Policy Document Gender Equity in Leadership and the WorkforceBackground The Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) is the peak representative body for medical students in Australia. AMSA holds gender equity as one of its core pillars, and recognises that the disproportionate impact of gender inequity on individuals and communities warrants the need for immediate and effective action.

It is undeniable that female-identifying and non-binary individuals face gendered discrimination. The Global Gender Report 2016, an initiative of the World Economic Forum, measures the magnitude of gender disparities within countries, ranking Australia 46th out of a total 144 countries. Australia’s rank has fallen considerably from 24th of 136 countries in 2013 and a high of 15th of 115 countries in 2006. Particularly poorly performing areas included in political empowerment and wage equality for specific work, though Australia performs strongly in ensuring equal educational attainment for all genders. There are specific gender disparities present in the study of Medicine. Given the plethora of examples, this policy is particularly focussed on dissecting gender inequity specifically in leadership and the broader workforce of Medicine [1].

Secondly, it is also important to recognise that whilst the focus of this policy is on female-identifying and non-binary individuals as a major group harmed by gender inequity, there are other marginalised groups who often face greater extents of discrimination due to their dual subscription to their gender identity and other minority status. These include disabled women, Indigenous and ethnic minorities, culturally and linguistically diverse people, and members of the LGBTIQ+ community.

In this policy, gender and gender identity refer to the socially constructed characteristics that exist on a spectrum that individuals identify with, whilst sex is the biological differences between individuals [2]. It should be noted that in discussion of gender, this policy also includes non-binary individuals [3]. This is especially important given women’s spaces have historically failed to be truly egalitarian by excluding non-binary individuals. The remaining queer spaces open to the gender-diverse individuals can be misogynistic and thus, often leave gender fluid individuals without a voice [4]. Despite this, it must be acknowledged that the lived experiences of such individuals are extremely varied and unique [5] and are thus not able to be completely explored through the policy. However,

there is often significant overlap in the forms of discrimination experienced by female-identifying and non-binary individuals regardless of gender assigned at birth [6]. Furthermore, including gender diverse voices in discussion can enrich and broaden dialogue around women’s issues and for this reason, where females or women are mentioned, it should be noted that non-binary individuals are also included [7].   LeadershipThroughout its history, the highest levels of representation in AMSA are male dominated. Despite females constituting just over half (50.7%) of all medical graduates in 2015 [8], these same students did not proportionally fill the positions of Presidents, Event Convenors, Board Directors and so forth. As an example, just four of the past 19 AMSA Presidents have been female. Gender representation in leadership positions is not a homogenous issue and different domains of representation face diverse challenges.

Since 2011, an average of 31% of advocacy positions in the National Executive have been held by women, with just 1 female Vice-President External in that same time frame. In the same time period, there have been 0 female treasurers. Conversely, since 2011, 63% of managerial roles in the National Executive have been held by women, with just 1 male Vice-President Internal. This is likely due to typified leadership styles. Advocacy roles may be seen to demand more traditionally masculine characteristics such as being assertive [9] with comparison to managerial roles which may be interpreted as requiring administrative skills which are often linked with feminine qualities such as being sensitive, cooperative and accommodative [10]. [Appendix C] These disparities are not isolated to ‘advocacy’ vs ‘managerial’ but rather exist across the whole organisation.

These figures are not specific to AMSA. As demonstrated by the diagrams below, the same disproportionate representation is seen across many other professional bodies in Medicine.

Figure 1. Proportion of Female to Male Deans of Australian Medical Schools [46-64]

Figure 2. Number of Female Presidents, Male Board Members and Female Board Members on AMA Boards in 2017 [65-73]

Figure 3. Number of Female Presidents, Male Board Members and Female Board Members on Medical Training College Boards in 2017 [64-95]

Why Does this Gap Exist?

Initially, the reason for this gendered gap was suggested to be that females were not interested in these positions. However, this has been consistently discredited with research demonstrating that both men and women are equally interested in attaining top leadership positions [11]. The discrepancy rather is born of institutional and cultural barriers that prevent women from claiming the positions. These include, but are not limited to, the lack of female role models, unconscious biases held by those selecting the positions and the unequal division of labour where women are often required to take primary responsibility of childcare [12]. Another salient factor, as identified above, is stereotyped leadership styles. The traditional leadership characteristics, such as being dominant and assertive, are

typified as “masculine.” These same characteristics in females are as seen unattractive, making it even harder for them to reach the top [11]. It should also be noted that there exists a self-confidence gap between men and women; in objective measures of competence, males tend to overestimate their skills, whereas females tend to underestimate their skills. This can lead to missed opportunities if females do not apply for positions by underestimating their skills [13].

Diversity as a Protective Factor against ‘groupthink’By predominantly drawing upon the skills and experiences of one gender, the skills, talents and contributions introduced into an organisation are limited. This is not to suggest that all women share one leadership style, but rather that diversity allows for different and distinct personalities and capabilities to be drawn upon. In essence, diversity protects against the harm of ‘groupthink’ [14], a psychological term that describes the phenomena of poorer decision making that occurs when decisions are made by members of similar background that are insulated from opinions different to their own.

This policy thus discusses two concurrent methods of increasing the representation of women.

1. No intervention vs Quotas, Affirmative Action and Targets

A merit-based system is one that argues that individuals should be chosen solely on an objective measure of “merit”. In this way, it is argued that the best people fill the position. Research has found that while the principle may be true, it is rarely evident in actuality. This is because not only are those judging merit often subconsciously biased, but merit itself is not an objective measure [15]. Merit is often a measure of past performance and future potential. Whilst past performance may be able to be evaluated objectively, future potential is a decision often based on subjective measures. For example, one study found that applicants with a male name on their resume were far more likely to be selected than identical resumes with a female name, suggesting that stereotyped biases about the genders exist in merit evaluation [16].  Another way of conceptualising this is the following: if merit were gender neutral, the positions of males: females in leadership positions should be approximately equal. Given the consistent underrepresentation of females in leadership positions across many organisations, industries and professional bodies, it is likely that broader systematic forces are at play.

Quotas and targets are two diversification strategies used to achieve gender equity. In the community, the primary difference between them is whether they are decided upon and enforced by an external body (quotas) or voluntarily undertaken and set by the organisation itself (targets) [17]. Where an organisation enforces its own rules, the predominate difference within this organisation would be that a quota would prove a hard-line that the organisation would be required to achieve, whereas a target would set an aim to strive for. Quotas are also known as affirmative action, as it is action

undertaken to promote members of a discriminated and underrepresented group.

Where the goal is to achieve equal representation on a board or committee, quotas have been shown to work quickly and effectively [12], and it has been shown that diversification of a team in and of itself improves the quality of its decision-making and problem-solving [18]. On top of that, given that some of the oft-cited reasons for the lack of female candidates for leadership positions is few female role models in leadership positions and negative perceptions of women as leaders [12], quotas offer a way to address these as current obstacles to women in a ‘merit-based’ system. Needing to fill a certain number of positions with female candidates will also force a broader pool of candidates to be considered [19], mobilising a previously underutilised resource and boosting performance [20]. A quota may also be seen as a temporary measure to quickly reach a ‘tipping point’ of women in leadership, which may perpetuate cultural change to eventually allow the quotas to be phased out [21].

However, implementing quotas at more senior levels may not necessarily increase the pool of female candidates from which to choose, necessitating that less experienced or qualified candidates to fill the spots [12]. Quotas have the potential to cause backlash against women who are seen to have gotten the position through tokenism rather that capability [22], which may have the broader effect of other female leaders being stereotyped as less capable [12].  However this backlash was found to exist only in the short-term with no evidence of backlash in the long-term. Much of the research on this topic has been done in India, where in 1993, it was required that one-third of village council seats had to be reserved for women, with the reservation rotating between elections, thus providing the ability for causal analysis to be done. It was found that this backlash disappeared after two rounds of seats being reserved, suggesting that people get used to female leaders in the long-run [23]. It was also shown that exposure to a female chief councillor improved public perception of the female leaders’ efficacy and weakened gender-based stereotypes about gender roles [24]. An additional benefit was that there was an decrease in implicit-bias discrimination amongst male respondents on females being leaders [23].

Targets work more slowly and need effective implementation and review to be successful. However, their voluntary nature allows for tailoring to the individual organisation and improves commitment and performance [17]. They may also promote a more organisation-wide approach, and therefore increase the talent pool and female talent retention[8], however targets also face some stigmatization [25].

Despite the potential for women to be seen as tokenistic, quotas are now commonly used globally to fast-track female participation and to address institutionalised barriers to participation [12].

Specifically within AMSA, logistically, there are both elected and selected leadership and team positions. Elected positions lend themselves to being more appropriate for targets to address cultural factors and issues of perceptions, whereas quotas are more appropriate for selected positions.

Quotas protect against underrepresentation of female identifying and non-binary people both on a once-off basis and continuously, thus a quota of 40% (with a current average representation of 45% in the AMSA executive from 2011 to 2018) would prevent outliers.

2. Blinded Interviews, Selection Panels and Positive ActionBiases will continue to be perpetuated unless they are deliberately interrupted [16]. Though it may be assumed that identical resumes would have an equal chance of being selected, many studies have found that they are impacted by external variables, including gender as described above [16], as well as age and ethnicity [26] of the applicant. As such, blinded resumes are recommended [16], and have been adopted by many organisations. It should be noted that in smaller organisations such as AMSA, the lack of identifying details may still not be truly blind, given the ability for the selectors to identify applicants by records of previous experience.

Unstructured interviews [27] are subjective tools of assessment. Structured interviews have been suggested instead, with answers being scored immediately and compared horizontally between the candidates, i.e. a candidate's answer to question one should be compared to the second candidate's answer to the same question. Ideally, interviews shouldn’t be conducted by one interviewer and there should at least be one interviewer of each gender [28].

Special measures to promote members of an underrepresented group also be considered, especially in traditionally male-dominated areas. For example, statements such as ‘we encourage female-identifying and non-binary individuals to apply’ can be used to target underrepresented groups.

Figure 4. Proportion of Female to Male Leadership across Medical Representative Organisations [48-99]

Figure 4 demonstrates that, in a number of medical organisations, the proportion of female to male leaders sits between 0% and 33%, considerably lower than the 50:50 proportion of female:male graduates. Whilst research has supported the inclusion of affirmative action measures, such as targets and quotas in diversity plans, there is a lack of data on the most appropriate numerical quota to recommend [16]. This is likely because each organisation is unique, and requires differing levels of action.

3.   Creating Mentoring and Networking Opportunities for WomenThe very presence of visible female leaders provides public role modelling to younger women who may be in the formative stages of their careers. In Medicine, having a strong like-gendered mentor can influence career choices, especially in the more junior years [29, 30], whereas failing to connect with one negatively affects career progression [31]. Representation of women at higher levels can change younger women’s expectations regarding the viability of acclaiming that position themselves [32].   

AMSA EventsAMSA has four conferences annually (National Convention, National Leadership Development Seminar, Global Health Conference and Rural Health Summit (Rural Health Conference in 2016)) attended by 90 to over a thousand students each. These events feature dense academic programs of accomplished speakers in a wide variety of fields, targeted towards the demographic of the event. Representation of diversity within these academic programs extends beyond just diversity of experiences and knowledge, but also to gender, ethnicity and background. Within the scope of this policy, an analysis of speaker gender at AMSA National Convention has been variable, but there has been a traditional under-representation of women in the academic program (Figure 5). It is true that speaker response, availability and the fact there can be poorer representation of women in specific positions where speakers may be drawn from, can all complicate the diversity of speakers. However, the almost consistent significant underrepresentation of female speakers from year-to-year suggests that a systematic bias exists.

Figure 5. Proportion of Female to Male Speakers at AMSA National Convention 2011 - 2017

Council CultureAMSA Council constitutes the majority of the non-event-based interactions between AMSA members and the Executive. The discussion that takes place informs the direction of the organisation. Discussions are moderated by a Council Chair, who has significant potential to influence contributions of different members.

In 2017, there were thirteen male Presidents and eleven male AMSA Reps compared to seven female Presidents and nine female AMSA reps. The consequences of gender inequity at mixed-gender based discussions is well-documented [33]. Whilst some of this inequity is due to women being a numerical minority, this is not the sole contributing factor [33]. Research suggests that in classroom discussions, women are more likely to be interrupted, perceived as less experienced and informed and do not actively contribute to the same extent as their male colleagues, though they are perceived to speak more [34]. In elections, lower-pitched voices are chosen over higher-pitched voices, because those voices are interpreted as more competent and trustworthy [34]. Men on average have lower-pitched voices. Much of this research suggests that bias is implicit, rather than acts of overt discrimination.

Whilst AMSA Councils are neither purely political or educational, it shares features of both, given it involves peers interacting with each other, with the discussion controlled by a moderator. As such, it is highly likely that AMSA is subject to the same inherent biases.

Additionally, AMSA Council elects AMSA Executive upon the basis of bids. The resulting Executive strongly informs the future of the organisation and its key priorities. It is important therefore that the

metrics upon which these bids are selected are on objective evaluation rather than implicit biases about the suitability of the individuals for the roles.

Although fixing this is complex, several strategies can be used. Many of these include becoming aware of these implicit biases. Although this is especially important for Chairs, who exert significant control over what discussion topics are pursued, who is chosen to speak and in controlling disruptions, it is important for all Council attendees to be aware of their biases in interacting with peers. This can be facilitated through implicit bias training, which often includes using non-stereotypic images, highlighting positive exemplars of those ethnically and gender diverse [36], changing implicit associations [37] and workshops on recognising and changing personal implicit biases [38].

Workforce

Gender Pay GapAs of 2016, the national gender pay gap across all industries sits at 23.1%. This has worsened from 4 years earlier, when it sat at 17.5%. The health and services field maintains an average pay gap of 13.7%, with the medical industry having a gender pay gap of 33.1% for full time work and 9.2% for casual work [39] .  Historically, this gap has been attributed to industry segregation and differing education levels.

Although contributing factors are complex and multifactorial, the gap also persists in industries that have a higher percentage of women and even now, where on average, women have higher levels of schooling and are more likely to have an advanced degree than men. Within medicine however, segregation persists, particularly at consultant level and within surgical subspecialties. Only 3% of orthopaedic surgeons are female, while 12% of general surgeons are female [40].  Despite this, another 2016 study that analysed physician salaries found that even after controlling for age, experience, faculty rank, specialty, scientific authorship, health funding, clinical trial participation, and Medicare reimbursements, female physicians earned less than males in every field except radiology. The same has been found by an analysis into the reduction of the wage gap over the 1980s. It suggests that actual differences in skill, knowledge and expertise between women and men now play a negligible factor in wage difference [41].  

Given this, it is unconscious gender based bias and discrimination that play an important role in perpetuating the gender gap. Sociocultural attitudes mean that women may be assumed to be more communal, caring, communicative, and encouraging, while men may be assumed to be ambitious, assertive, decisive, and self-reliant. These stereotypes mean women may be given fewer promotion opportunities, or may be excluded from training, development, or leadership roles on large projects. They may be given lower levels of responsibility or may be given the opportunity to take more on later in their careers. This is often further

exacerbated by bias in performance ratings made by the employer [42].

It is often argued that employees have the ability to individually negotiate their salaries with their employers. However, females are rarely encouraged to challenge these inequities by entering into negotiations and are more likely to be penalized than males [42]. Thus, a cycle in which women are less likely to initiate pay negotiations eventuates.

All these factors slowly accumulate over a woman’s career to mean that even in the case where they have equal starting salaries, net earnings may be significantly lower. The biases may also ring true for recruitment and hiring processes.

Parental LeaveParental leave is an important right in Australia which allows parents to raise and bond with their children in a crucial, formative part of their children’s lives, whilst guaranteeing their right to return to work. Australia grants up to 18 weeks of paid parental leave, and 12 months of unpaid parental leave, with the option to apply for an additional 12 months [43]. However, the challenges of taking parental leave can be quite unique in Medicine. After internship, doctors are not only employees of their hospital, but often working towards, or are trainees of a residency program, which often have rigid time commitments. This problem is only exacerbated by the fact that the timing of the residency program often coincides with the age at which many doctors consider starting families.

Physicians are more inclined to take full parental leave only when they are ‘assured and supported’ by their employers, or their status is protected by an institutional framework [44]. However, women in particular are not always met with support. Even before pregnancy, in selection of trainees for colleges, there may be some bias against women who aspire to motherhood. For example, an MJA Study showed that 26.2% of female applications to Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists were asked about future pregnancy plans and 42.1% reported receiving negative feedback about this in the work environment [45].

Women are more likely to take time off than men, and they take longer leave. Mothers taking time off work to care for children are then penalised for the rest of their careers through lower pay, fewer leadership opportunities and less retirement funding, which increases in proportion to the number of years taken off. If she takes three years off, a woman can expect to see a 10% decrease in career acceleration. Furthermore, a major concern for women is that they are worried about the attrition of skills after returning to work in conjunction with the expectations that they return to their workplace at the same clinical level as before their period of leave. Secondly, the logistical problems of child care, including the arranging of childcare services or managing their breastfeeding baby, poses problems for the new mothers [46].

Even in places where paternity leave is available, many decline to take it, or take it in its full duration. This is due to several reasons, one of which is fear for their career progression. A German study found that highly competitive environments can lead to ‘practical demotions’ when individuals take maternity or paternity leave, despite a paradoxically positive appraisal of their parental leave by their superiors [44]. However, majority of male physicians wish to at least work part-time during the formative years of their children [47]. There also often exists a workplace culture that does not support paternity leave being taken.

Thus it is important that paternal leave is provided as it gives families more choice over the distribution of childcare duties and thus allows women to exercise more control over their lives and careers.

Position StatementAMSA believes that:

1. Female-identifying and non-binary individuals are systematically underrepresented in leadership and training positions;

2. Gender is one aspect of diversity, with other forms including ethnic status, religious minority, LGBTIQ+, culturally and linguistically diverse people who are also underrepresented;

3. Systemic barriers exist which disadvantage female-identifying and non-binary medical students and graduates from attaining equal opportunity for leadership and equal pay in their careers;

1. That implicit bias and stereotyped leadership styles are a significant source of this;

4. These barriers can only be overcome through protracted effort and adoption of methods that are specific and deliberate in their implementation.

Policy1. AMSA Council directs the AMSA Executive and Board, in

conjunction with the Gender Equity Officer to:a. Conduct annual reviews of representation in pan-AMSA

leadership, including, but not restricted to, the representation of gender identities, ethnicities and domestic/international status. Following this review, the Board, Executive and Gender Equity Officer should:

i. Develop a specific plan for representation, including but not limited to:       

A. Identify and specifically target areas of leadership with a gender bias to promote equity, such as finance and advocacy positions, including the reasons behind the disparity;         

B. Where positions are elected, implement a target of 50% to achieve by 2020; using merit and suitability as determined by an objective standardised criterion as the primary selecting tool;

ii. Where positions are selected, consider the use of blinded resumes, standardised interviews and positive action where appropriate;

b. Provide events, services and activities aimed specifically at female-identifying and non-binary individuals, and only available for female-identifying and non-binary individuals in situations where a safe space would be needed;

i. Including the advertisement and provision of like-gendered mentorship programs to support networking opportunities for women in medicine;

c. Acknowledge the importance of inclusive and equitable discussions at AMSA Council and thus:

i. Upskill Council Chairs to acknowledge implicit biases that may compromise the development of equitable discussions via bias training;

ii. Ensure that Council Attendees are aware that implicit biases exist;

iii. Provide educational material to all Council Attendees on recognising and controlling their implicit biases;

iv. Conduct reviews on Council Discussions to analyse if and where systematic biases exist;

d. AMSA Council directs the AMSA Executive to:i. Investigate implementation of quotas across AMSA

team and recommending them where they see appropriate;

ii. Where it is decided that quotas are inappropriate, targets should be implemented instead;

e. AMSA Council directs Event Teams to:i. Strive to achieve gender balance in academic

programs of events, with a target of 50%;

AMSA calls upon:

2. AMSA Medical Education (Research) to investigate the space around non-binary individuals and barriers to leadership and the workforce, particularly within medicine and medical education;

3. Medical Societies to:a. Conduct their own analysis into their leadership diversity

status;b. Should gender-imbalances exist, actively seek to rectify

this; examples including:i. Affirmative actions and targets to fast-track

participation of female and non-binary individuals;ii. Establishment of mentoring program and

networking opportunities;

c. Actively seek to encourage individuals to apply for position that may be typically dominated by a gender different to that of the individual, with an emphasis on female-identifying and non-binary individuals;

d. To conduct activities and events that are directed at supporting and encouraging women in medicine and gender equity;

4. Hospitals and other medical workplaces to:a. Acknowledge the gender imbalance in hospital

leadership, and act to rectify this through affirmative action if needed;

b. Actively seek to educate doctors on implicit biases;c. Establish transparent remuneration packages based on

consistent criteria;d. Establish transparent and consistent mechanisms of

performance rating, especially if used to guide pay increases;

e. Ensure equal pay, including starting pay, for all employees in the same program or position;

f. Encourage women to enter into pay negotiations and ensure they are supportive and not disadvantageous. This may include providing assertiveness training and building awareness of workplace rights;

g. Actively collect and analyse relevant payroll data and continuously review and monitor pay equity;

h. Encourage and guarantee paid parental leave without detrimental impact on employment, including:

i. Facilitating flexible working hours;ii. Ensuring equal remuneration based on objective

criteria when parents return to work;5. Medical colleges, professions and specialties to:

a. Recognise the gender disparity in leadership and take action to ensure this improves through specific techniques such as targets and quotas;

b. Create an inclusive, supportive environment for all female-identifying and non-binary professionals in their process of applying and choosing a specialty pathway, allowing for female-only events, sessions and mentorships as required;

c. Actively acknowledge that many specialities foster a hostile environment that may discourage female-identifying and non-binary individuals from entering into a specialty;

i. Actively take steps to promote their specialities, by highlighting the contributions of female candidates;

ii. Facilitating the mentoring and networking of trainees;

d. Ensure selection of candidates into training is based on transparent, consistent criteria;

e. Consider gender equity to be enforced in selection committees and examination boards through ‘affirmative action’ if required;

f. Ensure female-identifying and non-binary individuals are actively encouraged and given opportunity to engage in further upskilling, responsibilities and leadership roles and selection for this is consistent, transparent and formalised;

g. Analyse the role of gender bias in teaching, arbitrary division of labour and informal opportunities provided by clinicians to trainees through a formal review;

h. Actively facilitate flexible work hours, job sharing and both maternity and paternity leave during training;

i. Ensure that all medical trainees are educated on workplace rights;

j. Not discriminate in selection of candidates into colleges based on family planning and future pregnancy plans;

k. Strive to have balanced gender representation in all specialities;

6. Medical practitioners to:a. Challenge established gender stereotypes amongst

colleagues, in colleges and in medical workplaces;b. Actively self-assess and question their gender bias in

hiring practices, remuneration and selection for training, and encourage change;

c. Support female colleagues entering into pay, selection or job negotiations;

d. Actively provide women with extra training, responsibility and leadership opportunities when in a position to do so.

Appendix AGender pay gap

The highest gap of 33.4% is present in the finance industry, an industry that employs 10% more women than men.

Although 75% of businesses have a gender equity policy, none have a strategy, compared to the national average of 22.2%.  Only 7.7% have set a target for gender composition of governing bodies. Percentage of employers offering flexible work in the medical industry has actually reduced from 2015-2016, specifically in job sharing and carers leave. There has been an increase of purchased leave offered.

These statistics mean addressing the gap can be difficult and that it requires protracted effort by government, industries and businesses. To close this large difference, following consistent and transparent procedures can be favoured. This applies to not only remuneration but employee selection and promotion to ensure performance decisions are merit based. Additionally, any pay increases should be encouraged to be in line with performance rating.

Figure 6. Type of Clinical by Gender   [48]

Figure 7. Proportion of women as specialists in training and specialists, 2012 [48] Specialty of training Numb

erAverage age(years)

Women(per cent)

Average weeklyhours worked

  Cardiology 165 32.2 21.2 54.1  Endocrinology 127 32.6 74.0 47.6  Gastroenterology and hepatology

116 31.8 37.9 49.4

  General medicine 691 33.9 38.9 47.4  Geriatric medicine 242 34.6 60.3 45.9  Haematology (physician) 161 32.7 54.7 46.9  Infectious diseases 108 32.4 63.0 48.6  Medical oncology 146 32.7 54.8 46.5

  Nephrology 84 32.5 50.0 50.4  Neurology 102 32.6 49.0 49.4  Respiratory and sleep medicine

115 33.1 42.6 48.9

  Specialist physician 1,106 30.1 51.8 49.9Physicians total 3,070 32.1 49.1 48.8  General surgery 390 33.9 34.4 59.9  Orthopaedic surgery 200 34.4 10.5 61.5  Otolaryngology – head and neck surgery

72 34.3 33.3 64.4

  Plastic surgery 67 34.6 28.4 59.9  Urology 81 33.5 29.6 60.5  Specialist surgeon 95 34.3 34.7 63.2Surgery total 1,064 34.0 27.9 61.4Radiology total 412 32.7 35.2 48.1  Specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist

523 34.1 79.3 51.0

Obstetrics and gynaecology total

555 34.2 79.8 51.1

  General paediatrics 631 32.9 71.6 44.9  Neonatal and perinatal medicine

65 35.7 60.0 46.6

  Paediatric emergency medicine

55 34.4 65.5 43.7

  Specialist paediatrician 483 32.3 77.4 45.9Paediatrics total 1,278 32.9 73.5 45.3  Anatomical pathology 185 33.7 62.7 43.5  Haematology (pathology) 110 33.3 60.0 46.2Pathology total 426 33.9 61.5 44.2  General practice 4,228 35.1 58.2 39.4  Anaesthesia 1,172 33.3 45.1 48.4  Psychiatry 1,118 36.2 51.9 43.9  Emergency medicine 1,964 34.5 44.3 43.3

  Ophthalmology 117 32.6 35.9 54.7  Dermatology 88 33.5 65.9 45.5  Rehabilitation medicine 171 35.7 63.2 41.3  Radiation oncology 105 31.7 50.5 45.1  Public health medicine 76 37.6 72.4 38.5  Occupational and environmental medicine

88 39.6 39.8 39.2

  Medical administration 91 42.5 44.0 44.8  Palliative medicine 105 36.4 72.4 43.8  Specialist Intensive Care Medicine

624 34.3 32.5 52.8

Ungrouped total 9,649 34.9 52.0 42.8Not stated/inadequately described

154 42.4 48.1 44.5

Total 16,245 34.1 52.1 45.8Table 1. [49]

Appendix BLeadership (Correct as of 9/05/2017)

University DeansUniversity Sex (0 = male, 1 =

female)

ANU [50] 1

Bond [51] 0

Curtin [52] 1

Deakin [53] 0

Flinders [54] 0

Griffith [55] 0

James Cook [56] 0

Monash [57] 1

University of Adelaide [58] 0

University of Melbourne [59] 0

University of New South Wales [60] 0

University of Newcastle, University of New England [61]

0

The University of Notre Dame Sydney [62] 1

University of Queensland [63] 0

University of Sydney [64] 0

University of Tasmania [65] 0

University of Western Australia [66] 1

University of Wollongong [67] 0

Western Sydney University [68] 1

Total 6/19

AMA 2017Jurisdiction

Sex of President (0 = male, 1 = female)

Board Males

Board Females

Federal [69]

0 9 2

ACT [70] 0 5 3

NSW [71] 0 6 3

QLD [72] 0 7 1

VIC [73] 1 6 5

TAS [74] 1 3 2

NT [75] 0 8 5

SA [76] 1 5 2

WA [77] 0 8 1

Medical Training CollegesCollege Sex of President (0 = male, 1 =

female)Board Males

Board Females

RACDS [78] 0 10 2

RACMA [79] 0 7 2

RACP [80] 1 11 7

RACS [81] 0 3 2

RACGP [82] 0 10 3

RANZCOG [83]

0 6 1

RANZCO [84] 0 8 3

RANZCP [85] 1 5 2

RANZCR [86] 0 7 1

ACN [87] 1 2 5

RCPA [88] 5 2

RNZCGP [89] 0 4 3

ANZCA [90] 0 3 1

FPMANZCA [91]

0 10 2

ACEM [92] 0 9 0

ACD [93] 0 6 1

ACSEP [94] 0 5 2

AFOEM [95] 0 8 5

AFPHM [96] 1 7 7

AFRM [97] 0 9 3

CICM [98] 0 4

ACRRM [99] 1 2 3

Others:

AMA CDT 2017: 4/14 Females [100]AMSOF Executives 2017: 0/4 Females [101]Proportions

Appendix CRepresentation of Women in the AMSA Executive by stream (2011-2018)

Females/total Advocacy

Creative

Managerial

Finance

Female (%)

2018 3/4 2/3 4/5 0/3 60

2017 2/5 1/2 3/4 1/3 50

2016 1/5 1/1 3/3 1/3 50

2015 1/4 0/1 3/5 1/3 38

2014 1/3 1/2 2/4 1/3 42

2013 1/5 1/2 2/5 2/3 40

2012 4/5 2/2 4/6 1/3 69

2011 0/5 0/2 2/4 1/3 21

Overall Percentage (F)

37% 52% 65% 33% 45%

Representation of women in Core Roles of the AMSA Executive [female = 1] (2011-2018)

President

Vice President-internal

Vice President-external

Treasurer

Female %

2018 1 1 1 0 75

2017 0 1 0 0 25

2016 1 1 0 0 50

2015 0 0 0 0 0

2014 1 1 0 0 50

2013 0 1 0 0 25

2012 0 1 1 0 50

2011 0 1 0 0 25

Overall Percentage

38% 88% 25% 0 37.5%

Global Health Conference Speaker GenderYear Males Females % female2017 14 92016 12 72015 20 112014 15 8

References1. The Global Gender Gap Report 2016. World Economic Forum,;

2016.2. World Health Organisation. Gender, equity and human rights

2017 [Available from: http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/.

3. Poland B. Haters: Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online Nebraska University of Nebraska Press; 2016.

4. Weber S. "Womanhood does not reside in documentation" : Queer and Feminist student activism for transgender women's inclusion at women's colleges. Journal of Lesbian Studies. 2016;20(1):29-45.

5. Doan PL. The tyranny of gendered spaces - reflections from beyond the gender dichotomy (La tiranía de lose espacios generizados: reflexiones desde más allá de la dicotomía de génereo). Gender, Place & Culture. 2010;17(5):635-54.

6. Davidson S, Halsall J. Gender inequality: Nonbinary transgender people in the workplace. Cogent Social Sciences. 2016;2(1).

7. Marine SB, Helfrich G, Randhawa L. Gender-Inclusive Practices in Campus Women's and Gender Centers: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Prospects. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education. 2017;10(1):45-63.

8. Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand. Snapshot findings. Australia: Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand,; 2016.

9. Patel D, Biswas UN. Stereotyping of Effective Male and Female Leaders: A Concomitant of Gendered Workplaces. Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. 2016;42(1):53-62.

10. Growe R, Montgomery P. Women and the leadership paradigm: Bridging the gender gap. National Forum Journal. 2000;17E:1-7.

11. Rhode DL. Women and Leadership. New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2017.

12. Pande R, Ford D. Gender Quotas and Female Leadership. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2012.

13. Dunning D, Johnson K, Ehrlinger J, Kruger J. Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2003;12(3):83-87.

14. Cox T. Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco, Calif: Berrett-Koehler; 2005.

15. Williams LA. The problem with merit-based appointments? They're not free from gender bias either: The

Conversation; 2015 [Available from: https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-merit-based-appointments-theyre-not-free-from-gender-bias-either-45364.

16. McKay J, Wakeley D. Re-thinking merit Why the meritocracy is failing Australian businesses. Australia: UN Women National Committee Australia.

17. Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Targets and quotas 1. Perspective Paper. In: Workplace Gender Equality Agency,

editor. Commonwealth of Australia 2017.18. Cox T. Cultural Diversity in Organizations. First ed. San

Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.; 1992.19. Whelan J, Wood R. Targets and Quotas for Women in

Leadership. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Center for Ethical Leadership; 2014.

20. Devillard S, Sancier-Sultan S, Zelicourt Ad, Kossoff C. Women Matter 2016

2. Reinventing the workplace to unlock the potential of gender diversity. McKinsey & Company; 2016.

21. Women in Leadership. What will it take to get Australia on target? Australia: Ernst & Young; 2011.

22. Krook M. Candidate Gender Quotas: A Framework for Analysis. European Journal of Political Research. 2007;46:367-94.

23. Pande R, Ford D. Gender Quotas and Female Leadership: A Review. World Development Report 2012; 2011.

24. Beaman L, Chattopadhyay R, Duflo E, Pande R, Topalova P. Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Bias?*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2009;124(4):1487-540.

25. Sweigart A. Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business Ambassador. 2012;32:81A-105A.

26. Booth A, LEigh A, Varganova E. Does Ethnic Discrimination Vary Across Minority Groups? Evidence from a Field Experiment. OXFORD BULLETIN OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS. 2012;74(4):547-73.

27. Bohnet I. How to Take the Bias Out of Interviews. Harvard Business Review. 2016 April 18, 2016.

28. Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Developing a workplace gender equality policy. In: Workplace Gender Equality Agency, editor. Australia2014.

29. O'Connor MI. Medical School Experiences Shape Women Students' Interest in Orthopaedic Surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(9):1967-72.

30. Rohde RS, Wolf JM, Adams JE. Where Are the Women in Orthopaedic Surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(9):1950-6.

31. Silva AK, Preminger A, Slezak S, Phillips LG, Johnson DJ. Melting the Plastic Ceiling: Overcoming Obstacles to Foster Leadership in Women Plastic Surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3):721-9.

32. Campbell DE, Wolbrecht C. See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents. The Journal of Politics. 2006;68(2):233-47.

33. Karpowitz CF, Mendelberg T, Shaker L. Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation. American Political Science Review. 2012;August:1-15.

34. Little D. Teaching a Diverse Student Body. 2 ed. Charlottesville, VA: Teaching Resource Center, University of Virginia; 2004.

35. Klofstad CA, Anderson RC, Peters S. Sounds like a winner: voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings Of The Royal Society B. 2012.

36. Dasgupta N, Greenwald AG. On the malleability of automatic attitudes: combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81(5):800-14.

37. Mendoza SA, Gollwitzer PM, Amodio DM. Reducing the expression of implicit stereotypes: reflexive control through implementation intentions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010;36(4):512-23.

38. Carnes M, Devine PG, Baier Manwell L, Byars-Winston A, Fine E, Ford CE, et al. The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Acad Med. 2015;90(2):221-30.

39. Agency WGE. WGEA Data Explorer: Medical Services within Medical and other Health Care Services Subdivision 2017 [Available from: http://data.wgea.gov.au/industries/306.

40. Walton M. Sexual equality, discrimination and harassment in medicine: it's time to act. Medical Journal of Australia. 2015;203(4):167-9.

41. Blau FD, Kahn LM. The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations. 2016.

42. Pay equity for small business. In: Agency WGE, editor. Australia: Australian Government; 2017.

43. Parental Leave Pay. In: Services DoH, editor.44. Engelmann C, Grote G, Miemietz B, Vaske B, Geyer S.

Weggegangen - Platz vergangen? Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 2015;140(04):e28-235.

45. de Costa CM, Permezel M, Farrell LM, Coffey AE, Rane A. Integrating parental leave into specialist training: experience of trainees and recently graduated RANZCOG Fellows. Med J Aust. 2013;199(5):359-62.

46. Brightwell A, Minson S, Ward A, Fertleman C. Returning to clinical training after maternity leave. BMJ Careers [Internet]. 2013.

47. Kwong A, Chau WW, Kawase K. Work-life balance of female versus male surgeons in Hong Kong based on findings of a questionnaire designed by a Japanese surgeon. Surg Today. 2014;44(1):62-72.

48. Ginnivan L, FitzGerald G, Seebacher N, Dunn E, Miladinovic D, McLain S, et al. Gender Segregation in the workplace and its impact on women's economic equality: Submission by Level Medicine Inc. In: Senate Finance and Public Administration Committees, editor. Australia

49. AIHW. Table 24. Medical Practitioners i specialist-in-training programs and employed specialists-in-training:

specialty of training, selected characteristics, 2015. Australia 2016.

50. Professor Imogen Mitchell [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://medicalschool.anu.edu.au/people/imogen-mitchell

51. Staff Profiles [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://apps.bond.edu.au/staff/results.aspx?d=183

52. Curtin Medical School appoints Director, Learning and Teaching [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://healthsciences.curtin.edu.au/faculty-news/pvc-message-december/curtin-medical-school-appoints-director-learning-teaching/

53. School Executive [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.deakin.edu.au/medicine/staff-listing

54. Professor Paul Worley [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: htt52p://www.flinders.edu.au/people/paul.worley

55. School of Medicine Staff [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.griffith.edu.au/health/school-medicine/staff

56. Dean, College of Medicine & Dentistry [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.jcu.edu.au/college-of-medicine-and-dentistry/about-us/college-of-medicine-and-dentistry3

57. Faculty leadership and senior management [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.monash.edu/medicine/about-us/faculty-leadership

58. Professor Alastair Burt [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/alastair.burt

59. Welcome from the Dean [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://mdhs.unimelb.edu.au/about/welcome-from-the-dean

60. Dean [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://med.unsw.edu.au/dean

61. Dean’s Welcome [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/joint-medical-program/deans-welcome

62. Staff of the School of Medicine, Sydney [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.nd.edu.au/sydney/schools/medicine/staff.shtml

63. UQ Appoints Medical Dean [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://medicine.uq.edu.au/article/2016/12/uq-appoints-medical-dean

64. Leadership [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/leadership/

65. School of Medicine [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.utas.edu.au/health/people/medicine

66. Faculty Structure [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.meddent.uwa.edu.au/staff/boards/structure

67. Professor Nicholas Zwar [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://smah.uow.edu.au/medicine/contacts/UOW222450.html

68. Dean, School of Medicine [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/about_uws/leadership/executive/dean,_school_of_medicine

69. Board [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://ama.com.au/board

70. The AMA (ACT) Board [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://ama.com.au/act/board-and-committees

71. AMA (NSW) Board of Directors [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.amansw.com.au/about/governance/

72. Board of Directors [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.amaq.com.au/page/About_Us/Board_of_Directors/

73. AMA Victoria Board [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://amavic.com.au/about-us/ama-victoria-board

74. Board and Council [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://ama.com.au/tas/board-and-council

75. AMA(NT) Inc. Council [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://ama.com.au/nt/amant-inc-council

76. AMA(SA) Key Contacts [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://ama.com.au/sa/amasa-key-contacts

77. Representatives [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.amawa.com.au/about-us/representatives/

78. 2016-2018 Councillor Profiles [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.racds.org/documents/Governance/RACDS%20Council%20Profiles%202016-18.pdf

79. RACMA Board Members [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.racma.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=424&Itemid=93

3. 80     RACP Board Members [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.racp.edu.au/about/racp-board-and-governance/racp-board-members

80. Council [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.surgeons.org/about/governance-committees/council/

81. Council Members [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.racgp.org.au/yourracgp/organisation/council/council-members/

82. RANZCOG Board 2016-2018 [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.ranzcog.edu.au/about/Governance/Board,-Council-and-Committees

83. Our People [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://ranzco.edu/about-ranzco/our-people

84. Key People [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.ranzcp.org/About-us/About-the-College/Key-people.aspx

85. RANZCR Annual Report 2016 [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.ranzcr.com/college/about/structure-governance

86. ACN’s Board of Directors [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.acn.edu.au/board-of-directors

87. Board and Staff [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.rcpa.edu.au/About/RCPA-Foundation/About-the-Foundation/Board-and-Staff

88. Board [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.rnzcgp.org.nz/RNZCGP/About_us/Governance_and_management/Board/RNZCGP/About_us/Board.aspx?hkey=a9613401-5fbb-4785-943c-d8405ac5b6d3

89. Executive Committee [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.anzca.edu.au/about-anzca/council,-committees-and-representatives/committees/executive-committee

90. Structure and Governance [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://fpm.anzca.edu.au/about-fpm/structure-and-governance

91. ACEM Board [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://acem.org.au/About-ACEM/Governance/ACEM-Board.aspx

92. Board of Directors [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.dermcoll.edu.au/about-the-college/college-governance/board-of-directors/

93. Board Profiles [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.acsep.org.au/page/about/acsep-governance/board-profiles

94. AFOEM Council [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.racp.edu.au/about/racp-committees/afoem-committees/afoem-council

95. AFPHM Council [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.racp.edu.au/about/racp-committees/afphm-committees/afphm-council

96. AFRM Council [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.racp.edu.au/about/racp-committees/afrm-committees/afrm-council

97. Board [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://www.cicm.org.au/About/Board-Committees#

98. Board & College Council [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.acrrm.org.au/about-the-college/board-council-and-committees/board-and-college-council

99. About the AMA Council of Doctors in Training [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://ama.com.au/article/about-ama-council-doctors-training

100. Executives [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.asmof.org.au/asmof-council

Policy DetailsName: Gender Equity in Leadership and the Workforce (2017)

[note that this was renamed from Gender Equity (2014)]

Category: C – Supporting Students

History: Adopted, Council 3, 2014

Reviewed, Council 3, 2017Authors: R. Navani, M. Foo, J. Ahn, N. Tomar, C. Dines Mutaneur, P. Macintosh-Evans