Purpose -Women remain dramatically underrepresented in the engineering profession and far fewer women than men persist in the field. This study aims to identify individual and contextual factors that distinguish women who persist in engineering careers in the US. Design/methodology/approach -Qualitative research was conducted based on semi-structured interviews with 31 women engineers, ten of whom had left an engineering career and 21 persisting for on average 21 years. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed. Findings -Women who persisted in engineering careers articulated high levels of self efficacy, described themselves in terms of their identity as an engineer, and were motivated by the challenges and novelty of the profession. Women engineers' ability to adapt enabled them to persist and thrive despite working in a male-dominated culture characterized by difficulties associated with the workplace, including discrimination. Women who opted out of engineering were less likely to recognize options in navigating the workplace and some felt as if they were pushed into engineering. Persistent engineers were less likely to be married and had fewer children. Research limitations/implications -Although appropriate for an inductive study using a grounded theory approach the sample was small and the data was self reported. Practical implications -A model is developed that integrates individual and contextual factors explaining a woman's persistence in an engineering career and has potential to explain persistence in other professions. To retain more women in engineering careers, organizations and managers should provide opportunities to develop identified skills within the professional domain and should provide opportunities for women engineers that provide continuous learning, on-going challenges and novel work. Originality/value -Although numerous studies have addressed the retention of women in academic engineering programs and several recent studies have described why women leave engineering careers, the novelty of this study is that it addresses why women stay.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose - Physicians are commonly promoted into administrative and managerial roles in US hospitals on the basis of clinical expertise and often lack the skills, training or inclination to lead. Several studies have sought to identify factors associated with effective physician leadership, yet we know little about how physician leaders themselves construe their roles. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - Phenomenological interviews were performed with 25 physicians at three organizational levels with physicians affiliated or employed by four hospitals within one health care organization in the USA between August and September 2010. A rigorous comparative methodology of data collection and analysis was employed, including the construction of analytic codes for the data and its categorization based on emergent ideas and themes that are not preconceived and logically deduced hypotheses, which is characteristic of grounded theory. Findings - These interviews reveal differences in how part- vs full-time physician leaders understand and value leadership roles vs clinical roles, claim leadership status, and identify as physician leaders on individual, relational and organizational basis. Research limitations/implications - Although the physicians in the sample were affiliated with four community hospitals, all of them were part of a single not-for-profit health care system in one geographical locale. Practical implications - These findings may be of interest to hospital administrators and boards seeking deeper commitment and higher performance from physician leaders, as well as assist physicians in transitioning into a leadership role. Social implications - This work points to a broader and more fundamental need - a modified mindset about the nature and value of physician leadership. Originality/value - This study is unique in the exploration of the nature of physician leadership from the perspective of the physician on an individual, peer and organizational level in the creation of their own leadership identity.

Leading in in extremis situations, when lives are in peril, remains one of the least addressed areas of leadership research. Little is known about how leaders make sense in these dangerous situations and communicate these contexts to others. Because most of the literature on in extremis is theoretical, we sought empirical evidence of how sensemaking proceeds in practice. A qualitative study was conducted based on interviews with 30 Army leaders who had recently led teams in combat. Our findings suggest that during these life-threatening situations, sensemaking and sensegiving are actually occurring simultaneously, the type of training leaders receive is critical, and a sense of duty can influence a person’s role as a leader. Our findings have implications for both theory and practice since crisis leadership is now a coveted executive quality for leadership competency.

No abstract

No abstract