Archetypes of bad physician leaders – a qualitative study from a large Finnish central hospital

Leadership in health-care settings is a fundamental determinant of both organizational performance and the well-being of health-care professionals (Clay-Williams et al., 2017; Savage et al., 2020). It also plays a pivotal role in shaping organizational culture, emphasizing the need to develop behaviors, strategies and qualities essential for effective leadership (West et al., 2015). The role of physician leadership is unique due to the dual responsibilities of clinical expertise and administrative oversight (Prenestini et al., 2021). Unlike nonclinical managers, physician leaders must navigate the complexities of patient care while ensuring the efficient operation of health-care organizations (Kirkpatrick et al., 2021). Moreover, physician leadership is central to fostering a culture of high-quality patient care, facilitating team collaboration and supporting the personal and professional development of the medical workforce (Clay-Williams et al., 2017; Kaiser et al., 2020; Lyons et al., 2020; Savage et al., 2020). While leadership development programs can enhance organizational performance and improve patient outcomes (Lindgren and Gordon, 2016), physician leadership education is often inconsistently integrated into undergraduate medical curricula (Kellett et al., 2015).

As with leadership research in general, physician leadership has focused more on good leadership. Good physician leadership is characterized by elements such as successful communication, trust, emotional intelligence, fairness, collegial respect, collaborative decision-making and the ability to support and develop others (Huikko-Tarvainen, 2022; Oskarsson and Vik, 2024). Previous research emphasizes the importance of supportive, transparent and competent leadership in creating a positive work environment (Hopkins et al., 2015; Huikko-Tarvainen, 2022; van de Riet et al., 2019). Conversely, bad leadership can manifest in various ways, all of which can severely undermine organizational effectiveness (Aasland et al., 2010; Huikko-Tarvainen et al., 2022). A recent review highlights the strong link between leadership styles and the quality of patient care, emphasizing the vital role of leadership in ensuring well-coordinated and integrated care delivery for both patients and health-care professionals (Sfantou et al., 2017). Leadership in health care is also argued to be a “contextually influenced and context-producing practice” (Endrissat and von Arx, 2013). Failure to establish a quality workplace ultimately undermines patient care (Sfantou et al., 2017). In addition, bad physician leadership can result in significant negative outcomes, including turnover (Huikko-Tarvainen et al., 2022).

Moreover, physician leaders’ behavior is argued to significantly impact the well-being and burnout of the physicians they lead (Shanafelt and Noseworthy, 2017). Although leaders may exhibit a mix of constructive and destructive behaviors, indicating that leadership encompasses a range of actions rather than being purely positive or negative (Aasland et al., 2010), little attention has been paid to specific archetypes of bad physician leadership and their contributions to organizational culture. Experiencing both constructive and destructive behaviors from the same leader can be more stressful than experiencing only destructive behavior (Duffy et al., 2002). Furthermore, a destructive leader struggles to inspire trust and motivate followers (Schyns and Schilling, 2013), which is fundamental to remember given the global shortage of physicians (Butt et al., 2024). Therefore, exploring the specific characteristics of bad physician leadership is vital for addressing these challenges and improving health-care system functioning.

There is a limited but growing body of research on good and bad physician leadership (Huikko-Tarvainen, 2022; Huikko-Tarvainen et al., 2022). Health-care leadership often aligns with transformational leadership, a form of constructive leadership (Schyns and Schilling, 2013), which highlights that supportive, motivational and emotionally intelligent leaders foster positive work environments and improve patient outcomes (Guevara et al., 2019; Yukl, 2013; Yukl and Gardner, 2020). Transformational leadership is characterized by idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and a focus on caring (Gabriel, 2015). Physician leaders who embody these traits serve as role models, inspiring, challenging and supporting their subordinates (Huikko-Tarvainen, 2022).

According to Gabriel (2015, 318), “The distinction between good and bad leaders reveals a fundamental experiential dichotomy that sets leaders apart from other individuals or groups, such as plumbers, therapists, and managers. They too can be described as good and bad, but such distinctions are based on their professional competence, skills, and abilities” (Gabriel, 2015). This resonates with professions with strong identities, such as engineers (Rottmann et al., 2015) and, particularly, physicians (Huikko-Tarvainen et al., 2021). Most studies on good leadership assert that leadership has a moral purpose, with leaders generally aiming for positive outcomes (Ciulla, 2005; Clements and Washbush, 1999). However, leaders may sometimes act unethically, publicly endorsing ideas they privately oppose or hiding information for personal gain (Bass, 1998). Thus, even leaders considered “good” may resort to manipulation in an effort to avoid autocracy or shield their followers from emotional burdens (Auvinen et al., 2013).

Bad leadership manifests in harmful behaviors such as destructive, abusive, bossy, absentee, despotic, narcissistic, toxic, negative, petty tyranny, psychopathic, tyrannical, authoritarianism, incompetence, bullying, laissez-faire, supportive–disloyal, derailed, aversive, corrupt, evil, exploitative, insincere, insular, exclusion, incivility and undermining, which create an unhealthy work environment (Aasland et al., 2010; Hogan et al., 2021; Mackey et al., 2021; Schyns and Schilling, 2013). These negative behaviors lead to decreased job satisfaction, higher stress levels, increased staff turnover and negatively impact commitment to work, employee well-being and individual performance. They also worsen attitudes toward leadership and satisfaction with leaders (Huikko-Tarvainen et al., 2022; Krasikova et al., 2013; Schyns and Schilling, 2013). In a Norwegian study, the prevalence of destructive leadership behavior was found to range from 33.5% to 61% among working-age employees (n = 2,539), indicating that destructive leadership is not an anomaly (Aasland et al., 2010). In health care, although research on bad leadership is scarcer, behaviors such as micromanagement, emotional unavailability and public humiliation have been shown to foster a culture of fear and mistrust, ultimately harming both staff well-being and patient care (Huikko-Tarvainen et al., 2022).

Leadership lacking empathy, communication and respect fosters a culture where physicians feel undervalued and overworked, with detrimental effects on their mental health (Maslach and Leiter, 2016). For example, physician burnout, a growing concern, has been shown to be exacerbated by bad leadership (Shanafelt and Noseworthy, 2017), as a clear link has been established between burnout and work overload, lack of control, insufficient recognition, lack of support and trust, unresolved conflicts and perceived injustice (Maslach and Leiter, 2016). Another key aspect of bad leadership in health care is equity and fairness. Leadership that perpetuates discrimination – whether based on gender, race or other factors – creates a toxic work environment that undermines morale. Studies have highlighted the persistence of gender disparities in health-care leadership, where female physicians often experience inequitable treatment in terms of pay, career advancement and workload distribution. (Carr et al., 2018; Lydon et al., 2022; Mousa et al., 2021; Ringdahl et al., 2014; Roth et al., 2016.) In this study, bad leadership is defined as actions involving detrimental or unethical methods of influence that harm the organization or its employees or pursue goals conflicting with the organization’s legitimate interests.

The current study aims to deepen the understanding of how negative leadership behaviors recur and affect health-care professionals by exploring the lived experiences of physicians at various hierarchical levels. As Hogan et al. (2021) have noted, “The dark-side perspective helps correct a positivity bias in leadership research and provides insights for improving team, organizational, and national performance by minimizing the selection of the wrong people for leadership roles and enhancing the self-awareness and self-management of those in leadership roles” (Hogan et al., 2021).

As actions, motivation and behavior can be influenced by perceptions (Koskiniemi et al., 2019), these insights could provide a foundation for developing strategies to address leadership failures, improve physician leadership education and mitigate the harmful effects of bad leadership in health-care settings. Thus, “Professional integrity, as well as intellectual rigor, requires that we attempt to examine bad while we attempt to grow good” (Kellerman, 2024).

The subjects of this empirical study were physicians of the Central Finland Health Care District, in which approximately 800 physicians are employed (Finnish Medical Association, 2016). The informants were invited to participate voluntarily in the study via an internal e-mail. All participants were eligible for inclusion in the study, as its objective was to identify elements of bad physician leadership as perceived by members of the doctor’s profession.

The data for this qualitative study were collected through semi-structured interviews with 50 Finnish physicians, representing various hierarchical levels, including 14 residents/specializing physicians, 13 specialists, eight heads of departments and 15 chief physicians working for a large Finnish central hospital. This composition provided a representative sample of the population of interest. To enhance the reliability of the study, interviews were conducted in person and in Finnish.

The interview instrument contained questions designed to explore perspectives on physician leadership from multiple angles, enabling participants to share their personal experiences with physician leadership. This approach aimed to elicit a diverse array of responses that were not restricted to a narrow or specific point of view, such as evaluating only, for example, physician leaders’ own work as leaders. Data specifically related to bad leadership were included in the present study. An English translation of the originally Finnish questionnaire is included in the  Appendix.

To ensure the content validity of the study, the interview instrument was developed with care, informed by a review of the literature on bad physician leadership. Prior to full implementation, the instrument was pretested by the research team to evaluate the reliability and clarity of its components, as well as to identify any potential ambiguities or interpretive challenges. The feedback obtained during this pretesting phase helped to ensure that the instrument was both appropriate for the study population and easy to comprehend, while remaining consistent with the overall research objectives.

Inductive content analysis followed by thematization was used to examine the data. These methods are well-suited for exploring complex social phenomena. The analytical process comprised four steps (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008; Tuomi and Sarajärvi, 2018). The first step involved immersing oneself in the data by reading the interview transcripts multiple times to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the content. In the second step, initial codes were developed based on recurrent themes and significant statements related to bad physician leadership within the data. In the third step, similar codes were grouped into categories to identify patterns that reflected the experiences and perceptions of bad leadership among physicians. These categories were further analyzed to distill them into specific archetypes of bad leaders, capturing a range of detrimental behaviors and attitudes exhibited by physician leaders. In the fourth step, the identified archetypes were organized into broader themes that encapsulated the various aspects of bad physician leadership. This thematic analysis provided a structured understanding of the findings and illuminated the connections between different leadership failures. Illustrative excerpts from the interview data were carefully selected for each category in the results section.

This methodological rigor enhances the validity and reliability of the findings (Braun and Clarke, 2019). Furthermore, to strengthen the validity and reliability of the research findings, researcher triangulation was applied (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008) and the analysis was conducted twice and subsequently reviewed by both authors to reduce the potential for bias. As with any research instrument, limitations exist – including its restricted capacity to identify similarities due to an emphasis on differences. Thus, some overlap between different findings cannot be entirely ruled out.

The interviews were primarily conducted in person at the participants’ offices between April and June 2017 and between July and August 2018. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study and their right to withdraw at any time or refuse the use of their data. The identity of each informant was kept confidential and the interviews were coded in the excerpts (I1…I50). Consent for participation and data use were obtained from all participants, with data analysis conducted without personal identifiers. No incentives were provided for participation. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and systematically coded for ease of analysis. Each interview lasted between 11 and 85 min, with a total duration of 25 h. The transcriptions produced 619 pages of A4 text (Calibri, 12-point font, single spacing). Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

This study follows national and international ethics standards for nonmedical research with human participants, adhering to guidelines set forth by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK, 2019) and the data protection regulations of the European

Union (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines 2019, 2019). Ethics approval was granted by the Central Finland Care District officials. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

In this section, the main themes of bad leadership and archetypes of bad leaders embedded within them will be discussed in more detail.

This theme includes absent leaders, who are characterized by physical or emotional absence, a lack of presence and unavailability when support is needed, and dismissive leaders, who show little concern for the well-being, contributions or feedback of their subordinates, often ignoring their needs and ideas. These results underscore the significance of leadership presence and emotional support in health care. Both absent and dismissive leaders contribute to a sense of isolation among physicians, particularly in challenging situations, which intensify physicians’ stress and dissatisfaction.

Several physicians expressed frustration with absent leaders who were physically distant and unavailable, especially during critical situations. Participants described their experience of lacking their leader’s presence in the following way:

Such absence creates a sense of isolation, particularly for junior physicians. Even during extremely distressing situations, like patient deaths, the supervisor failed to provide adequate emotional or professional support. This emotional distance can severely affect the mental well-being of subordinates.

Dismissive leaders were often indifferent to the struggles of their team. Physicians expressed frustration with dismissive reactions to serious concerns in the following way:

When physicians sought support during a difficult situation, the leader ignored the request for support. The dismissive supervisors failed to provide both professional (career) and psychological (emotional) support during critical times. This resulted in a sense of being left alone with uncertainty and emotional burden.

This theme includes leaders who are autocratic, bullying and manipulative. The theme captures the misuse of leaders’ authority, making decisions without input and treating subordinates with disrespect. Autocratic leaders make unilateral decisions without consultation, whereas bullying leaders rely on intimidation and public shaming to assert control. Manipulative leaders further compromise fairness by engaging in favoritism and nepotism.

Autocratic leaders exerted excessive control over decisions, and often bypassed consultation or communication, resulting in feelings of disenfranchisement among subordinates, as demonstrated in the following excerpts:

As authoritarian leaders tend to impose decisions unilaterally, they foster a climate of fear or pressure, as seen when a physician’s contract details were changed without any discussion. Decisions made without input or transparency cause frustration and confusion among physicians. Physicians described situations where decisions were made “behind people’s backs” and announced with little notice or explanation.

Some physicians reported being humiliated publicly. These supervisors exemplify bully leaders who use their leadership position to demean or intimidate others. Another physician described a leader who would put down those at the bottom of the medical hierarchy, illustrating how bullying behavior can permeate leadership dynamics. The following excerpts reveal experiences of inappropriate leader behavior:

The bully leader engages in psychological harassment, using their authority to belittle, humiliate or harass subordinates. Inappropriate behavior by the leader has even taken place publicly, which inevitably influences the entire organization, impacting both psychological well-being and trust among organizational members.

Physicians highlighted leaders who manipulated job postings or appointments to ensure preferred candidates were hired. This undermined transparency and fairness. Another related issue was nepotism, where positions were created for the spouses of desired candidates. The following excerpts reveal experiences of manipulative behavior and nepotism:

As such, manipulative leaders used power and influence to exploit situations for their benefit, often creating opportunities for favoritism, nepotism or unethical behavior. Furthermore, bully leaders engaged in psychological harassment, using their authority to belittle, humiliate or harass subordinates, whereas manipulative leaders further compromised fairness by engaging in favoritism and nepotism.

This theme focuses on leaders who lack essential knowledge or shirk responsibilities. Incompetent leaders frustrate subordinates by failing to grasp key aspects of their roles or by avoiding difficult tasks. Such behavior demoralizes physicians and diminishes team effectiveness.

Some leaders lacked essential knowledge to make informed decisions, which caused friction with subordinates. The following excerpts illustrate the experiences of incompetent leaders:

If the leader lacks the necessary knowledge, skills or capability to manage effectively, it leads to poor decision-making and frustration among staff. If the leaders shirk responsibilities and avoid taking on their full duties, the led physicians are left in charge.

Gender discrimination and disparities in pay and workload distribution are central to this theme. Unfair leaders foster a discriminatory environment, particularly for female physicians, as evidenced by gender-biased hiring practices and the undermining of women’s careers due to the potential impact of motherhood. Salary and workload inequalities were also emphasized.

Female physicians reported discriminatory practices based on gender, particularly in hiring, promotions and maternity leave, as illustrated in the following excerpts:

For example, career plans were dismissed because of potential motherhood. In addition, unfair workload distribution and pay discrepancies were highlighted. As such, the unfair leader perpetuates inequities and unjust treatment within the workplace, including favoritism and gender discrimination.

Based on our analysis, we constructed four main themes of bad leadership, which contain seven archetypes of bad leaders to summarize our findings addressing incompetence, lack of transparency, exploitation, bad workload management, bullying, psychological harassment and inequity:

• lack of support and accessibility (absent and dismissive);

• authoritarianism and abuse of power (autocratic, bully and manipulative);

• incompetence and ineffectiveness (incompetent); and

• unfairness and discrimination (unfair) (Table 1).

Hence, bad leadership may contribute to higher turnover rates among physicians, exacerbating the physician shortage and potentially leading to a decline in the quality of patient care. The following excerpt aptly summarizes the result of bad leadership:

Our study identified seven archetypes of leadership behavior: absent, dismissive, autocratic, bully, manipulative, incompetent and unfair. These archetypes were not universally present but occurred in varying situations and reflect four broader themes of bad leadership:

1. lack of support and accessibility;

2. authoritarianism and abuse of power;

3. incompetence and ineffectiveness; and

4. unfairness and discrimination.

Based on our findings, the leader’s behavior and leadership style affect the well-being and work satisfaction of individual physicians. As stated in the previous literature, leadership is shaped by contextual factors and cannot be understood as entirely positive or negative (Endrissat and von Arx, 2013). The findings of the present study also align with this contextual view of leadership, which involves a spectrum of actions ranging from constructive to destructive (Aasland et al., 2010). The findings also align with existing literature on destructive leadership, where similar negative behaviors have been shown to harm organizational culture and diminish work quality and effectiveness (Aasland et al., 2010; Hogan et al., 2021; Schyns and Schilling, 2013). In the following sections, we discuss the findings of the current study in light of previous literature.

Leaders shirking responsibilities and failing to fully engage in their leadership roles left others to assume their duties, a phenomenon consistent with the concept of absentee leaders who hold leadership positions but contribute minimally to their role (Hogan et al., 2021). Consequently, there is a lack of guidance and support for led physicians when leaders are physically unavailable. In addition, physicians expressed frustration over leaders’ inadequate understanding of clinical and administrative processes. This aligns with existing research emphasizing that physician leaders must possess both managerial and clinical expertise to lead effectively in health-care settings (Huikko-Tarvainen, 2022; Prenestini et al., 2021). Incompetent leadership, as described by participants, also involved unilateral decision-making and a lack of consultation with frontline physicians, as supported by previous literature (Huikko-Tarvainen et al., 2022). Some participants recounted decisions being made “behind people’s backs” (I36), reflecting a lack of transparency that fostered mistrust and dissatisfaction. Leaders who fail to engage their teams and make unilateral decisions create environments of disempowerment and disengagement, as evidenced by participants who described colleagues “voting with their feet” and leaving toxic work environments.

Exploitation was another prevalent theme, with leaders assigning excessive workloads without regard for the capacity or well-being of their subordinates. Physicians reported being asked to take on additional responsibilities without adequate compensation or support. Excessive workloads and a lack of leadership support are significant drivers of burnout, which can lead to mental health issues (Maslach and Leiter, 2016). Factors influencing engagement and burnout, when misused among physicians, include workload and work demand, efficiency and available resources, a sense of purpose in their work, organizational culture and values, autonomy and flexibility, social support and community, as well as work–life balance (Shanafelt and Noseworthy, 2017). Notably, physician burnout not only increases turnover but also adversely affects patient care and satisfaction (Shanafelt and Noseworthy, 2017). Participants in this study described how concerns about workload were often dismissed or inadequately addressed by leadership, highlighting the exploitative nature of these behaviors and the importance of supportive leadership in mitigating burnout.

Participants described instances of public humiliation and other behaviors intended to belittle or intimidate subordinates. These destructive leadership behaviors, such as bullying, are well-documented in the literature and are known to result in psychological harm, create hostile work environments, increase staff turnover and reduce job satisfaction and overall performance (Krasikova et al., 2013; Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Bullying can also cause followers to feel a loss of control, intensifying stress levels (Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Furthermore, participants reported feeling demoralized and unsupported, with some leaving their positions due to bullying. These accounts highlight the detrimental impact of bullying on leadership in health care, especially given the global shortage of physicians (Butt et al., 2024).

Gender discrimination was also a noticeable issue, with female physicians reporting experiences of being belittled, discriminated against or passed over for opportunities based on their gender. These findings are consistent with literature documenting persistent gender disparities in the medical profession, particularly in leadership roles (Carr et al., 2018; Lydon et al., 2022; Mousa et al., 2021; Ringdahl et al., 2014; Roth et al., 2016; Santucci et al., 2023). Female participants expressed frustration over being judged based on their potential to have children or being patronized during interviews and evaluations (I20, I29). These issues underscore the importance of equity and inclusion in health-care leadership, particularly as more women worldwide enter the medical field (Finnish Medical Association, 2019). Leaders who perpetuate gender biases contribute to toxic work environments where female physicians feel undervalued and marginalized, resulting in decreased work satisfaction and increased turnover.

Some participants discussed the lack of emotional support from their leaders during times of personal or professional distress. This lack of empathy and compassion is a key characteristic of bad leadership, with leaders described as emotionally unavailable or indifferent (I39, I34). Emotional support and empathy are vital components of effective leadership, particularly in health care (Guevara et al., 2019; Hopkins et al., 2015), where employees frequently face high-stress situations (Shanafelt and Noseworthy, 2017) and where suicide rates among physicians are higher compared to those in the general population (Zimmermann et al., 2024). Previous studies have also shown that physician leaders who demonstrate emotional intelligence and provide support during difficult times can significantly improve the morale and well-being of their teams (Östergård et al., 2023; West et al., 2015). Hence, leaders who fail to offer this support risk alienating their subordinates and contributing to a culture of emotional neglect. Participants in this study described feeling unsupported and even dismissed by their leaders when seeking help with difficult emotions, especially those related to patient deaths or challenging professional circumstances (I24). This lack of emotional availability further exacerbates the stress and burnout experienced by physicians, highlighting the need for leaders who are not only competent but also compassionate (Hopkins et al., 2015). In conclusion, the findings of the current study underscore several far-reaching consequences of bad physician leadership.

The semi-structured interviews enabled a thorough exploration of participants’ perspectives, yielding valuable insights into bad leadership. The diverse sample, including physicians from various hierarchical levels, ensured broad representation across the medical profession. Despite these strengths, several limitations remain. Inductive content analysis provided a structured framework for identifying and categorizing archetypes of bad leadership, enhancing the validity of the findings. However, reliance on self-reported data may introduce bias, as participants might underreport negative experiences due to fear of consequences. In addition, focusing solely on Finnish physicians limits the generalizability of the findings to other health-care professionals or cultural contexts (Onyura et al., 2019). Future research should include cross-cultural comparative studies to assess the universality of these leadership archetypes. Furthermore, longitudinal studies could explore the long-term effects of bad leadership on physician well-being, turnover and patient care outcomes.

This study has highlighted significant challenges related to bad physician leadership, as articulated by physicians across various hierarchical levels. The analysis identified seven archetypes of bad leaders (absent, dismissive, autocratic, bully, manipulative, incompetent and unfair leaders), categorized into four broader themes of bad leadership:

1. lack of support and accessibility;

2. authoritarianism and abuse of power;

3. incompetence and ineffectiveness; and

4. unfairness and discrimination.

These issues were occasionally present in different situations and encompassed incompetence, lack of transparency, exploitation, insufficient workload management, bullying, psychological harassment, gender discrimination and inequity. Based on the findings, a leader’s behavior and leadership style directly affect physicians’ well-being and work satisfaction, which can contribute to several far-reaching consequences. As leaders can exhibit both constructive and destructive behaviors (Aasland et al., 2010), this research emphasizes the need for physician leadership training programs to enhance constructive behaviors and reduce destructive ones. By not only recognizing but also acknowledging how bad leadership manifests, organizations and individuals can more effectively establish and promote good leadership.

The authors wish to thank the physicians and the physician leaders for their participation in the study.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Credit authorship contribution statement: Sari Huikko-Tarvainen: conceptualization, theoretical development, data curation, analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, validation, visualization, writing original draft and review, final approval of the version to be submitted. Tommi Auvinen: conceptualization, theoretical development, writing, review, final approval of the version to be submitted.

Declaration of interest statement: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval statement: This study follows national and international ethics standards for nonmedical research with human participants, adhering to guidelines set forth by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK, 2019) and the data protection regulations of the European Union (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines 2019, 2019). The study was granted ethics approval by the Central Finland Care District officials.

Consent to participate: Written consent for participation and data use was obtained from all participants.

Data availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

How would you describe a good physician leadership?

Does a leader of physicians need to be a physician her/himself?

What kind of leader are you?

What career path have you taken to your current position and what does your job entail?

How would you define/explain physician leadership to someone who is unfamiliar with the concept?

What key aspects would you highlight as the most important in physician leadership?

Is physician leadership different from other types of leadership?

What areas do you focus on in your own leadership work?

• Filling out the leadership role form (form below)

What aspects of your leadership do you find:

• Easy/rewarding/positive?

• Difficult/challenging/stressful?

How could physician leadership work be supported?

What are your thoughts on the current leadership training for physicians?

How do you feel about balancing your work and personal life?

Is there anything else you would like to share about physician leadership?