↓ Skip to main content

Leadership experiences and practices of South African health managers: what is the influence of gender? -a qualitative, exploratory study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
44 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Leadership experiences and practices of South African health managers: what is the influence of gender? -a qualitative, exploratory study
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0859-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maylene Shung-King, Lucy Gilson, Chinyere Mbachu, Sassy Molyneux, Kelly W. Muraya, Nkoli Uguru, Veloshnee Govender

Abstract

The importance of strong and transformative leadership is recognised as essential to the building of resilient and responsive health systems. In this regard, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 5 prioritises a current gap, by calling for women's full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership, including in the health system. In South Africa, pre-democracy repressive race-based policies, coupled with strong patriarchy, led to women and especially black women, being 'left behind' in terms of career development and progression into senior health leadership positions. Given limited prior inquiry into this subject, we conducted a qualitative exploratory study employing case study design, with the individual managers as the cases, to examine the influence of gender on career progression and leadership perceptions and experiences of senior managers in South Africa in five geographical districts, located in two provinces. We explored this through in-depth interviews, including life histories, career pathway mapping and critical incident analysis. The study sample selection was purposive and included 14 female and 5 male senior-managers in district and provincial health departments. Our findings suggest that women considerably lag behind their male counterparts in advancing into management- and senior positions. We also found that race strongly intersected with gender in the lived experiences and career pathways of black female managers and in part for some black male managers. Professional hierarchy further compounded the influence of gender and race for black women managers, as doctors, who were frequently male, advanced more rapidly into management and senior management positions, than their female counterparts. Although not widespread, other minority groups, such as male managers in predominantly female departments, also experienced prejudice and marginalisation. Affirmative employment policies, introduced in the new democratic dispensation, addressed this discriminatory legacy and contributed to a number of women being the 'first' to occupy senior management positions. In one of the provinces, these pioneering female managers assumed role-modelling and mentoring roles and built strong networks of support for emerging managers. This was aided by an enabling, value-based, organisational culture. This study has implications for institutionalising personal and organisational development that recognise and appropriately advances women managers, paying attention to the intersections of gender, race and professional hierarchy. It is important in the context of national and global goals, in particular SDG 5, that women and in particular black women, are prioritised for training and capacity development and ensuring that transformative health system policies and practices recognise and adapt, supporting the multiple social and work roles that managers, in particular women, play.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Researcher 8 8%
Lecturer 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 40 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 11 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Unspecified 4 4%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 43 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,113,107
of 25,382,250 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#140
of 2,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,443
of 348,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#8
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,803 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.