“We are very family like”: How do relationships with colleagues affect career satisfaction for surgeons?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to explore the role of surgeon relationships with their colleagues on career satisfaction. This qualitative study employed a thematic analysis based on the core elements of The Grounded Theory Method. Forty-two pediatric neurosurgeons, cardio-thoracic surgeons and ophthalmologists were recruited from 9 countries around the globe and interviewed in-depth about the role of their collegial relationships on their career satisfaction. Data was coded line-by-line to extract themes and to identify patterns across the interviews. Career satisfaction was greatly enhanced by having a cohesive and healthy team. ‘Healthy’ teams were described as those that were emotionally supportive of each other, where colleagues could be trusted to back each other up, where communication was open and transparent, and where collaboration was the departmental norm. Career satisfaction was greatly diminished when there were interpersonal conflicts and personality clashes between surgeons, where there was poor departmental leadership creating a culture of fear and insecurity, when colleagues were perceived as egotistical, in competitive departments, where there was perceived to be an unequal distribution of work, and when surgeons felt alone and unsupported. Our study found that healthy teams had very specific qualities that could be cultivated and enhanced on surgical teams by making a conscious effort to improve the workplace culture and psychological safety among the team. In the conclusions, a number of recommendations are made on how to go about achieving this goal. • Poor interpersonal relationships with colleagues decreases career satisfaction. • Healthy teams are emotionally and practically supportive, trusting, and collaborative. • Unhealthy teams are conflictual, competitive, individualistic, and ego driven. • Poor leadership impacts career satisfaction and desire to leave a department. • Healthy surgical teams can be encouraged through structural changes and interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".