JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

There is a persistent wage disparity between men and women in the healthcare industry. Women are the most susceptible to this gender disparity due to institutional impediments that prevent them from attaining senior leadership roles, such as C.E.O.s. Therefore; this study aims to investigate the gender gap in healthcare leadership, particularly in senior executive positions (C-Suites). The study also examines structural problems that hinder women from becoming C-Suite leaders in healthcare. Academic research indicates that men hold most healthcare leadership positions. This research on gender inequality in healthcare leadership utilizes secondary data analysis of peer-reviewed articles as its methodology. The findings revealed fewer women in high leadership roles within hospitals and healthcare organizations. Women make up most of the healthcare workforce. Moreover, it showed that women are not equal to men due to social factors, which proves utilitarianism does not apply equally to women. This research concluded that there is gender disparity in healthcare leadership.

Objective:

During the heightened attention surrounding sexual harassment and abuse during the #MeToo movement, issues concerning women in leadership, including healthcare leadership, have been highlighted. The issue of gender inequality at work has recently been brought to public attention through in-depth media reporting and testimonies from individuals. As a result of Oliver Wyman's Women in Healthcare Leadership survey, only 30 percent of C-level positions for payers and providers are held by women. However, women comprise 65 percent of the workforce. ("Women in healthcare leadership 2019,”) C.E.O.s in the healthcare sector are 87 percent men, which makes it even more challenging for women to gain traction in their careers and access to C-Suite level roles. ("Survey: How women and men executives perceive healthcare workplaces 2018,") This analysis examines the gender gap in healthcare leadership, particularly in senior executive positions (C-Suites). There will be an emphasis on two major topics: What obstacles are there to women advancing to executive leadership positions? What are the effects of gender imbalance in leadership on women in the healthcare industry? The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of past research articles from reliable sources. According to information from the Bureau of Economic Statistics, 76% of over 21.2 million workers in the industry were women. ("Over 16 million women worked in health care and social assistance in 2021: The economics daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics," 2022) However, a 2012 study found that if women and men in health care administration had the same experience, only 11% of women attained chief executive officer roles as opposed to 22% of males (Mose, 2021). As supported by Christopher et al. (2021) report, in the United States, women comprise fifty percent of the health care workforce but hold just about twenty-five percent of senior-level leadership positions. Because of this diversity gap in the C-Suite, healthcare organizations in the United States no longer accurately reflect the staff and employees they serve. Additionally, it has presented difficulties for American healthcare companies. One of these issues is the widespread belief that everything is well in the C-Suite and that healthcare facilities welcome diversity. Other key challenges include a shrinking talent pool, elderly C-suite executives who are out of touch with their patient population, and leaders who lack cultural competency. Intergroup prejudices are implicit and systematic, making them challenging to remove. (Jongen et al., 2018) Therefore, despite publishing the gender gaps in health care, the American government must make more significant efforts to rectify these concerns, as utilitarianism does not apply to women who seek leadership positions. Consequently, this study investigates the gender disparity in healthcare leadership, particularly among top executive positions (C-Suites). This study will analyze secondary quantitative data using peer-reviewed literature.

Methods:

This secondary quantitative research method employs relevant information from peer-reviewed scholarly research articles. Research articles published during the past five years have been provided to ensure findings are based on current knowledge, without prejudice or omitting growing patterns in the gender influence on healthcare leadership. Secondary sources are taken from Google Scholar. Several variables were examined in the secondary sources and articles identified for a study using these sources. IBM SPSS® program to formulate the research outcomes and prepare and analyze the study data. The research findings are comprehensive and could be extrapolated from a broader perspective.

Results:

Analyzing the secondary data sources leads to several conclusions regarding the impact of gender on the participation of women in executive leadership positions in healthcare. The number of women in executive healthcare leadership positions has steadily increased; in recent years, more women have been in executive leadership positions within the healthcare industry. In the American labor market, healthcare stands out. There is also a significant gender pay discrepancy between male and female healthcare employees, with female IT healthcare workers earning 28% less than their male counterparts. Disparities in working hours explain 6.9%, occupational differences 9.9%, and miscellaneous factors 11.2%. ("Just a moment., 2018) Other factors included discrimination based on gender, limited advancement possibilities, and limited representation in top positions. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Results indicate a gender disparity in healthcare leadership. In spite of making up most of the health sector's workforce, women are underrepresented in executive positions. According to Wyman's (2019) report, in the healthcare industry, women make up to 65 percent of the total workforce, yet they only occupy 30% of the C-suite roles, according to Wyman's (2019) report. Even though men make up only 18% of the workforce in healthcare, they hold most of the top positions. It is not unusual for women to end up in the bottom rung positions, finding that leadership jobs are rarely offered to them or that their superiors have no desire to assist women in achieving their career goals for C-Suite membership. ("Exploring the challenges facing women leaders in health care," 2020)

Conclusions:

Healthcare institution does not have a problem of women in healthcare. Instead, it has a problem of women in healthcare leadership. This is because women only occupy about 30% of typical provider C-suite roles but makeup 65% of the healthcare industry's workforce (Wyman, 2019). Therefore, due to the lack of diversity in the C-suite, incumbents risk lacking the distinction and creativity necessary to compete in a rapidly changing market. Because of many gender inequities, healthcare institutions have occasionally been considered a hostile environment for women. This pattern causes numerous women to confront forms of gender bias and sexism, which prevents them from pursuing or gaining sectoral careers and advancing to professional leadership positions. Some significant obstacles women in academic medicine face besides implicit and blatant sexism include unequal access to funding and resources, pay inequity and higher teaching and advising loads. This impedes the progress of academic women towards parity with their male counterparts. (Carr 2015) The gap continues to widen even more when researching the percentages of women of color, women with disabilities, and LGBTQIA+ women. ("Promising practices for addressing the underrepresentation of women in science, engineering, and medicine: Opening doors," 2020) For instance, compared to men, women are offered fewer opportunities at work, resulting in the underrepresentation in leadership positions within organizations. Unlike men, managers offer women less demanding tasks and training opportunities. The gender pay gap, the longer time required for women to grow in their professions, and the lack of women in leadership roles are examples of how workplace discrimination adversely affects women's chances and incomes. In other words, discrimination in employment lowers the socioeconomic standing of women. Utilitarianism is an influential moral philosophy that states that what is morally right is the maximin criterion; for this reason, Mary Wollstonecraft argued that women are more capable than men, but she expresses her reasoning in terms of built-in natural disadvantages, such as oppression. (Wollstonecraft, 1891) Healthcare organizations have the option of adopting or rejecting the utilitarian approach to protocols; however, it is their responsibility to have a thorough understanding of the guidelines in question, the benefits (if any), and the obstacles this course of action will present for all women in the healthcare and medical industry. While most healthcare employees are women, only an inconsequential number hold executive positions. As a result of societal notions of morality and ethics, social barriers prevented women from achieving leadership positions, such as discriminatory promotions and stereotypes regarding their inability to excel in scientific fields. The results of this study are limited to findings within the United States. Although the results reflect the global trend in leadership, future research is necessary to identify the specific cultural constraints that contribute to the gender gap in women's leadership. As a result, cultural awareness varies from one geographic region to another.