overcome unique challenges, particularly those that are not easily addressed through structural interventions.

Barriers and Challenges for Career Milestones Among Faculty Mentees.

'Critical' career milestones for faculty (e.g., tenure, securing grant funding) relate to career advancement, job satisfaction, service/leadership, scholarship/research, clinical or teaching activities, professionalism, compensation, and work-life balance. However, barriers and challenges to these milestones encountered by junior faculty have been inadequately studied, particularly those affecting underrepresented minorities in science (URM-S). Additionally, little is known about how barriers and challenges to career milestones have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic for URM-S and non-URM faculty mentees in science. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 faculty mentees from four academic institutions (located in New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho, and Hawaii), including 22 URM-S (women or racial/ethnic). Respondents were given examples of 'critical' career milestones and were asked to identify and discuss barriers and challenges that they have encountered or expect to encounter while working toward achieving these milestones. We performed thematic descriptive analysis using NVivo software in an iterative, team-based process. Our preliminary analysis identified five key themes that illustrate barriers and challenges encountered: Job and career development, Discrimination and a lack of workplace diversity; Lack of interpersonal relationships and inadequate social support at the workplace; Personal and family matters; and Unique COVID-19-related issues. COVID-19 barriers and challenges were related to online curriculum creation and administration, interpersonal relationship development, inadequate training/service/conference opportunities, and disruptions in childcare and schooling. Although COVID-19 helped create new barriers and challenges for junior faculty mentees, traditional barriers and challenges for 'critical' career milestones continue to be reported among our respondents. URM-S respondents also identified discrimination and diversity-related barriers and challenges. Subsequent interviews will focus on 12-month and 24-month follow-ups and provide additional insight into the unique challenges and barriers to 'critical' career milestones that URM and non-URM faculty in science have encountered during the unique historical context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Qualitative Review of Comments by Faculty Who Cite Work-Life Balance as a Reason to Leave.

Despite growing evidence for the need for work-life balance (WLB) for faculty at academic health centers, mentors frequently do not know how to advise their mentees on this topic. WLB impacts job satisfaction and intent to stay, and physicians are particularly at risk. In this study, we explored exit survey comments of faculty of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine citing work-life balance as a reason to leave (WLB-ARTL). Between July 2017 and December 2020, 59 faculty provided open-ended survey responses related to reasons for leaving, what they liked and disliked about being faculty, mentorship, and more. Using a qualitative descriptive design, we analyzed open-ended responses using a systematic, iterative, thematic approach via NVIVO software. We classified themes using Shanafelt's drivers of engagement and burnout: workload/job demands; efficiency/ resources; meaning in work; culture/values; control/flexibility; social support/community at work; and work-life integration. While there were numerous quotes across all themes, we chose to summarize emergent codes with the most faculty representation and those that can most easily be addressed through mentorship: career development, culture and people, and hours and schedule (related to themes of meaning in work, culture and values, community at work, work-life integration, and control and flexibility). To improve faculty retention, institutional leaders should focus on developing mentors' career coaching and mentoring skills. Additional focus should be placed on training mentors to discuss and address WLB among their faculty mentees.

Exiting Medicine Faculty Want the Organizational Culture and Climate to Change.

National data indicate about 50% of junior faculty leave a School of Medicine (SOM) within eight years of hire. The long-term goal of the study was to determine innovative strategies for promoting SOM faculty retention. The study objective was to determine factors influencing SOM faculty to exit, and what would encourage them to stay or return. All faculty exiting the University of New Mexico (UNM) SOM were surveyed and their responses analyzed to the following items: (a) If something could have been done differently that might have resulted in staying at UNM, what would it have been? (b) What would need to change at UNM SOM for you to return? and (c) general comments offered. Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses used an iterative process and systematic thematic approach and NVivo software. 173 faculty respondents surveyed between July 2017 and June 2019 included 86 women, 33 non-Caucasians, and 14 Hispanics. A total of 110 faculty reported an MD degree and 117 were assistant professors. Seventy-eight faculty were on clinician educator track. The 367 responses to the three questions were categorized into 10 themes. The most common themes included (a) people (leadership and others) and workplace culture (25.1% of responses); (b) extent of career support and resources (15.3%); (c) organizational systems and administration (13.6%); and (d) faculty feelings of autonomy and value (10.9%). Exiting faculty frequently discussed the need for a change of leadership and changes in organizational climate and culture, which may have influenced their willingness to stay or to return to UNM SOM. To retain faculty, SOM leaders need to strengthen and/or modify organizational climate and culture components. Innovative strategies for this purpose may include organizational interventions followed by evidence-based leadership training programs, and the use of exit surveys for monitoring interventions.