The Ambition Gap Is a Systems Problem — and Healthcare Leaders Can’t Afford to Ignore It
New research shows women aren’t losing ambition — they’re losing confidence in workplace systems. What this means for healthcare leadership.
Over the past decade, organizations have invested heavily in understanding why women stall out in leadership pipelines. The assumption — often unspoken — was that ambition waned. But new data from LeanIn.org and McKinsey, reinforced by reporting from Bloomberg, suggests something different and more concerning: women are not losing ambition; they are losing faith that the system will meet them halfway.
For the first time in the 11-year history of the Women in the Workplace study, women report less interest than men in promotions at every level. This “ambition gap” has emerged alongside a measurable retreat by employers from career support, sponsorship, and diversity initiatives. In other words, as organizations pull back, women are responding rationally.
For healthcare leaders — already grappling with burnout, workforce shortages, and fragile leadership pipelines — this should be a wake-up call.
Ambition Has Not Disappeared — Confidence in the System Has
The headline numbers are striking. While a majority of women still want to advance, the gap between men’s and women’s aspirations is now visible at entry, mid, and senior levels. Researchers and workplace experts are clear: this is not a motivation problem.
As Alison Taylor of NYU Stern puts it, many women no longer see that the “end justifies the effort.” The cost of advancement — longer hours, constant availability, and reshaping personal lives — feels less worthwhile in organizations that have not evolved to support them.
This sentiment resonates strongly in healthcare. Clinical leaders routinely report that advancement often means:
- Moving into roles with less flexibility and more administrative burden
- Being on call without commensurate authority or support
- Managing staffing crises without influence over resourcing decisions
When leadership roles look unsustainable, opting out is not disengagement — it’s risk management.
Sponsorship, Not Mentorship, Is the Missing Lever
One of the most consistent findings across studies is that women are significantly less likely to have sponsors — senior leaders who actively advocate for their advancement. Men are roughly twice as likely to report having multiple advocates.
In healthcare settings, this disparity often shows up subtly:
- High-performing staff pharmacists receive praise but not stretch assignments
- Clinical specialists are trusted operationally but excluded from strategic discussions
- Women leaders in pharma are asked to “hold things together” rather than be positioned for the next role
Mentorship helps people grow; sponsorship helps people advance. Without it, even the most capable professionals plateau.
Psychological Safety and Risk-Taking Are Career Gateways
The Lean In–McKinsey research also highlights that women, especially at entry and mid levels, feel less safe speaking up, challenging decisions, or taking risks. In healthcare organizations — where hierarchy, credentialing, and compliance are deeply embedded — this gap can widen.
Consider the differences across pharmacy environments:
- Retail pharmacy often rewards speed and resilience, leaving little space to challenge staffing models or workflow expectations.
- Hospital pharmacy may rely heavily on informal networks and physician relationships to identify future leaders.
- Long-term care pharmacy frequently operates lean, asking leaders to absorb operational stress without development pathways.
In all three, psychological safety is not a “soft” issue — it directly affects who is seen as leadership material.
The DEI Pullback Has Real Consequences
The timing of this ambition gap is not accidental. Support for gender diversity has declined sharply from its peak in 2017, coinciding with reduced investment in sponsorship programs, leadership development, and employee resource groups.
For HR, pharma and pharmacy directors, this presents a paradox. At a time when healthcare faces:
- Persistent vacancies
- Rising turnover costs
- Leadership succession risk
Organizations are scaling back the very systems that sustain long-term talent pipelines.
As Rachel Thomas, CEO of LeanIn, warns: when companies signal reduced commitment and employees feel it, “that’s a recipe for disaster.”
Why This Matters Specifically in Healthcare
Healthcare cannot “wait out” this trend. The sector already relies heavily on women, particularly in pharmacy, nursing, and allied health roles. When ambition quietly exits the pipeline, organizations lose:
- Future directors and VPs
- Clinical innovation leaders
- Operational stability during crises
More importantly, patient care suffers when leadership continuity breaks down.
What HR and Leaders Can Do — Now
The research points to clear, practical steps:
- Rebuild Sponsorship Infrastructure Formalize sponsorship for high-potential talent, especially women and underrepresented groups. Make advocacy visible and accountable.
- Redesign Leadership Roles Examine whether advancement requires unnecessary trade-offs. Can leadership be compatible with flexibility, job-sharing, or phased responsibility?
- Normalize Career Customization Especially in healthcare, career paths should allow movement between clinical, operational, and leadership tracks without penalty.
- Restore Psychological Safety Encourage dissent, innovation, and upward feedback. Leaders who challenge systems should be developed, not sidelined.
- Treat This as an Economic Issue As Sheryl Sandberg notes, this is fundamentally about productivity and growth. Healthcare organizations cannot afford to underutilize half their leadership potential.
A Fork in the Road
The ambition gap is not a referendum on women’s drive. It is a mirror held up to organizational design. Healthcare, pharma and pharmacy leaders face a choice: rebuild systems that make ambition sustainable — or accept a future defined by shortages, burnout, and stalled progress.