UIC The University of Illinois Volume 3 Number 2
at Chicago Summer 1994
LEADERSHIP IN PUBLIC HEALTH
Women Leaders and Women's Health
Female Leadership: The Untold Story - A Literature Review 1
Women in the Public Health Service 9
Profiles: Women Leaders in Public Health -A Preliminary Study 13
A Leadership Interview with Joyce C. Lashof, MD 22
The Evolution of the Office of Women's Health
at the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention 27
State Office of Women's Health: Their Programs and Activities 30
Women Leaders: A Healthy Change for Public Health 33
Book Reviews: - Working With Men 35
- Working With Men 35
- Women and The Work/Family Dilemma 37
Editors:
-Louis Rowitz, PhD
-Naomi Klein, MPH
Assistant to the Editors:
-Diane Knizner
Contributors:
-Mary Dwyer
-Wanda Jones
-Martha Katz
-Jean M. Malecki, MD
-Mary McGann, MPH
-John Parascandola, PhD
-Shirley Randolph, MSPH
-Louis Rowitz, PhD
-Ann Smith
-Carol Spain, MPH
-Kimberly Yeager, MD
Writers:
-Elaine Jurkowski, MSW
A Publication of the Illinois Public Health Leadership Institute
Leadership in Public Health is available by subscription for $15.00 per year. For more information, write to...
The Editor
Leadership in Public Health
Illinois Public Health Leadership Institute
UIC School of Public Health (M/C 922)
2121 W. Taylor Street
Chicago, Illinois 60612
FEMALE LEADERSHIP:
Mary Dwyer
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
University of Illinois at Chicago
Much of the traditional literature on leadership and political elites has overlooked women or portrayed them in a distorted manner. When women have appeared in leadership positions, they frequently have been treated as though they were invisible, or barely visible and insignificant. Moreover, statements about women often have been undocumented with empirical evidence and frequently have reflected an underlying assumption that males are naturally suited for leadership while females and female traits are incompatible with the idea of leadership.
(Carroll, 1984, p. 143)
Leadership and leaders have been observed, analyzed and written about for centuries. Notions of
leadership have ranged from romantic, heroic concepts to analytical and even mathematical
calculations of the specific traits required to become a leader. For example, after reviewing over
3,000 books and articles, Stogdill (1974) identified ten traits which positively correlated with
individuals occupying leadership positions. He omitted any reference to women or sex roles. Until
the past thirty years, the body of research has almost exclusively consisted of empirical studies of
U.S. white, male leaders working primarily in military or corporate settings. Additionally, the
study of leadership has cut across numerous disciplines, (i.e. anthropology, business, education,
history, philosophy, psychology, and sociology) each with their unique emphases and research
questions. This has made comparison of results difficult.
Over the past thirty years as the representation of women in the labor force has exceeded 50% (as
of 1990) and their educational levels have increased dramatically, a body of literature has emerged
concerning female leaders and managers. Additionally, according to the 1990 U.S. census, 42.2%
of managerial positions are held by women resulting in increased interest in women leaders
(Population Reference Bureau, Inc., 1993). The nature of the studies have paralleled the history
of studies concerning male leaders. The research has represented interest in the personality traits,
behaviors, styles and application of the contingency model (interaction of style with organizational
situation) of female leaders as they compare with male leaders. These assume that a male-gendered organization was the optimal norm.
Therefore, the types of traits and styles against which women's performance was measured
reflected what Burns (1978) has described as the "male bias in the false conception of leadership
as mere command or control. As leadership comes properly to be seen as a process of leaders
engaging and mobilizing the human needs of followers, women will be more readily recognized as
leaders and men will change their own leadership styles" (p. 50). However, the tendency in the
literature to test female leaders' compliance with male norms of behavior resulted in a pessimism
in the types of research questions asked with predictably negative results for women when
compared with men (Donnell & Hall, 1980). Moreover, the underlying assumption has been that
women's work is marginal, fitting around family responsibilities; while men's careers are central
and primary (Daniels, 1988). These factors and others have resulted in at best, very mixed results
and at worst, negative portrayals of female leaders. The continued measurement of women's
success against a stereotypically masculine model emphasizing rationality, objectivity and logic
may have resulted in reinforcing stereotypical generalizations to the disadvantage of women
(Kanter, 1977, p. 20). This literature review will focus on some of the major patterns of findings.
First, a major area of study has been the comparison of male and female leaders' styles. The
underlying assumption has been that men are more autocratic, competitive, aggressive and
decisive while female leaders are more humane, egalitarian, collaborative and participative in their
approaches to work and others. The vast majority of social sciences research has supported that
"no consistently clear pattern of differences can be discerned in the supervisory style of female as
compared to male leaders" (Bass, 1981, p. 499).
However, the literature aimed at the general public has been more inclined to support the presence
of sex differences in leadership style. Loden (1985), for example, documented a masculine
management method which is characterized by competitiveness, controlling behavior, hierarchical
authority and objective problem solving. She found that women are more likely to employ a
model which emphasizes collaboration, cooperativeness, less control by the leader and problem
solving involving both rational thinking and empathy. Hennig and Jardim (1977) and Heller
(1982) similarly found significant differences in the leadership styles of female leaders due to the
impact of early socialization. For example, Hennig and Jardim (1977) argue that early childhood
experiences such as participation in team sports teaches boys management skills lacking at the
point of hire in their female counterparts. In a meta-analysis of 161 studies concerning leadership
styles of men and women, Eagly and Johnson (1990) found women subjects tended to lead more
democratically and participatively while the male subjects were more autocratic and directive in
their styles.
In contrast, Kanter (1977) found no significant difference in the aptitude or style of female
managers due to the structural demands of the organization mediating the effects of socialization
differences between men and women. In other words, Kanter found that the female executives'
behavior was molded by the expectations of the stereotypically male organization for which they
worked resulting in the necessity for the female executives to imitate males in order to succeed.
Kanter also found that workers were less likely inclined to want to report to a female manager
since they were perceived as less powerful. Kanter found this to be an organizational structural
issue. Association with the powerful has a positive effect on the workers' career -- "power begets
power" (page 168). Terborg (1977) similarly found that female supervisors have less influence in
organizations resulting in their employee's dissatisfaction possibly due to the female supervisor's
lack of influence as opposed to her gender.
Likewise, numerous other studies have found no significant difference in male and female leaders'
styles (Bartol & Martin, 1986; Bass 1981; Donnell & Hall, 1980; Nieva & Gutek, 1981). In his
review of 13 empirical studies examining the styles of male and female leaders, Brown (1979)
found only three indicate a significant difference. Students were subjects in five studies while
managers were the subjects in eight of the studies. Style differences were perceived primarily by
students. Powell and Butterfield (1979) similarly found students more likely to equate
stereotypical male styles with preferable management practices.
Brown (1979) found that across various types of studies conducted comparing male and female
leaders, an underlying theme is that women are less effective leaders than men. Nevertheless, this
"widely held belief that women make inferior leaders seems to give way in actual work situations"
(p. 607). This is particularly the case in the studies concerning leadership style where managers
express no difference between male and female leadership styles and students favor a stereotypical
male manager.
Second, the lack of mentoring of female leaders has been well-documented in the literature as
harming women's career progress. Men are reluctant to mentor female employees, there are few
women at the top of organizations to provide mentoring and there is some evidence that more
senior women are "resistant to increasing the number of female managers because they want to
preserve their unique status in a man's world" (Riger & Galligan, 1980). This finding is
contradicted by Terborg, Peters, Ilgen, and Smith (1977) who found top female executives
favorable toward women as managers. Nevertheless, the resulting isolation and problems
emerging from female leaders' token status are considered to be significant problems.
Numerous studies have documented the negative side effects of social isolation and token status
of female leaders (Dwyer, Flynn & Inman, 1991; Dwyer, 1993; Kanter, 1976). Left to their own
devices, women leaders can suffer loneliness, less effectiveness due to lack of guidance from
mentors, stress due to visibility, discrimination in hiring, promotion and compensation, and sex
role stereotypes (Bhatnagar, 1988). Costs to organizations and the individual can be considerable.
Yoder (1985) documented in case study form the tendency to gradually withdraw and eventually
depart from an organization due to token status.
Kanter (1976; 1977) suggests that the social structure of organizations results in disadvantageous
distribution of opportunity and power and social composition of groups for women leaders. The
most critical factor is the under representation of women resulting in dynamics within the group
which makes women more visible, scrutinized, and expected to behave in stereotypical ways and
support the majority viewpoint. This token status is deleterious to women leaders' careers.
Third, a significant body of literature has addressed how women leaders fare relative to the trait
theory research. This research frequently compares the perceived attitudes, values and behavior of
women with those of men. For example, physical attractiveness may further disadvantage female
leaders with expectations to conform to stereotypes. Heilman and Saruwatari (1979) found that
when attractive females are seeking positions thought to require management skills, they are
disadvantaged. Unattractive women were rated higher on attributes such as ambition, rationality,
and decisiveness--characteristics predominantly thought to be held by men.
Hennig and Jardim (1977) found characteristics which have been commonly found in the literature
concerning females in male-dominated fields. Twenty-five of their fifty subjects were considered
successful corporate executives. All were firstborn and most reported close relationships with
their fathers who had mentored them into the norms of organizational life during childhood.
Encouraging them to be independent, self-reliant and risk-taking, their fathers had also engaged
them in team games. Moreover, these women had established a mentoring relationship with a
male employer and gracefully distanced themselves when the mentoring was no longer necessary.
Their male mentors had served to teach them the norms of behavior expected within the
organizations to which they belonged, make valuable connections for them, assist them in
planning their upward mobility, and shield them from unnecessary barriers. Largely, these women
had succeeded through assuming the attributes of traditional males except that they were much
more likely not to be married and to be childless as is frequently the case of women in other male-dominated professions.
Numerous early studies found that those in management positions held traditional, stereotypical
views of the attributes of men and women and they preferred the male attributes (i.e.,
independent, objective, competitive) for those hired for leadership positions (Bryce, 1970; Cecil,
Paul, & Olins, 1973; Hobart & Hanies, 1977; Peters, Terborg, & Jacobs, 1977; Terborg et al.,
1977). More recent research is conflicting in this area. Riger and Galligan (1980), for example,
found that "acquiring the requisite managerial skills may do nothing to reduce the hostility that
women face on the job or to mitigate the fact that they may be in token positions" (p. 907). Riger
argues that there is plentiful documentation of the negative effects of the traditional male role on
the health of men and it is unlikely that women who assume these traits will experience any more
favorable outcomes.
Unwillingness to take risks has been documented as a trait which distinguishes successful men and
women from the unsuccessful. However, the literature suggests that women are especially risk
adverse (Horner, 1969). The reason for the aversion to risk may be due to situational factors as
opposed to personality traits (Tressner, 1977). There appears to be a belief that successful women
in non-traditional fields will face more barriers and negative treatment as a result of their career
choice (Condry & Dyer, 1976). Numerous other studies also have documented that an attribute of
successful women leaders is a willingness to take risks and be exceedingly persistent in
overcoming barriers (Astin & Leland, 1991; Heller, 1982; Hennig & Jardim, 1977; Kanter,
1977). Hennig and Jardim (1977) argue that women are socialized to see risk as a losing
proposition whereas men see it as an opportunity for success or failure.
As is the case in the leadership style research, however, findings in laboratory versus field studies
can be conflicting due to methodological artifacts. Contrary to the earlier research finding women
risk adverse, Muldrow and Bayton (1979) found that women took fewer decision making risks
and yet they were equally accurate as their male peers. Riger and Galligan (1980) caution that
behavior may be influenced by what is perceived as being rewarded as opposed to innate
personality traits.
However, what is clear is that with rare, more recent exceptions, studies which describe
successful female leaders are more inclined to describe personality traits and behaviors which are
consistent with stereotypical male traits. More recent research has begun to find that behaviors for
which women were once rejected are now considered preferable management behavior for which
women are rewarded and men are judged less favorably (Guido-DiBrito, Carpenter & DiBrito,
1986).
Donnell and Hall (1980) conducted five studies with 2,000 managers as subjects; 950 females and
966 males. They used five dimensions: personal values and managerial philosophy, motivational
dynamics, participative practices, interpersonal competence, and managerial style. After studying
matched pairs and controlling for level of managerial achievement, they found that with two
exceptions males and females did not significantly differ. The first exceptions was that when it
comes to work motivation, female managers are more achieving than their male counterparts. The
female subjects are more "concerned with opportunities for growth, autonomy, and challenge;
they are less concerned with work environment, pay and strain avoidance" (p. 71). In the area of
interpersonal competence, males are more open and honest with colleagues than are their female
counterparts.
Astin and Leland's (1991) study of three generations of female leaders is another impressive
example for highlighting the successes of female leaders based upon their exhibiting outstanding
leadership achievements versus making any attempt at imitating stereotypical male behavior. They
found that among other traits, their subjects were from an early age passionately committed to
social justice, demonstrated considerable ability to establish a vision and empower others, and
created collective action through cooperative styles of leadership. Sharing Gardner's (1990) view
that "the conventional views of leadership are shallow and set us up for endless disappointment"
(p. xi), they have set aside debates about differing traits and styles and instead emphasized models
of effective leadership which are critical for the kinds of problems society is facing now and for
the foreseeable future.
Astin and Leland (1991) studied 77 positional and non-positional leaders in education and social
services arenas from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. They guided their qualitative study using a
conceptual framework with three constructs and found the framework applicable to their subjects
across the three generations. The three constructs are: that a social construction of leadership is
dependent upon social, cultural and historical context; leadership is a process of collective action
versus one person's efforts; and effective leaders mobilize power and, in turn, empower others.
Using these parameters they examined the extent to which their subjects were facilitators of
change, the context within which the leadership took place, the processes used (i.e.,
empowerment, communication, collective action), and the outcomes which improved the quality
of life. While they found generational differences, they were struck by the quality of leadership
demonstrated by each of the three generations. Across the three generations there was a strong
commitment to social change triggered by compelling, early childhood experiences with
discrimination. As is the case in most studies of female leaders and women employed in male-dominated fields, exceptionally strong educational backgrounds are present. In addition, these
female subjects stress the importance of doing one's homework, having a clear vision of future
goals, and empowering others through the use of a wide variety of leadership strategies. Their
common traits consisted of: "high activity and energy levels; appetites for challenge, problem
solving, and risk taking; obstacles and personal setbacks to accept and overcome; intellectual
competence and the underpinnings of strong academic backgrounds; personal awareness and
confidence, continuously honed by wide exposure to life experiences--work, community service,
cultural diversity; and support for their commitment from family or friends or models and
mentors" (p. 126).
In conclusion, it is clear that the research to date has been lacking in the study of female leaders.
Most studies have focused either on person specific or situation specific need for change. Few
studies have examined the interactive effects of the individual with the environment. Fewer still
have studied leadership beyond the boundaries of an organizational context to a systems or
societal change level. Nevertheless, the studies have reflected the historical and social contexts
within which they were conducted. The more recent studies of the late 1980s and early 1990s are
beginning to examine the dynamic processes of leadership instead of treating male and female
leadership as mutually exclusive.
References
Astin, H., & Leland, C. (1991). Women of influence, women of vision. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Bartol, K.M., & Martin, D.C. (1986). Women and men in task groups. In R.D. Ashmore & F.K.
DelBoca (Eds.), The social psychology of female-male relations: A critical analyses of central
concepts (pp. 259-310). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research (revised
edition). New York: Free Press.
Bhatnagar, D. (1988). Professional women in organizations: New paradigms for research and
action. Sex Roles 18 (5/6), 343-355.
Brown, S.M. (1979). Male versus female leaders: A comparison of empirical studies. Sex Roles 5
(5), 595-611.
Bryce, R.A. (1970). Characteristics of women holding executive, managerial, and other high level
positions in four areas of business. Dissertation Abstracts International 30, 4216A-4217A.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Carroll, S.J. (1984). Feminist scholarship on political leadership. In B. Kellerman, B. (Ed.),
Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp.139-156). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Cecil, E.A., Paul, R.J., & Olins, R.A. (1973). Perceived importance of selected variables used to evaluate male and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology 26, 397-404.
Condry, J., & Dyer, S. (1976). Fear of success: Attribution of cause to the victim. Journal of
Social Issues 32, 63-83.
Daniels, A.K. (1988). Invisible careers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Donnell, S.M., & Hall, J. (1980, Spring). Men and women as managers: A significant case of no
significant difference. Organizational Dynamics, 60-77.
Dwyer, M.M., Flynn, A.A., & Inman, P.S. (1991). Differential progress of women faculty: Status
1980-1990. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook on Research and Theory (pp.173-222). New York: Agathon Press.
Dwyer, M.M. (1993). Patterns of facilitators and barriers to female faculty career progress at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. Unpublished dissertation.
Eagly, A.H., & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin 108 (2), 233-256.
Gardner, J.W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press.
Guido-DiBrito, F., Carpenter, D.S., & DiBrito, W.F. (1986). Women in leadership and
management: Review of the literature, 1985, update. NASPA Journal 23 (3), 22-31.
Heilman, M.E., & Saruwatari, L.R. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearances
and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance 23, 360-372.
Heller, T. (1982). Women and men as leaders. New York: Praeger.
Hennig, M., & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. New York: Anchor Press/ Doubleday.
Hobart, C., & Hanies, K. (1977). Sex role stereotyping among future managers. In J.D. Jewell
(Ed.), Women and management: An expanding role (pp. 197-218). Atlanta: Georgia State
University.
Horner, M. (1969, November). Fail: Bright women. Psychology Today 62, 36-38.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kanter, R.M. (1976, May). Why bosses turn bitchy. Psychology Today 9, 56-89.
Loden, M. (1985). Feminine leadership or how to succeed in business without being one of the
boys. New York: Times Books.
Muldrow, T.W., & Bayton, J.A. (1979). Men and women executives and processes related to
decision accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology 64, 99-106.
Nieva, V.F., & Gutek, B.A. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York:
Praeger.
Peters, L.H., Terborg, J.R., & Jacobs, J. (1974). Women as managers (WAMS): A measure of
attitudes toward women in management positions. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in
Psychology, Ms. No. 585.
Population Reference Bureau, Inc. (1993). What the 1990 census tells us about women: A state
factbook. Washington, D.C.
Powell, G.N., & Butterfield, D.A. (1979). The "good manager": Masculine or androgynous?
Academy of Management Journal 22 (2), 395-403.
Riger, S., & Galligan, P. (1980). Women in management: An exploration in competing paradigms.
American Psychologist 35 (10), 902-910.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Terborg, J. (1977). Women in management: A research review. Journal of Applied Psychology
62, 647-664.
Terborg, J., Peters, L.H., Ilgen, D.R., & Smith, F. (1977). Organizational and personal correlates
of attitudes toward women as managers. Academy of Management Journal 20, 89-100.
Tressner, D. (1977). Fear of success. New York: Plenum Press.
Yoder, J.D. (1985). An academic woman as a token: A case study. Journal of Social Issues 41
(4), 61-72.
WOMEN IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
John Parascandola, PhD
Public Health Historian
Women have played an increasingly important role in the nearly two centuries of existence of the
Public Health Service (PHS). The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of the
history of women in professional positions in the PHS, focusing on selected highlights.
Before specifically addressing the question of women in the Public Health Service, it is necessary
to provide some background information about the development of the Service. The PHS began
in 1798 as the Marine Hospital Service, a program established within the Treasury Department for
the care and relief of sick and disabled seamen. The first temporary hospital was started in
rehabilitated barracks on Castle Island in Boston Harbor in 1799, and the first permanent marine
hospital was authorized to be built in Boston on May 3, 1807. It was not until the 1870s that the
Service was formally organized as a national hospital system with a central headquarters in
Washington, D.C., under the direction of a Supervising Surgeon (later Surgeon General).
John Maynard Woodworth, the first Supervising Surgeon, created a cadre of competent, mobile,
career service physicians along military lines, and in 1889 the PHS Commissioned Corps was
formally established by law. Although the Corps originally consisted solely of physicians, its scope
was expanded several times over the last century to include nurses, dentists, sanitary engineers,
pharmacists, scientists, and other health professionals. Today there are about 5,000 members of
the Commissioned Corps out of some 50,000 PHS employees.
As the duties of the Service were expanded in the late 19th century to include the authority for
quarantine, the medical inspection and care of arriving immigrants, and the operation of a hygienic
laboratory, its name was changed in 1902 to the Public Health and Marine Hospital Service. In
1912 the name was shortened to simply the Public Health Service.
The PHS remained in the Treasury Department for 139 years, but in 1939 it became part of the
newly created Federal Security Agency (FSA). In 1953, the FSA was dissolved and its
responsibilities were transferred to the newly created Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare (DHEW). It is worth noting that the first Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
was a woman--Oveta Culp Hobby, the first of four women to date to head the Department in
which PHS is housed. Hobby had been serving as Administrator of the FSA for some three
months when the reorganization took place. The other women who have headed the Department,
which became Health and Human Services in 1980, are Patricia Harris, Margaret Heckler, and the
present Secretary, Donna Shalala.
Until 1968, the PHS was headed by the Surgeon General, who, up to the time, had always been a
career commissioned officer. In that year, however, a major reorganization placed the PHS under
the direction of the Assistant Secretary for Health, a political appointee. The Surgeon General,
who now also is frequently appointed from outside of PHS, continues to play a significant role in
the PHS by advising the public and the Administration on health matters and by overseeing the
activities of the Commissioned Corps.
The first women to be employed by the Service appear to have been nurses who served in the
marine hospitals. The early workers were practical nurses who had no professional training, as
nursing did not even begin to exist as a profession until the latter half of the 19th century. Most of
the nursing care in the marine hospitals, however, was provided by former seamen until the
second decade of the 20th century. Beginning about 1912, female nurses who had graduated from
some type of professional training program began to be generally employed in the marine
hospitals (although nurses were not admitted into the Commissioned Corps until 1944). As the
number of female nurses in the PHS hospitals increased, difficulties were encountered in providing
suitable quarters for them because, as one observed noted: "There was never any idea in the minds
of those in authority that women nurses would be placed in these hospitals and, therefore, no
quarters were built for nurses."
Nurses were also employed at Ellis Island at a relatively early date. The PHS had been assigned
the responsibility for the medical examination and treatment of arriving immigrants in the 1890s,
and Ellis Island was the nation's major immigration center.
It was apparently also in connection with the examination of immigrants that the first women
physicians were hired by the Service. Women immigrants presented a particular challenge to the
Service doctors who were charged with inspecting the arriving immigrants for signs of disease or
disability. For a woman who had never been touched by a man other than her husband, being
examined by a male physician could be a traumatic experience. In 1914, two women doctors were
appointed to the PHS medical staff at Ellis Island. Before that, PHS rules required the presence of
a matron during the examination of an immigrant woman by a male physician. These first women
physicians, however, were not members of the Commissioned Corps. The first woman was
appointed to the regular Corps in 1932--physician Estella Ford Warner.
By the time the United States entered the First World War in 1917, women were being employed
in the PHS to serve in other capacities, such as dieticians or laboratory researchers. The Hygienic
Laboratory of the PHS, which had been established in 1887 and was the forerunner of the
National Institutes of Health, was an unusually hospitable place for women trying to break into
the sciences in the period between the two world wars. George McCory, Director of the
Laboratory, went out of his way to hire women and to encourage and support their work. Ida
Bengtson, a bacteriologist, was the first woman employed by McCoy in 1916. Bengtson was an
outstanding scientist who is probably best known for isolating a new strain of botulism bacillus.
Another exceptional bacteriologist hired by McCoy was Alice Evans, who came to the Hygienic
Laboratory in 1918. Evans had previously worked at the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of
Animal Industry, where her colleagues had been very surprised to find on her arrival there that "A.
Evans" was a woman. Evans won great fame upon the confirmation of her controversial discovery
that Bang's disease in cattle was caused by the same organism that is responsible for certain
previously unidentified undulant fevers in humans (now known as the disease brucellosis). In
1928, she was elected the first woman president of the Society of American Bacteriologists.
By 1938, 14 of the women in the National Institutes of Health (which the Hygienic Laboratory
had become in 1930) were listed in American Men of Science, a publication that had not yet
changed its title to keep up with the realities of scientific personnel. Among the exceptionally able
women scientists at NIH in the 1930s were: Sara Branham, a expert on meningitis; Sarah Stewart,
later famous for her work on cancer viruses; Eloise Cram, a noted parasitologist; and Margaret
Pittman, known for her work on the standardization of the pertussis vaccine.
In spite of the generally supportive environment created by McCoy, women scientists at NIH, as
at other institutions, still tended to earn less and to be promoted less readily than their male
counterparts. The tradition of excellence in research established under McCoy, however, was
continued at NIH by women scientists such as Katherine Sanford, who, in the 1950s, was the first
to grow selectively a mammalian tissue cell line from the transfer of a single cell.
Beginning in the 1940s, women began to occupy leadership roles within the PHS. The first
woman to head a major PHS division was Lucile Petry, in 1943. A concern about a nursing
shortage had led to the passage of the Nurse Training Act of 1943, which created the Cadet
Nurse Corps in the PHS, a program that trained some 124,000 nurses between 1943 and 1948.
To administer the program, PHS Surgeon General Thomas Parran created a Division of Nurse
Education and appointed Petry as its director. Petry was among the first nurses to be
commissioned in 1945, after the 1944 Public Health Service Act authorized the appointment of
nurses and other categories of health professionals to the Commissioned Corps. In 1949, she
became the first woman to achieve flag rank (Assistant Surgeon General, the equivalent of Rear
Admiral) in the PHS, and, in fact, in any of the uniformed services of the United States.
The first female chief of a NIH laboratory was Margaret Pittman, mentioned above, who was
appointed in 1958 as Chief of the Laboratory of Bacterial Products. In 1974, Ruth Kirchstein
became the first woman to serve as director of one of the NIH institutes, the National Institute of
General Medical Sciences.
Women have come to play an increasingly important role at the top management levels of the
PHS over the past two decades. For example, Karen Davis became the first woman to head a
PHS agency when she was appointed as the Administrator of the Health Resources
Administration in 1980. This agency was merged with the Health Services Administration in 1982
to form the present Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). A decade later, in
1991, Bernadine Healy became the first director of another PHS agency, the National Institutes of
Health.
In 1981, Faye Abdellah became the first woman and the first nurse to achieve the position of PHS
Deputy Surgeon General. Two other women, O. Marie Henry and Audrey Manley, have held this
position in the 1990s. In 1990, Antonia Novello became the first woman and the first Hispanic to
serve as PHS Surgeon General. She was succeeded in the position in 1993 by another woman, M.
Joycelyn Elders, the first African American Surgeon General of the PHS. Two women, Audrey
Manley and Jo Ivey Boufford, have also held the position of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Health in the 1990s.
Today, women constitute about 59% of the PHS staff, including about 34% of the Commissioned
Corps. However, they continue to be underrepresented at the higher levels of management,
although that situation has been improving somewhat in recent years. The ultimate goal, of
course, is the appointment of a woman as Assistant Secretary for Health, as the PHS has not yet
had a woman serve as its head (except on an acting basis).
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Calvin Adams, Joan Farrar, Victoria Harden, Mary Lou Russell, and Lynne
Snyder for their helpful input on this article.
References
Farnes, P. (1990). Women in medical science. In G. Kass-Simon & P. Farnes (Eds.), Women of
science: Righting the record (pp. 268-299). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Furman, B. (1973). A profile of the United States Public Health Service, 1798-1948.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mullan, F. (1989). Plagues and politics. The story of the United States Public Health Service.
New York: Basic Books.
Rossiter, M. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Williams, R. (1951). The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950. Washington, DC: The
Commissioned Officers Association of the United States Public Health Service.
PROFILES: WOMEN LEADERS
Carol Spain, MPH, Director
CDC/UC Public Health Leadership Institute
For decades, even women themselves have harbored an unspoken belief that they couldn't make it
because they couldn't be just like men, and nothing else would do. But now that women have
shown themselves the equal of men in every area of organizational activity, now that they have
demonstrated that they can be stars in every field of endeavor, now we can all venture to examine
that fact that women and men are different.1
This paper presents profiles of six women who have achieved leadership status in the public health
sector. There is no research specifically targeted to women in the public or community sector and
as an accompanying article documents, there is a general lack of research and inquiry about
women leaders in the literature.
It is time to change this reality, and a number of female researchers are leading the way, including:
Judy B. Rosener (University of California at Irvine), Helen S. Astin (UCLA), Carole A. Leland
and Ann M. Morrison (Center for Creative Leadership), and Carol Gilligan (Harvard University).
The author has embarked on this preliminary research of her increasing interest in issues
surrounding gender and leadership and the significant urging she received from a mentor, Louis
Rowitz.
Methodology
Six female leaders in public health, who were all graduates of the CDC\UC Public Health
Leadership Institute (with one exception), were asked to participate in this study. All chose to
participate and did so within a three day notice. All arranged their calendars at the last minute for
the one hour and 15 minute interview with the author.
The following women participated in this study: Martha Katz, MPA (Associate Director of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention); Guadalupe Olivas, BSN, MS, PhD (Past Director, Pima County Health Department, Tucson, Arizona; now with PHPPO/CDC); Vernice Anthony, BSN, MPH (Director, Michigan Department of Public Health); Mimi L. Fields, MD, MPH (Health Officer, Washington State Department of Health); Adela Gonzalez, MPA (Past Director, Department of Health and Health Service, City of Dallas;
Director of Urban and Rural Health, Department of Family Medicine, University of North Texas);
and Jacqueline E. Stiff, MD, MSPH (Health Officer and Director, City of Pasadena, Public Health
Department, California).
The Origins and Motives for Leadership: Key Influences and Experiences: The Pathway
What has given these women the strength to overcome discrimination, the self-confidence to
overcome life's obstacles, the caring and passion for causes and people, and ability to sustain a
continuous path of self challenge, learning and growth? We are beginning to learn from leaders by
asking them to tell the story of their "path." The following comments and observations are made
from the preliminary analysis of such data.
Profile of Participants
Age: Ages range from early 40s to mid 50s (early 40s, 4; mid-40s, 1; and mid-50s, 1).
Ethnicity: Two are Caucasian; two are African American; and two are Latino.
Marital Status: One is single (never married); three are currently married; and two are divorced
(both twice).
Children: Three do not have children. Three do have children (two are married, one is
divorced). Two have two children each; one has three children.
Education: Highest degree obtained: MDs, 2; PhDs, 1; Masters, 3.
Leadership: All have held more than one top level leadership position in local, state or federal
public health agencies.
Growing Up
Family Origins: It is well known that family origins and background are powerful developmental
agents. We are all shaped, in part, by those early environment influences, including parental
expectations and strength, family and community role models, and early messages about
ourselves.
Family Role Models and Messages: Five of six participants specifically mentioned one or more
members of their family as strong role models. Learning occurred by being exposed to strong
mothers (only one participant's experience) or supportive older siblings (one; a sister) as well as
learning from the disadvantaged position of a parent (e.g., the passive or unpotentiated mother) or
the extreme strength of the father [e.g., a domineering father (2) or public figure of the father (1)].
Later, husbands can play an important role in mentoring and providing support (3) or can create
great disappointment and stress (2).
Four of the participants also remember the strong influence of female role models in their
community, including mothers of girlfriends, friends of the family, well known women in the
community, and early teachers. All were female; and for the Latinas, it was important for them to
see older Latinas achieving success and breaking out of the traditional paradigm of the passive
wife and mother so inherent in their culture, especially during the time they were growing up.
Among the five participants that had role models, all stated that having role models early in life
was very important for the development of their self confidence, and their vision of who they
could become.
Educational Process:
All Female Schools: Only one participant had the opportunity to attend an all female school.
She stated that the experience of attending high school with only females helped her tremendously
by developing her self-confidence; she didn't have to compete with the boys; she was able to excel
in the subjects that males have generally succeeded in, such as science.
Setting sights on attending college: Five of six participants always intended to go to college.
It was expected by their families, and internalized by themselves..."I always knew I was going to
college...It was a deep desire...It was always expected that I would go...".
All went into some type of higher education environment shortly or immediately after graduating
from high school. Two (the older participants) stopped their educational process shortly after
attaining a vocational/professional status (one, a medical technologist; one, a licensed vocational
nurse); then, later, they went on to complete bachelor degrees. The younger four went directly
into four year colleges, and from there directly into graduate and doctoral work (straight
educational paths).
All ended up with exceptionally strong educational backgrounds (see Profile of Participants).
Seeking Early Leadership Roles: Four of six participants held leadership positions at school or in
community organizations beginning as early as elementary school. Some early experiences
include: president of the Science Club; yearbook editor; student council; class president;
committee chairs; leader in Future Homemakers of America; Girls Athletic Association; and civics
clubs.
Straight versus Convoluted or Interrupted Path
It is mentioned in the literature of the 1980's that the women studied tended to have an
interrupted and convoluted path that included late starts, changing careers, time out to raise
children, time out between degrees, longer time to obtain degrees, job changes and re-entry--generally a longer path.
In this study, four of the women graduated from high school in the late 1960s, and all of these
women started immediately into a four year college and tended to keep on an academic track,
with work interspersed in the educational process until reaching their higher educational goals.
They acknowledged that they had been on a "straight path."
The two women graduating later told a different story. Both started with lower immediate
educational expectations in mind and took more time to complete their degrees, to decide on their
exact career path, and to get the strength and resources to implement their vision. These women
also started families and were married in their early twenties.
The Importance of Mentors
The important role of mentors in the development of any human being, especially anyone aspiring
to become an effective leader, is mentioned repeatedly in the literature. Mentors give us
permission to aspire, act, and realize our greatest potential.
Five of six participants had active and important mentors during their career development. Of
these women, all had female and male mentors. Some had family members as mentors; some had
teachers in high school or college as mentors. All had professional colleagues as mentors--male
and female. The mentors encouraged them to pay attention to their strengths, to aspire for
increased achievement, introduced them to an expanded network, opened some doors for them,
provided friendship and support during critical times, and gave them feedback that helped to
develop a strong sense of self and professional self-confidence.
The Nature of Leadership
Women who compete like men are considered unfeminine. Women who emphasize family are
considered uncommitted.1
The conventional views of leadership are shallow and set us up for endless disappointment.2
Women are different from men. Many women have had different paths than men, but not all.
Women were generally "brought up" in the 1950s and 1960s to behave differently than men. What
impact have these differences had on the women's vision of themselves as leaders; their sense of
ambition; their view of how good they have to be to compete effectively with men for leadership
roles; their leadership style; and how they think others view them?
The Vision of Self
There is no consistent trend among the six women as to how or why or if they developed an early
vision of themselves as leaders. Only three of six saw themselves as leaders early in their
development--one was the oldest participant (she wanted to be a physician before graduating from
high school) and two were from among the youngest participants. Of the three, all were women of
color.
The Issue of Ambition
Five of the six participants acknowledged somewhat of an ambitious nature. But one said it was
only recently that this trait had emerged, and three felt uncomfortable with the word "ambition."
They preferred to refer to this trait as "drive--but not for personal gain," "to do the best always,"
and "to want to have an impact."
Do women have to be more outstanding than men to achieve leadership status? All six
participants indicated a strong "yes" to this question. Specific examples of how women need to
achieve this include women needing to be more flexible; have more experience; be more visible--
make sure your impact and involvement is known; be better at negotiating; have better
interpersonal skills; work harder and longer hours/get more done; work harder at showing your
skills; be smarter--in some cases, have to be "brilliant"; have to overcome obstacles to be
perceived good at "boy issues" (e.g., buildings and budgets); need more credentials and more
competencies; need to show that you can get others to follow (literature shows that many people
will only follow those that they perceive as having power).
Leadership Characteristics
Let's see how these women described themselves. They used the following words and concepts to describe their leadership characteristics:
fair decisive
flexible team leader
listener good communicator
proactive lead by persuasion
consistent deliberative
participative collaborative
inclusive outcome oriented
open continuous learner
supportive mentoring
direct open to diversity
balanced (right and left brain) empowering\skill builder
consensus builder
All reported a very high level of self-confidence.
Some men today might mention many of the same characteristics, but maybe not all. This list of
characteristics tends to portray a group of women orientated to being inclusive and collaborative
with attention to decisions. The process by which they lead involves the followers; as a group they
truly have the attributes of transformational leaders.
Others' Perception\View of Self
The following list of words the participants thought would be used by others to describe them was
a shorter list--it was harder for them to step back and see how others might perceive them. It was
difficult for some of them to be strongly positive. The descriptions include:
compassionate fair
caring tough
good negotiator warm
intelligent bright
intense compulsive
risk taking articulate
good leader gets things done
dedicated hard worker
busy driven
articulate quietly effective
fun jovial
relaxed
Much could be said about this list and what it implies after further validation and study. Some of
these traits would show up on a list describing six male leaders--but would all of them? Are
women--even successful women leaders--perceived differently than their male counterparts? More
research is needed here, especially in the public sector.
Investing in the Future
There are two major areas we chose to focus on: investing in the next generation of women, and
investing in ourselves.
The Next Generation: The Importance of Mentoring and Role Models
The stories have been told. Female role models and mentors are significant contributors to young
women's personal and professional development. We asked two questions of the participants:
What are you currently doing to mentor other women to develop as leaders? How should women
leaders of today identify, recruit, and nurture leadership and talent in young women?
Current mentoring activities: There are a wide variety of activities that all of the women are involved in; five are very actively involved in proactive mentoring of women. Activities include:
seeking out and appointing qualified women to high level positions in the agency; formally
mentoring women as requested; mentoring older and younger female colleagues with some
informality--but purposefully; meet with women for scheduled mentoring interviews; allow
selected women to "shadow" me for one week at a time; sponsor for a physician student
association; mentor for entering latino medical students; and advisor to selected female
undergraduates.
What women leaders should do to nurture young women: The following are comments from
participants. They indicate a strong belief that women leaders today have a very important role
and should take the time to invest in our future female leaders.
"We need to be committed to doing something--such as being role models or mentor one to two
women each year."
"We should always be identifying talented women and keep an active and current résumé file."
"We should promote women if we are able to."
"We should involve ourselves in female organizations as leaders and role models."
"We need to be visible role models."
"We should try to open doors for women."
"We should be who we are: women--not men."
"We should do it purposefully."
Sustaining Ourselves
The issues of sustenance, support, renewal and balance come up over and over for women
leaders. This is especially true for this group of six women leaders.
Support: Support from long time friends, husbands, family members, colleagues and peers has
been very important to these women's capability to overcome obstacles and difficulties, and to
continue to grow and be true to themselves. All participants had some significant sources of
support in their lives.
Balance: The balance between personal life and professional life is a very important issue to
women and men in leadership positions. It is well described in John O'Neill's The Paradox of
Success3 and comes up repeatedly in conversations among women and in many of these women's
statements of the highest priority areas about their lives today.
All of the participants are aware of the need to achieve this "balance," and some report being
more successful than others. High on the list of activities engaged in to be more personally
centered and balanced includes some sort of spiritual or meditative activity. All six women
reported engaging in some type of personal meditation regularly, including meditation,
affirmations, yoga, personal reflection, and attention to one's deep faith and optimistic nature.
Four mentioned exercise, although none had integrated it into their lives on a regular basis, and
many stated that was an area they would like to work on. Others mentioned spending time with
family, shopping, travel and adventures, and personal treats (e.g., manicures).
Highest Priority Today
Of the six participants, two immediately stated that their families were #1. Two stated that
achieving balance between their personal and professional lives and achieving a lot in both was
most important. Two mentioned exciting developments and opportunities in their current careers
as the most compelling priority area.
Their Vision
All of these women are continuous learners who are excited about their lives and self-confident
enough to extend the journey. As one participant succinctly put it: "My vision is to continue
growing and learning, and to continue to make a difference."
Conclusion
The stories of these women leaders were all rich and inspiring to the author. We are on "the tip of
an iceberg" with this preliminary research. There are more areas to investigate and more women
to interview. There is more research to be done to capture their origin, process, events, personal
turning points and successes so we can grow more and better women leaders with each new
generation. The Western Consortium's new Center For Health Leadership hopes to embark on
such a journey during 1995.
Footnotes
1 Schwartz, F. (1989, January/February). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard
Business Review 67 (1).
2 Gardner, J. (1990). On Leadership. New York: Free Press.
3 O'Neill, J. (1993). The Paradox of Success. New York: Putnam.
References
Astin, H.S., & Leland, C. (1991). Women of influence, women of vision: A cross-generational
study of leaders and social change. California: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Cantor, D.W., et al. (1992). Women in power: The secrets of leadership. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin Co.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday
Currency.
Miles, R. (1985). Women and power. London: MacDonald & Co.
Morrison, A.M., et al. (1992). Breaking the glass ceiling. California: Addison-Welsley
Publishing Co.
Rosner, J. (1990, November/December). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review.
A LEADERSHIP INTERVIEW WITH JOYCE C. LASHOF, MD
Shirley F. Randolph, MSPH
Editor's Note: Joyce C. Lashof, MD, is Dean Emeritus, School of Public Health, University of
California at Berkeley. Her most recent previous positions include: President of the American
Public Health Association; Dean, School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley;
President, Association of Schools of Public Health; Assistant Director, Office of Technology
Assessment, U.S. Congress; Senior Scholar in Residence, Institute of Medicine, National
Academy of Sciences; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Programs and Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and
Director, Illinois Department of Public Health.
The first name that comes to mind when one thinks of women leaders in the field of public health
is Joyce C. Lashof, MD. Dr. Lashof has done it all. After three decades in public health leadership
positions she is, quite simply, the quintessential public health leader.
And she did it all while successfully integrating her workplace duties with her responsibilities as
the wife of a university professor (her husband, Richard, is a well-known mathematician, and the
mother of three children (one son and two daughters)--two of whom have made Joyce and
Richard grandparents, and all of whom are growing as young professionals in their chosen fields.
Her insights into leadership issues, particularly as they apply to women, are perceptive and
fascinating.
One of the first areas Dr. Lashof and I explored during a recent interview dealt with the challenge
women oftentimes experience when faced with men as "gatekeepers" to upward mobility. Dr.
Lashof was asked:
What have been your greatest challenges when confronting the male monopoly on power
and men as gatekeepers on the upward path to leadership?
Her response: There was definitely a problem early in my career. Moving up depended a good
deal on having a mentor who paved the way. At the beginning of my career, after I received my
MD from Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania and completed my residency in medicine at
Montefiore Hospital in New York, I went to the University of Chicago first as a physician at the
Student Health Services and then as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine.
I served year-to-year on a one-year appointment for three years and then asked for a regular
three-year appointment. I was told by the chairman of the Department of Medicine that he would
never give a married woman a tenured track appointment because she would leave and go where
her husband's career took him. Needless to say, I was unhappy about the situation and told him,
"thanks, but no thanks" to another one-year appointment. That was in 1960. At that time, of
course, there were no laws about discrimination and affirmative action.
Luckily, colleagues referred me to Dr. Mark Lepper at the University of Illinois, College of
Medicine, and Presbyterian-St. Luke's Hospital, Chicago. Mark offered me a faculty appointment
in the Department of Preventive Medicine at the University of Illinois, and arranged an
appointment as Assistant Attending Physician at Presbyterian-St. Luke's Hospital. This led to a
series of succeeding appointments and long-term collaboration.
In many ways, Mark was a mentor who opened doors for me. Most specifically, he appointed me
research director of a study of health needs of poverty populations funded by the Office of Equal
Opportunity (OEO). It was this study that led to recommendations that health centers to serve the
disadvantaged be opened in Chicago. The study was well-received by OEO and resulted in the
further development of a proposal to open a health center on Chicago's west side. The West Side's
Mile Square organization approached Presbyterian-St. Luke's about developing such a health
center. We put together a proposal for an OEO-funded Mile Square Health Center. The proposal
was successful and Mile Square Health Center was the second OEO-funded health center in the
country. I served as its director for five years.
During this same period of time, I was promoted to Attending Physician and Director, Section of
Community Medicine, at Presbyterian-St. Luke's Hospital. As the only woman to head up a
Section, during staff meetings I was the lone woman sitting around the table with all the men.
They were more-or-less accepting of me, but I could sense that in their eyes I was not quite an
equal. I walked a thin line between asserting myself and not being too assertive.
When Dan Walker became Illinois' Governor in 1973, he said he was going to appoint women to
his cabinet. He did and I became the first woman to be named the director of a state public health
department. I think I ought to thank the women's movement!
What changes in the male monopoly are occurring as we move into a new era with a new
vision about women as leaders and managers?
Response: Things are certainly changing. Obviously there are now laws against overt
discrimination against women. But just as important as the legal ramifications of discriminating
against women (or anyone else), the fact is that women have proved themselves capable and are
accepted as leaders and managers. In addition, women are networking more. Not being the only
woman sitting around a table with a group of men makes a real difference in relationships with
colleagues. And, the younger generation of men are much more accepting of women in peer
relationships. Men who are not comfortable with women as leaders and managers and who do not
accept them as colleagues are a dying breed.
How did you counteract the obstacle of discrimination in the workplace because you are a
woman? Was discrimination more or less a problem as you moved from mid-level
management to top leadership roles?
Response: Of course the way I counteracted the first obstacle at the University of Chicago was
by leaving. Beyond that, I think I just did the best job I knew how to do. I worked hard to be sure
that I met every expectation and did not give anyone any excuses to criticize me because of my
gender.
Then again, sometimes I just ignored the problems and sometimes I took little actions. For
example, at Presbyterian-St. Luke's, we would sit around the table and select interns and
residents. We would come to a woman applicant and the men would make comments like, "let's
take her...she is really attractive." I would wait until we came to a likely male applicant and then I
would say, "yes, I think we should take him...he's quite a handsome fellow."
Problems related to discrimination because of my gender became less and less as I moved up. It
was easier working with younger men and women. But, some of the "old-timers"...both in terms
of age and length of service in an agency...were still a problem that had to be faced.
Is it your sense that leadership opportunities are increasing or decreasing for top leadership
positions for women?
Response: In many ways top leadership opportunities for women are increasing. For instance,
more women are serving as directors of state health departments, as deans of schools of public
health, and in high-level leadership positions at all levels of government. On the other hand, I look
at medical school professorships and I'm not sure that the number of women professors have
increased. I think people are looking for women to fill leadership roles, but it is still a problem
when you look at the top jobs.
Are the opportunities for women to fill leadership positions greater or lesser in the field of
public health?
Response: There are greater opportunities for women in public health. I think one reason for this
is the more liberal nature of the public health field with the result being more opportunities and
less discrimination. Public health professionals have a commitment to equality, social justice,
women's rights, minority rights, etc. In addition, a career in public health oftentimes gives a
woman the opportunity to be a leader in politics and in government by virtue of the position she
holds.
Are the attributes and characteristics of successful women leaders different than they are
for successful men leaders?
Response: Women's leadership styles tend to be different from men's to some degree. Whether
those differences are the things that account for success is the question. Are women more
successful as leaders because they have different values and styles? This is a research question and
an issue that is currently being studied. In my experience, especially earlier on in my career, I
found women to be more sympathetic, compassionate, much less aggressive, less domineering and
more inclusive...all very valuable traits when one looks at leadership. We know now that research
studies regarding capable leadership indicate that those who have an inclusive leadership style are
more effective. Obviously, there are always exceptions to this rule. Taken as a whole, the
inclusive leadership approach is lower key; it is more sharing and more "motherly." One of the
best compliments I received as Assistant Director of the Office of Technology Assessment was
that "I was good at 'mothering' them, but I could also kick their rears when I needed to!"
In addition to being a successful public health leader in a variety of fora, you are also a
wife, mother, and grandmother. How did you integrate the workplace with your private life
responsibilities and "juggle" the complexities that resulted from your various roles?
Response: It has been a real juggling act! Of course, things got easier as my three children grew
up, but at times it was wild! One of the very conscious decisions I made early on in my career was
to move toward public health and research in the medical care area because it was less
competitive and that would result in a less intensive demand on my time, which gave me more
time to be with my family. Before I made this decision, I had been working in infectious diseases.
I observed how competitive this field was and felt that with three young children at home, it
wasn't what I wanted to do. I wanted to be home with my husband and children at night and on
the weekends, holidays, etc. When the children were all in school and busy with their individual
activities, the balancing act became easier. Also, I was very fortunate in having the same full-time
housekeeper for over 20 years.
My need to spend time with my family was one of the main reasons why I decided to go into
public health and medical care research. It was really serendipity...opportunity knocked through
Mark Lepper's mentoring and I was there.
The present job market is very competitive for public health practitioners regardless of
gender. What leadership skills are most important for women to cultivate who are presently
at the lower and middle levels of a public health organization?
Response: First and foremost, one needs to know one's field. One has to be looked at as one who
is a good problem-solver. My advice is to learn how to be objective and analytical, and how to be
fair. Other important leadership skills include developing an inclusive leadership style, learning
how to be a good listener and to reflect on what you hear. One leadership skill that is absolutely
essential is knowing how to relate well to other people and to be honest in those relationships.
As public health redefines its role within a new health care delivery system that is likely to
emerge as the result of some form of health care reform, will there be different or "new"
opportunities for women in public health leadership positions?
Response: If the whole health care system becomes more and more competitive through a
corporate approach, some women will be able to fit into that structure as leaders. If we move into
a system that is accountable for populations (core functions included), opportunities for women to
attain top leadership positions certainly should increase. As public health grows and strengthens
its position as an integral part of the health care delivery system, there will be increasing
leadership opportunities for both women and men.
* * * * * * * * *
Even though Dr. Joyce Lashof is a Dean Emeritus and no longer "punches the clock" on a daily
basis, she still exercises her leadership skills in such fora as the California Public Health
Leadership Institute, where she is a mentor to the younger women "who just naturally seem to
bond with me." She is principal investigator for a project known as "The Center for Integrated
Services for Neighborhoods and Families" and is on the Board of Directors of the International
Clinical Epidemiologic Network (INCEN).
She also continues to increase her impressive array of publications and has recently published the
article, "America's Public Health Report Card" in the Encyclopedia Britannica Health Annual,
and "Health Care Reform: A Public Health Prescription," in the book, Health Care Reform in the
United States.
On a personal note, it was my great privilege to work with Dr. Lashof for four years when she
was the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health. Later we worked together on
national and international public health issues as members of the Executive Board of the American
Public Health Association. We also shared a week in Cuba as members of an APHA delegation
invited by the Cuban Minister of Public Health to visit his country "to exchange experiences which
will be useful to both parties."
One of my best memories of Joyce Lashof at play occurred in Cuba. One afternoon our group
spent a few hours on a beach close to Havana. The surf was up, but that didn't stop Joyce (and
two others in our group) from enjoying the tropical waters. Clad in a speed-suit, tight cap and
goggles, she vigorously attacked the water, wind and waves and surprised all of us with her
leadership in aquatic skills!!
THE EVOLUTION OF THE OFFICE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH
AT THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)
Martha Katz, Associate Director
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Wanda Jones, Acting Associate Director
Office of Women's Health
Ann Smith, Program Analyst
Office of Women's Health
The leadership of CDC has clearly recognized and actively responded to women's health concerns.
Priorities for Women's Health (developed by the women's health committee and released in the
spring of 1993), is a report which highlights CDC's women's health programs for a diverse
audience of health professionals, policymakers, and the many groups interested in women's health.
The report identifies seven priority areas that represent the most significant health issues faced by
women at every stage of their lives and transcend the home and workplace. Priority areas for
disease prevention and health promotion programs for women are: breast and cervical cancer;
HIV/AIDS; sexually transmitted diseases; tobacco use; injury and violence; reproductive health;
and health in later years.
Since the mid-1980s, women's health committees, working groups, and interest groups have met
to address knowledge gaps in women's health and focus attention on the significance of women's
health as a priority at CDC.
A group of women, representing all organizational components of CDC, had been meeting since
1992 under the leadership of Martha Katz, Associate Director for Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation, and Virginia Bales, Acting Director of the National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion. The women's health committee had discussed the creation of
an office of women's health from the beginning. There were both strong calls for an identifiable
focus on women's health and similarly strong calls to maintain the program identities in order to
avoid marginalizing the issue.
In September 1993, the Women's Health Equity Act (HR 3075) was introduced by Rep. Patricia
Schroeder. It included legislation to create the CDC Office of Women's Health to "promote
greater equity in the delivery of health care services to American women through expanded
research on women's health issues and through improved access to health care services, including
preventive health services." In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2
million in its FY 1994 Appropriations Bill to establish an Office of Women's Health within the
Office of the Director of CDC. Subsequent to this, in February 1994, David Satcher, MD, PhD,
Director of CDC, announced that one of the four evolving priorities for the agency would be
women's health.
The legislative activity and Dr. Satcher's announcement galvanized this group. While planning for
the placement of an office, the committee opted to solicit CDC-based research project proposals
to compete for $800,000 of the $1.4 million eventually appropriated for FY 1994. Thirty-two
proposals were submitted for review by a peer review committee. Six projects were selected for
funding, addressing such important women's health issues as osteoporosis, sexually transmitted
diseases, fall hazards of older women, and prevention services for elderly women.
The committee's actions, both the report and their funding decisions, have heightened sensitivity
to the range of health needs of women. Further, their activities provide a strong mandate to
ensure that women's health activities are interwoven with prevention programs that protect and
promote the health of all Americans and achieve the CDC vision of Healthy People in a Healthy
World.
CDC programs historically have addressed public health issues that affect women, focusing
initially on reproductive health and sexually transmitted diseases. Now the convergence of
research, programs, and policy is being realized through the creation of CDC's Office of Women's
Health.
In June 1994, Dr. Satcher announced that Wanda Jones, DrPH, Assistant Director for Science,
Office of the Associate Director for HIV/AIDS, would be detailed as the Acting Associate
Director for Women's Health at CDC. Under her guidance, the Office will be established and a
nationwide search will commence for a permanent director.
The Office of Women's Health will serve as a focal point for women's health issues throughout the
11 Centers, Institute, and Program Offices (CIOs) within CDC. It will foster the development and
implementation of research and prevention programs targeting a variety of health problems that
have not been adequately addressed in a gender-specific way. It will provide leadership and
coordination for the agency's women's health programs, stimulate prevention research on
conditions that adversely affect the health and quality of life of women, and promote and
encourage use of effective new prevention strategies. Because CDC's women's health activities
are conducted throughout the agency, cross-cutting women's health issues must receive careful
attention to ensure that all prevention needs are adequately addressed and that programs
collaborate closely.
Fostering new partnerships with private-sector constituencies, such as women's health and
consumer and professional organizations, and developing partnerships for public health between
federal, state, and local governments will be critical to the mission of the Office. The Office will
work through the committee and through these external partners to identify gaps in knowledge
about women's health and establish funding priorities. Program opportunities here include
epidemiologic studies or surveillance of preventable women's health problems; demonstration
projects in communities to test new or unproven prevention strategies; and public and
professional educational materials to promote health and prevent disease among women.
Through this consolidated effort, it is clear that CDC has made a commitment to women's health--not just as a priority, but as a reality. By recognizing that women have unique health concerns and
by learning more about how disease and illness affect women differently from men, the ultimate
goal of improving the quality of life for all Americans can be achieved.
STATE OFFICES OF WOMEN'S HEALTH
Mary McGann, MPH, MSW
Assistant Director, Institute for Public Health
San Diego State University Graduate School of Public Health
Kimberly Yeager, MD, MPH
Chief, Office of Women's Health
California Department of Health Services
Federal agencies, especially the US Public Health Service, have increased the amount of attention
devoted to women's health issues over the last nine years. Prominent women's health advocates,
such as Dr. Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health, have helped to
move women's health issues and needs from relative obscurity to national prominence. Women's
health fairs or conferences and women's task forces, designed to address domestic violence and
other problems which predominately impact women, represent additional activities occurring at
the state and local level. However, only a handful of state health departments have responded to
the growing recognition of women's health by developing a serious policy focus within their health
departments. Given the important influence of state policy over local activity, state level action
will be required if we are to see serious and comprehensive local initiative addressing women's
health.
Research Methodology
The purpose of this study was to look for models or paradigms for states which have just
established, or hope to establish in the near future, an office of women's health within, or
associated with, their department of health services.
In February and March of 1994, a telephone survey of the directors of all 50 state health
departments was conducted. The survey was designed to determine first, which states had
established an office, division, or department of women's health (Office). Once an Office was
identified, inquiries concerning the Office's organization, priorities, and activities were made.
Frequently, the director's office could not adequately answer the questions and referred the
interviewer to another contact person, typically in the Division of Maternal and Child Health or
Family/Community Health. On several occasions, the interviewer was transferred to numerous
different offices within the Department of Health Services before obtaining the requested
information.
In order to ensure the reliability of the information obtained from the phone survey, a written
survey was faxed to all US Public Health Service Designated State Women's Health Contacts two
months after the phone survey was conducted. The written survey included the same questions
asked during the phone interviews.
While most divisions, departments, offices, or units within state departments of health services are
relatively easy to describe based on their title, the title "women's health" appears to define
different activities for different states. For that reason and for the purpose of this study, an
operational definition of an office of women's health (Office) was established. In order to meet
our eligibility criteria, an office must address women's health beyond reproductive issues. Thus,
those states who reported the existence of an office of women's health but only addressed routine
maternal and child services were not included.
Data was stored in an Excel for Windows database and analyzed using SPSS-PC+. Data from
both surveys were combined to create an overall picture of women's health activities in each
state's department of health services.
Results
The overall response rate achieved for the phone survey of the 50 State Departments of Health
was 100%. The majority of respondents were from the Maternal and Child Health (54%),
followed by the Directors office (32%) and Health Promotion (10%). The overall response rate
achieved for the written survey was slightly less than that of the phone survey (86%).
Twelve states reported current or recent discussion of the possibility of establishing an office of
women's health. Based on this number, it does appear as though a trend toward developing such
an entity is emerging.
Description of Offices
Only five states met our operational definition by addressing women's health beyond reproductive
health. The analysis of these Offices revealed that a variety of programs and activities are being
undertaken. Table 1 lists the programmatic activities reported.
While these Offices are quite diverse in their range of activities, most are involved in prevention,
education, and research activities. Breast and cervical cancer prevention and/or screening are also
among the priorities of these Offices. Additionally, the respondents reported placing considerable
emphasis on the importance of and need for increasing amount and type of communication and
collaboration between public and private agencies.
Conclusion
During the course of conducting interviews, many respondents expressed a desire to create
avenues for communication between the various state programs. Therefore, the development of a
network that would allow for easy informal communication between states is recommended.
Establishing a Women's Health Bulletin Board on the Internet or even communicating via e-mail
are low cost options which build on existing technology and resources, and may be considered in
an attempt to fill this information gap.
The results of this research reveal that women's health is generally limited to reproductive health
at the state level. Thus, the concept of women's health must be broadened beyond the activities
routinely deemed maternal and child health and/or reproductive issues.
While this information offers states a few paradigms from which to choose in their efforts to
create new programs and establish effective women's health policy, bear in mind that the majority
of offices of women's health presented are still in their infancy. Further follow up of these offices
is required to determine their level of success in the forthcoming years.
Table 1. Offices of Women's Health Program Activities/Focus (N=5)
|
Program Activity/Focus |
No. of Offices of Women's Health |
| Advancing, conducting and/or evaluating research | 4 |
| Coalition building | 4 |
| Breast cancer screening/prevention | 5 |
| Cervical cancer screening/prevention | 5 |
| Interagency cooperation | 5 |
| Policy making and/or analysis | 3 |
| Serve as a forum for education and legislation | 4 |
| Improve self-esteem among adolescents | 1 |
| Promote healthy life styles | 3 |
| Develop school health clinics | 1 |
| Mental health research, education, and/or service integration | 2 |
| Access to health care | 3 |
| Women's health conventions | 2 |
| Women's health week | 1 |
| Women's health brochure | 1 |
| Women's health fairs | 2 |
| Provide funding to support educational efforts | 1 |
| Advising Director of Health Services on women's issues | 3 |
WOMEN LEADERS: A HEALTHY CHANGE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
Jean Marie Malecki, MD, MPH, Director
HRS/Palm Beach County Public Health Unit
The 1987 Department of Labor "Workforce 2000" report detailed the increase in the number of
women who have entered our workforce. Even with this noted "dramatic" increase, there remains
too few women at upper management positions. The health care industry employs proportionately
more women than do other industries; however, few women advance to management positions of
authority above the departmental level. There are obvious barriers to advancement that only a few
women have been able to cross. In the field of public health more and more women are advancing
in their careers; Dr. Joycelyn Elders is a recent example. For this article, issues that women must
address when facing the challenges of directing a health department will be examined. Leadership
skills and abilities that women leaders actively incorporate into their management style will also be
explored.
Fores that shape a woman's career decision in the field of public health are similar to those in any
field where career opportunities that foster independent decision making and accountability exist.
Ragins and Sundstrom said, "The analysis of power (and subsequent professional advancement in
management) calls for the consideration of four areas: social systems, organizations, interpersonal
relationships (on the job and at home) and the individual." It is important to note that self-image,
how one views oneself personally and in relation to one's profession, is of paramount importance.
The lack of professional contact with other women in leadership roles has impacted upward
career mobility.
Society has placed expectations on women. Seeking and entering female-dominated professions
such as nursing, social work, laboratory, nutrition, health education, traditional medical records
and vital statistics are examples. Such professions have traditionally viewed themselves as
subservient and not as leaders. A woman's perception of herself as a leader and the support of her
personal and professional environment are essential to upward mobility. These professions
dominate the field of public health. Family responsibilities and the expectations of the woman's
role have different implications in a woman's career in comparison to a man's career. The
ambiguous roles of mother and professional create both conflict and stress for the woman who is
identified as the primary housekeeper and a primary breadwinner. The availability of child care for
the healthy child, as well as the sick child, has major implications for the woman leader. Very few
females can depend on their spouses to care for the child during routine and extended working
hours. Cultural values all too often force women not to apply for or accept positions of more
responsibility.
Other factors that affect job advancement include organizational structure(s). Do performance,
appraisals and job selection focus on leadership potential? Is there a career ladder for future
leaders, and does the organization have a positive image of professional women? In comparing
public health departments to hospitals, leadership roles for women have increasingly become more
of the public health culture.
Women bring special skills to health care professions, particularly in public health. Proficiency in
teamwork/teambuilding, employee empowerment and client/community focused care are not
traditionally recognized as crucial by male-dominated organizations. Women have had difficulty in
gaining recognition for these skills from upper management. In comparing the attitudes of female
executives to male executives, they are similar in commitment to the organization, job satisfaction
and job stress. The perceptions of future promotions are lower among female executives.
The most demanding role in public health is leadership, and women must be motivated not only to
manage but also to lead. Success is measured by a shared vision of the future and the desire to
embrace change. This includes the desire to foster assertiveness and the willingness to take risks.
One successful strategy in promoting leadership skills is through mentoring. Women in public
health leadership roles must become mentors for other women. Leadership institutes can provide
the forum for networking purposes. The Women's Health Executive Network, for example,
highlights the value of networking for the potential woman leader. Such networks help women
think creatively about their futures, enhance career-building skills and promote themselves and
their careers.
The participatory management style that is being strongly indoctrinated into the public health
administrative culture is a feminine leadership characteristic. This style of management motivates
employees to address the public health care needs of a community by involving them in the
decision-making process. By encouraging active participation, employees assume ownership of
the organization and positive outcomes are achieved. Through collective planning and the building
of self-esteem, the likelihood of creative problem solving increases. Promoting feelings of self-worth in others is another feminine management tool. The commitment to total quality
improvement and the sharing of information fosters the development of a mission-driven
organization. The offering of praise, recognition, and giving credit where credit is due also
promotes teamwork.
The balance between a woman's personal and professional life ultimately determines a decision to
seek or accept a leadership career in public health. The most frequently cited influences are
education and training, mentoring and role modeling, family and other personal influences, and
attitudes. The most frequently asked question is, "How do you reconcile the bearing of children
with the demand, pressures and timing of career development?" Within our social systems and
organizations, traditional assumptions concerning career tracks must be challenged and flexibility
must be demanded. The woman leader brings compassion and the ability to compromise to a
managerial position. Innovative and creative leadership within our public health agencies and
institutions is needed to provide networks of support for our future female leaders and to confront
the limitations women face in achieving success.
Book Review
WORKING WITH MEN by Beth Milwid
Michelle sums up their sentiments... 'Obviously corporations (and agencies) have rules and
regulations that you have to maintain and keep. But still, within all of that, maintain your own
individuality, set your own goals, work at your own pace as much as you can. Once you start
falling into that old trap of being what everyone else is, you've lost... You're a female. There's no
doubt about it. You're different from a male... He's different. He's always going to be different...
So do your own thing. Be equal to him in the workforce, do as well, study as hard. But don't try
to become him.'
There has been much discussion in recent years about gender issues in the workplace. It is
unfortunate that most of the discussion has involved only issues of sexual harassment. Beth
Milwid has written a book (Berkeley Books, 1992) that all men who work with women should
read. This book discusses, with many case studies, the complex relationships that occur between
men and women in the workplace. She documents in great detail the fact that both men and
women have problems in the present workplace environment. The workplace is demanding and
requires that individuals give up most of their individuality to satisfy the needs of the workplace.
Much of the discussion in the book relates to the culture and values of the large corporation
which has a long history of male-dominated cultural values. The company expects all of its
professional employees to put the workplace first. Family and community tend to be far down on
the list of corporate values except for the importance of having a spouse who supports her/his
mate's requirements to put the workplace first. Within the workplace, male bonding is highly
valued and many decisions are made at the urinal, the local bar, or the golf club. Women must
struggle in this environment and often find themselves shut out of major decision-making
activities. Although not discussed by Milwid, the human services agency presents some unique
contrasts to the large corporation. On the surface, the agency gives the appearance of being
egalitarian in the way that it operates. This may not be a true picture. In public health, many
agencies are headed by male physicians who promote a male-oriented medical culture about which
many other authors have already written. A number of women in public health have given oral
reports to the Illinois Public Health Leadership Institute at which they have reported similar
negative experiences to the women reported by Milwid. There are clearly a number of gender
issues which need to be addressed by the public health leadership.
The author presents a series of issues covering all sorts of male-female concerns in the workplace.
Milwid begins by discussing the fact that the educational experience often does not prepare a
woman for the realities of the workplace. Men and women are often equal partners at the
educational institution. Once they enter the workplace, the equality seems to vanish in the male-dominated work environment. Women are often considered to be short-term employees who will
leave after they marry and have children. Women also find that they are often shut out of major
decisions or are passed over for promotions even when they are the most qualified. Subjectivity
enters the picture when promotions are made. Women struggle long and hard to gain credibility in
the workplace. Women are expected to fail, whereas men are expected to succeed. Mistakes made
by women are counted more heavily than mistakes made by men. Women find that they often
have to give up their femininity and appear more like men. Milwid argues that diversity must gain
respect in the workplace so that people can be who they really are.
The informal system in the workplace is also male-dominated, which means that women are often
ignored. Women are excluded from many of the informal social activities that bind the male
professionals in the workplace and outside. Women seem to be able to develop good peer ties
when they first enter a company, but become more isolated as they move up the corporate ladder.
Milwid believes that the hierarchial structure of the corporation needs to be changed if these
problems are to be alleviated. Other writers believe that the new team-based organizations do
alleviate many of these problems.
The sexual dynamics in the workplace are extremely complex. Sexual harassment clearly occurs.
The male-dominated culture does create part of the problem. The chemistry between men and
women has to be directly addressed with clear rules that prevent sexual harassment. Milwid
argues that the woman is always the loser in a sexual encounter in the workplace. The woman
generally leaves the company. Milwid goes into a long discussion on power relationships in the
company and the ways in which women can learn how to make their way in the organization. She
believes that the present system is beginning to fray as more and more men and women are
accepting of the equality of the sexes. However, it will take a long time for the system to be
completely overhauled.
Milwid discusses the cement ceiling and the ways women are blocked from entering the upper
levels of many companies. The only way they can move up is to move out to another company.
This becomes difficult when spouses and children are involved. Professional women often find it
difficult to balance a professional job with a family. Choices must often be made. Towards the end
of the book, the author points out that men are also hurt by the system. The critical issue is
stressing diversity, balance between work and family, and changing organizations to better reflect
human needs. This is clearly an important book for leaders.
Reviewed by Louis Rowitz, PhD
Book Review
WOMEN AND THE WORK/FAMILY DILEMMA:
How Today's Professional Women Are Finding Solutions
by Deborah J. Swiss & Judith P. Walker
I know having the children has made me a better person and even a better lawyer... Since you end
up paying a price professionally no matter when you have children, you should probably have
them when you are ready. If you do what seems right and persist, I believe it all works out. Law
firms dissolve, specialties dry up, mentors disappear. However, no one and nothing takes away
the sloppy, wet kisses and hugs.
It is nothing short of a miracle--a book has been written which actually mirrors our lives--i.e., the
lives of professional women who are also mothers. In a simple, straightforward style, Deborah
Swiss and Judith Walker tell it like it is, giving new life to that well-worn, frayed phrase. And this
is what IT is:
Today's professional woman has not found easy resolution of the conflict she faces over her
double roles: ambition versus nurturing.
Without any attempt to sugar-coat the facts or to promote the unattainable "you can have it all"
fantasy, the authors have systematically covered the struggle of career women who have children.
Analyzing the 902 surveys returned from the 1,644 the authors sent to women graduates of
Harvard's business, law, and medical schools in the ten-year period 1971 to 1981 (supplemented
by 52 personal interviews), this book confirms our confused lives. The results are revealing and
riveting even though there is nothing in this book that is new to us. Any working mother
anywhere can identify with the conflict, the guilt, and the exhaustion of having to come to grips
with the competing demands of the job and the home. (Just the use of the phrase "working
mother" is noted in the book as suspect in itself. The authors point out the "(t)he term working
father is not even in our vocabulary"!)
Starting from the assumption that women now have available to them career opportunities largely
as the beneficiaries of the feminist movement (in fact, they are referred to, at times, as the "post-feminist" or "bridge" generation), the writers focus on "how family influences career paths and
how careers affect choices about family life." While admitting that "(t)he glass ceiling has
remarkably few cracks despite an impressive generation of women armed with credentials equal to
any man's," the authors have discovered and named an equally formidable barrier: the "maternal
wall."
Chapter after chapter in this book contains heart-wrenching vignettes, testimonials and single one-line quotes from these Harvard-educated MBA's, lawyers, and doctors who hit the maternal wall
and are stunned by how it affects their daily realities. Some reveal how important it seemed to
take as little time off as possible after the birth of their baby in order to avoid penalties at the
office. One law professor, being evaluated for tenure, took no leave when her first two children
were born. Others hesitate to mention having to leave work early to pick up a sick child or to tell
the truth about arriving late to the office because of a parent-teacher conference. Equally poignant
are the personal decisions to postpone pregnancies or limit the number of children to ONE
because of career pressures.
The penalties for motherhood are subtle but effective. Some mention being taken off the big cases
or big accounts, losing promotions, receiving reduced bonuses, or simply being excluded from the
inner circle.
The book does a marvelous job of setting out the various options this elite professional class has
found to help it come to terms with the dueling propensities of professional ambition and maternal
instinct. Detailed stories of opting for a less prestigious but more family-friendly work setting,
reduced office hours, part-time work, work-at-home, self-employment, geared-down work or
even, for a while, NO work, are all included with a refreshingly honest pro and con appraisal.
But there are career penalties for these choices of which women are acutely aware. Some are
bitter. Consider this quote which introduced the second chapter of the book:
Q: What would have made combining a family and career easier for you?
A: Being born a man.
Harvard BA 1967, Harvard Medical School 1971,
Mother of Four (p. 47)
Working mothers' goals are simply these:
To provide family income and (to) use their talents and abilities in meaningful work in their
professions (and) to enjoy the rewards and satisfactions of a rich and rewarding family life.
And, they think they can do it, but the changes must occur in the work environment. They must
"dismantle the traditional expectations that have fortified the maternal wall...by casting aside
preconceptions and misconceptions about how to be both a parent and a professional...". Critical
to this future blending is the new maxim that "there is nothing wrong in admitting to the joys of
motherhood. Neither should there be a stigma attached to fulfilling professional ambition."
Reviewed by Judith W. Munson, JD
News & Notes ...
Contributing Writer: Elaine Jurkowski
Congratulations to The Illinois Public Health Leadership Institute's Third Year cadre of Fellows.
The third year's cadre includes personnel from state and local health departments, boards of
health, and community agencies. Our current class includes the following individuals:
Carla J. Bush, MPA, Supervising Sanitarian, Evanston Health Department;
William F. Card, MPA, Bureau Chief, Chicago Department of Health;
John Cicero, MHA, Assistant Executive Director, Will County Health Department;
Barbara Burke Dunn, BA, Executive Director, Community Health Improvement Center, Decatur;
Janet K. Forbes, BS, Assistant Administrator, Fayette County Health Department;
Franklin D. Garton, PhD, President, Kankakee County Department of Public Health;
Barbara A. Haley, MA, Director, Health Facilities Division, Lake County Health Department;
Christine Hampton, RN, Administrator, Jefferson County Health Department;
Joyce A. Harant, MS, Executive Director, Planned Parenthood Peoria;
Walter P. Howe, MA, Executive Assistant Director of Operations, McLean County Health Department;
Gordon R. James, BA, Assistant Director of Health Education/Promotions, Fulton County Health Department;
Karen A. Kise, RN, BSN, Board of Health Member & Secretary, McHenry County Department of Health;
John McHugh, MD, Rockford Board of Health;
Patrick J. McNulty, BS, Director of Environmental Health, McHenry County Department of Health;
Robin Naden-Semba, MPH, Maternal Child Health Nurse Consultant, Illinois Department of Public Health;
Bruce Peterson, MHA, Administrator, Mercer County Health Department, Mercer County Hospital;
Irene Pierce, Assistant Director of Medical Services, Lake County Health Department;
Cathie J. Reynolds, BSN, Director of Nursing, Coles County Health Department;
Dora Sanders-Hogues, MA, Manager, Adult Services Program, Mt. Sinai/Mile Square;
Catherine Scott, BA, Project Director, Drug Free Rockford;
Patricia A. Sikorski, MS, Maternal Health Supervisor, Lake County Health Department;
Dennis G. Smith, MSW, Executive Director, McHenry County Mental Health Board;
Alka Sood, MS, Nutrition Director, WIC Program, Cook County Department of Public Health;
Regina A. Sovcik, RN, MSN, Nursing Supervisor (North District Office), Cook County Department of Public Health;
George Stevens, MA, Regional Health Officer, Illinois Department of Public Health;
Mimi Stewart, Board President, DuPage County Health Department;
Gina M. Swehla, BS, Training Center Manager, Illinois Department of Public Health;
Colin K. Thacker, BA, Director, Environmental Health Division, Lake County Health Department;
Lawrence G. VanDyck, MBA, Laboratory Director, DuPage County Health Department;
Darlene E. Williams, MS, Program Director, Community Support Services, Mental Health Division, Lake County Health Department;
Mary Witherspoon, Deputy Commissioner for Nursing Services, Chicago Department of Health;
Richard J. Zimmerman, MA, Senior Public Service Administrator, Illinois Department of Public
Health
The Illinois Public Health Leadership Institute proudly announces the recipients of Scholarship
awards among its current cadre of Fellows. The Illinois Association of Boards of Health
contributed funds to provide four scholarships. The recipients were: Karen Kise, McHenry
County Board of Health; Robin Naden-Semba, IDPH; Bruce Peterson, Mercer County Health
Department; and Dora Sanders-Hogues, Mt. Sinai/Mile Square Community Mental Health
Center. The Illinois Association of Administrators awarded a scholarship to Christine Hampton,
Lafayette County Board of Health; and the Illinois Association of Nurse Administrators selected
Cathie Reynolds, Coles County Health Department, as their scholarship recipient. Scholarships
are awarded to cover the costs of tuition for the Illinois Public Health Leadership Institute.
Leadership Practices in Action ...
The Leadership practice of "Challenging the Process" and "Inspiring a Shared Vision," was a well-sought set of qualities from first year Fellow, Polly Daly. Polly has been appointed as the
Executive Director for the Kankakee Health Department, following an extensive executive search
through the agency. Congratulations Polly!
An example of "modeling the way," one of the Leadership practices fostered through the IPHLI,
has been exercised by many of the Institute's Fellows. A noteworthy example is Celan Alo, MD,
Senior Epidemiologist, Division of Epidemiology, Illinois Department of Public Health, who has
been appointed to the Governor's Task Force on Workplace Violence through "Project Safe."
Videotapes Now Available ...
Several new tapes are available for purchase or rental from the Illinois Public Health Leadership
Institute's Clearinghouse, which address issues related to women.
"Women Leaders in Public Health" by Kathy Cahill, CDC, Atlanta, presents issues of concern to
women in leadership positions. Cahill presents examples of opportunities and obstacles which
women face as they enter into leadership positions and enables the viewer to understand
differences in leadership styles between men and women and obstacles to consider when staff are
primarily male.
"An Informal Discussion with Women Public Health Leaders" provides the viewer with
perspectives from a panel of Illinois-based female leaders active within the public health arena.
The panelists, Vicki Camba, Edie Sternberg, Shirley Randolph, and Stephanie Whitfield-Smith,
present experiences they have had related to gender in leadership positions. Through their
experiences, they enlighten the viewer to critical issues which impact effective women leaders, and
enhance one's understanding of obstacles faced in management and leadership.
Babette Neuberger, MPH, JD, who is active in the Environmental Health arena, presents an
effective approach to negotiation skills in her videotaped presentation on "Negotiation Skills." In
this presentation, Neuberger provides the audience with strategies to understand the effective use
of negotiation and conflict resolution skills, tactics which can be used to successfully negotiate
between several parties within the public health arena, and provides some basic negotiation
principles within the community health planning arena.
For information on renting or purchasing any of these videotapes, or obtaining a complete list of available tapes, contact the Illinois Public Health Leadership Institute at (312) 996-3658.
Case Study Manuals Available ...
An innovative training tool is currently available for use in staff development. These case study
manuals provide an opportunity to grapple with real-life, current problems in the field of public
health. Each case contains a teacher's guide, with questions to incite discussion, and are based
upon the core functions of assessment, assurance, and policy development. Case study manuals
are $24.95 each, with discounted rates for quantity. For more information or if you would like to
place an order, contact IPHLI at (312) 996-3658.
What are your thoughts on issues related to women and leadership?
Currently the IPHLI is interested in exploring issues, success stories, and/or barriers against
women in their trials and tribulations as leaders. If you have any stories that you would like to
share, please contact us at (312) 996-3658, or write to us at the following address: The Illinois
Public Health Leadership Institute; UIC School of Public Health (M/C 922); 2121 W. Taylor
Street; Chicago, Illinois 60612.
______________
The Illinois Public Health Leadership Institute (M/C 922) Non-Profit Org.
The University of Illinois at Chicago U.S. Postage
School of Public Health, Room 216-B PAID
2121 W. Taylor Street Chicago, IL
Chicago, Illinois 60612 Permit No. 3364