Perspective recommends deliberate sponsorship to advance women and underrepresented faculty in academic medicine

A perspective in the Journal of General Internal Medicine argues that sponsorship is underused in academic medicine and recommends deliberate practices to help women and faculty underrepresented in medicine advance into leadership roles. Drawing on case-based examples and cited research, the authors present three themes: identifying sponsorship through self-advocacy, aligning agendas, and “spotlight yet cover” while developing junior faculty.

The perspective describes a persistent difference in representation and seniority within academic medicine. According to the 2024 Association of American Medical Colleges report cited by the authors, women represented 55% of medical school matriculants but 45% of faculty, 27% of medical school deans and 25% of department chairs. The article also reports that, in 2018, 5% and 5.8% of faculty identified as Black or African American and Latinx, respectively, below corresponding proportions in the United States population. These figures document disparities in the cited years rather than trends established by the perspective itself.

The authors distinguish mentorship, which focuses on individual career development, from sponsorship, which emphasizes career advancement. They describe sponsorship as a relationship among a sponsee, a sponsor and the sponsor’s network or platform that can be used to advocate for the sponsee in influential circles. Women and faculty underrepresented in medicine are less likely to identify mentors or experience sponsorship, and women may be less comfortable seeking sponsorship. The authors also note that many senior faculty are unfamiliar with sponsorship and that some people who describe themselves as sponsors function more like mentors. They cite the Society of General Internal Medicine’s Career Advising Program as a national program shown to help women physicians navigate career advancement.

Rather than relying on abstract recommendations, the perspective uses three vignettes involving Alex, an assistant professor, and Pat, a senior faculty sponsor. The first concerns Alex’s pilot faculty wellness program, whose early findings Pat is invited to present at a departmental town hall. The authors argue that hard work alone is insufficient for advancement and recommend that sponsors champion junior talent, create opportunities and increase visibility. They caution that over-sponsoring can dilute a sponsor’s credibility, suggesting that sponsors selectively and deliberately support a small number of talented, reliable and diverse individuals.

For sponsees, the first vignette emphasizes self-advocacy. The authors note that imposter syndrome regarding capabilities or readiness for leadership may affect a person’s ability to rise and that discomfort with promoting one’s own work can compound that feeling. They suggest reviewing individual strengths, credentials and accomplishments, then identifying opportunities that serve both the sponsee’s goals and the sponsor’s priorities. Requests can be specific and time-limited, such as asking a sponsor to put forward one’s name for a role or to help present completed work. If a sponsor cannot help, the sponsee can follow up with alternative opportunities or potential sponsors.

The second vignette concerns agenda alignment and the risk of creating a “mini-me,” or a sponsee who becomes an exact replacement for the sponsor. The authors describe sponsor roles on a spectrum that includes mentor, strategist, connector, opportunity giver and advocate. Intentional listening, clarity about the sponsee’s needs and honesty about the sponsor’s capacities are presented as foundations for a deliberate match. In the example, Pat offers to serve as senior author and advocates for Alex to receive first authorship on a grant and manuscript and a funded wellness position, recognizing Alex’s unique contributions to the emerging platform.

The third vignette addresses succession as junior faculty prepare for new responsibilities. The authors recommend balancing “spotlight and cover”: increasing a sponsee’s visibility with academic leadership while providing support as the person learns the role and recovers from possible mistakes. In the example, Pat proposes co-leading a multidisciplinary team after the chair asks him to lead it. The joint arrangement is presented as a way to create space for adjustment and growth while communicating intentional support. Transparency and reliability are identified as keys to the relationship, with sponsors relying on sponsees they trust to deliver and sponsees recognizing the investment their sponsors have made.

The article also addresses equity in sponsorship. Nearly three-quarters of sponsees share the same gender or race as their sponsors, according to evidence cited by the authors, who state that this pattern may reflect unconscious bias and a limited supply of diverse sponsors. At the individual level, they recommend that sponsors assess their sponsorship patterns and proactively amplify talent from varied backgrounds. At the institutional level, they call for clear criteria for identifying sponsorship candidates, transparent posting of leadership positions and less reliance on informal networks. The authors cite a program pairing high-potential faculty with senior executives and setting explicit expectations to create concrete opportunities as having improved career advancement, while cautioning that race and gender mismatch can persist while women and underrepresented leaders remain a minority.

This is a perspective article rather than a new trial, review protocol, simulation or animal study. Its recommendations are based on cited studies, institutional examples and illustrative vignettes, and the vignettes do not report measured outcomes. The authors conclude that deliberate sponsorship may improve career satisfaction and equity among physician leaders, but they frame this as a potential result rather than a demonstrated effect of the recommended practices. Their proposed checklist for sponsors and sponsees emphasizes specific requests, intentional matching, agenda alignment, accountability, transparency and attention to who receives sponsorship.

Subject of Research: Sponsorship practices for advancing women and underrepresented faculty in academic medicine

Article Title: Breaking Through the Glass Ceiling: Recommendations for Promoting Sponsorship to Guide Equitable Career Advancement

Article References: Cioletti, A., Shroff, S., Williams, M., McNamara, M., & Chisty, A. (2026). Breaking Through the Glass Ceiling: Recommendations for Promoting Sponsorship to Guide Equitable Career Advancement. Journal of General Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10722-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11606-026-10722-x

Keywords: academic medicine, career advancement, sponsorship, mentorship, gender equity, racial equity, faculty leadership, medical education, Breaking, Glass, Ceiling, Recommendations