Defining Types of Leadership Within an Academic Surgery Department to Promote Change for Decreasing Rates of Burnout.

Amelia Grover, Sally A. Santen, Kelly Lockeman, Dana Burns, K. Akuamoah-Boateng, Cynthia Siner, Sarah Miller, Brian K Sparkman, Lisa Ellis, Carla Nye
{"title":"Defining Types of Leadership Within an Academic Surgery Department to Promote Change for Decreasing Rates of Burnout.","authors":"Amelia Grover, Sally A. Santen, Kelly Lockeman, Dana Burns, K. Akuamoah-Boateng, Cynthia Siner, Sarah Miller, Brian K Sparkman, Lisa Ellis, Carla Nye","doi":"10.1177/00031348241244643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\nSuccessful leaders influence the group they represent. Effective surgical care is tied to its leadership climate. However, most surgical providers are not attuned to their individual strengths which if known they could leverage them within their teams. This study identifies leadership types within a department of surgery which may be used to better understand and cultivate their strengths.\n\n\nMETHODS\nIn 2022, 172 providers in an academic surgery department were offered the GallupTM CliftonStrengths assessment, a proprietary instrument that maps 34 strengths across 4 domains of leadership. The assessment provides a respondent with their top 5 strengths and the domain in which they naturally \"lead\".\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf 172 providers, 127 (74%) completed the assessment. While providers have strengths in multiple domains, they \"lead with\" a specific domain. Mapped from the providers' top 10 strengths, the most common \"lead with\" domain for surgical providers was Executing: the ability to implement ideas and produce results. Strategic Thinking: those who are analytical and push teams forward and Relationship Building: the ability to create strong and effective teams were followed by the least common domain. Influencing: the ability to communicate ideas and lead others. Formal leaders were significantly more likely to lead with Strategic Thinking. There were no significant differences between APPs and physicians.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nA majority of surgical providers \"lead with\" the GallupTM Executing domain. Those who lead with executing skills work tirelessly to produce outcomes. Learning to leverage the strengths of our teams to create cohesion and efficiency may improve engagement and retention.","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":"48 14","pages":"31348241244643"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241244643","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Successful leaders influence the group they represent. Effective surgical care is tied to its leadership climate. However, most surgical providers are not attuned to their individual strengths which if known they could leverage them within their teams. This study identifies leadership types within a department of surgery which may be used to better understand and cultivate their strengths. METHODS In 2022, 172 providers in an academic surgery department were offered the GallupTM CliftonStrengths assessment, a proprietary instrument that maps 34 strengths across 4 domains of leadership. The assessment provides a respondent with their top 5 strengths and the domain in which they naturally "lead". RESULTS Of 172 providers, 127 (74%) completed the assessment. While providers have strengths in multiple domains, they "lead with" a specific domain. Mapped from the providers' top 10 strengths, the most common "lead with" domain for surgical providers was Executing: the ability to implement ideas and produce results. Strategic Thinking: those who are analytical and push teams forward and Relationship Building: the ability to create strong and effective teams were followed by the least common domain. Influencing: the ability to communicate ideas and lead others. Formal leaders were significantly more likely to lead with Strategic Thinking. There were no significant differences between APPs and physicians. CONCLUSION A majority of surgical providers "lead with" the GallupTM Executing domain. Those who lead with executing skills work tirelessly to produce outcomes. Learning to leverage the strengths of our teams to create cohesion and efficiency may improve engagement and retention.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
定义外科学术部门的领导类型,促进改革以降低倦怠率。
目标 成功的领导者会影响其所代表的群体。有效的外科护理与领导氛围息息相关。然而,大多数手术提供者并不了解自己的个人优势,如果了解这些优势,他们就能在团队中发挥优势。本研究确定了外科部门的领导力类型,可用于更好地了解和培养他们的优势。方法 2022 年,一家学术外科部门的 172 名医疗人员接受了 GallupTM CliftonStrengths 评估,这是一种专有工具,可映射出领导力 4 个领域的 34 种优势。评估为受访者提供了他们的 5 大优势以及他们自然 "领导 "的领域。结果 在 172 名医疗人员中,127 人(74%)完成了评估。虽然医疗服务提供者在多个领域都有优势,但他们 "领导 "的是某个特定领域。根据医疗服务提供者的十大优势,外科医疗服务提供者最常见的 "领导力 "领域是执行力:实施想法并产生结果的能力。战略思维:善于分析并推动团队前进;建立关系:有能力创建强大而有效的团队。影响力:沟通想法和领导他人的能力。正式领导更倾向于以战略思维进行领导。结论大多数外科医疗人员 "领导 "盖洛普TM执行力领域。那些具备执行技能的领导者会孜孜不倦地工作以取得成果。学会利用团队的优势来创造凝聚力和效率,可以提高参与度和留任率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bile Duct Injuries During Urgent Cholecystectomy at a Safety Net Teaching Hospital: Attending Experience and Time of Day May Matter. From Bytes to Best Practices: Tracing ChatGPT-3.5's Evolution and Alignment With the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Management. The USCENTCOM Walking Blood Bank Performance Benchmark and Anticipated Benefit of Universal Low Titer Type O Screening. Contemporary Outcomes and Patterns of Injury Associated With Parachuting Accidents. To Drain or Not: Drainage Procedures Remain a Central Tenet of Management of Infected Collections in Acute Pancreatitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1