[HTML][HTML] An integrated career coaching and time-banking system promoting flexibility, wellness, and success: a pilot program at Stanford University School of Medicine

M Fassiotto, C Simard, C Sandborg… - Academic …, 2018 - journals.lww.com
M Fassiotto, C Simard, C Sandborg, H Valantine, J Raymond
Academic Medicine, 2018journals.lww.com
Faculty in academic medicine experience multiple demands on their time at work and home,
which can become a source of stress and dissatisfaction, compromising success. A taskforce
convened to diagnose the state of work–life flexibility at Stanford University School of
Medicine uncovered two major sources of conflict: work–life conflict, caused by juggling
demands of career and home; and work–work conflict, caused by competing priorities of the
research, teaching, and clinical missions combined with service and administrative tasks …
Abstract
Faculty in academic medicine experience multiple demands on their time at work and home, which can become a source of stress and dissatisfaction, compromising success. A taskforce convened to diagnose the state of work–life flexibility at Stanford University School of Medicine uncovered two major sources of conflict: work–life conflict, caused by juggling demands of career and home; and work–work conflict, caused by competing priorities of the research, teaching, and clinical missions combined with service and administrative tasks. Using human-centered design research principles, the 2013–2014 Academic Biomedical Career Customization (ABCC) pilot program incorporated two elements to mitigate work–life and work–work conflict: integrated career–life planning, coaching to create a customized plan to meet both career and life goals; and a time-banking system, recognizing behaviors that promote team success with benefits that mitigate work–life and work–work conflicts. A matched-sample pre–post evaluation survey found the two-part program increased perceptions of a culture of flexibility (P=. 020), wellness (P=. 013), understanding of professional development opportunities (P=. 036), and institutional satisfaction (P=. 020) among participants. In addition, analysis of research productivity indicated that over the two-year program, ABCC participants received 1.3 more awards, on average, compared with a matched set of nonparticipants, a funding difference of approximately $1.1 million per person. These results suggest it is possible to mitigate the effects of extreme time pressure on academic medicine faculty, even within existing institutional structures.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins