The culture within any professional setting, be it a school or a clinic, is initially a leadership responsibility, but when implemented correctly, becomes a shared set of values that is greater than, and expected to outlive, the tenure of any single leader. That culture, aligned with that of the university, creates the space for faculty and students to be empowered to do their best work, while maintaining fidelity to shared goals.

Since a school or department’s culture is crucial to daily operations, it’s important to focus on consistency, transparency, and authenticity as primary tools to mold and maintain it.

The key is to model these behaviors as leaders, creating a culture that is visible and valid. Educated as an organic chemist, I personally liken a leader’s role to being a catalyst creating a reaction: one that can radiate outward, empowering team members to internalize these tenets and become representatives of the culture themselves.

This outward spread of culture is important because a leader can’t be a part of every conversation. We need to engender advocates who maintain and perpetuate the culture on their own, making it much longer-lasting and effective than if it were created by executive fiat only.

Consistency

A productive culture is expansive by nature, seeking to honor and achieve overarching goals, but in many ways is seen most often in small interactions among faculty: conversations in hallways, interactions with students and patients, a shared philosophy of communication, teaching, and learning seen throughout the group.

This is where the leader must display their own commitment on a daily basis, by being a positive north star for the group, yet one who is open to challenging dialogues, creating a safe psychological space for team members to have tough conversations when needed.

The process takes time, typically perhaps two to three years, and it’s a two-edged sword because even the most careful and consistent work carried out over a period of years can be broken in a day if a leader strays from the core principles they’ve established. The team’s culture will reflect what they see in the leader’s actions. That’s why getting alignment from faculty and students in a steady, thoughtful way is so important.

In health professions education, consistency carries an added layer of urgency: our faculty are training future clinicians who will, in turn, model these same behaviors for patients and interprofessional teams. When a program’s leadership is consistent in how it communicates expectations, whether that’s grading standards, clinical rotation protocols, or how conflicts are addressed, students absorb consistency as a professional norm, not just a departmental preference. I’ve found that consistency is tested most acutely during accreditation cycles and curriculum change, moments when the temptation to make exceptions is highest. Holding the line during these periods, even when it’s inconvenient, is often what separates a durable culture from one that exists only on paper.

Transparency

A clear articulation of goals and shared values is another pillar of building an effective space for faculty and students to do their best work. This involves a balancing act for higher education healthcare leaders: encouraging autonomy while maintaining boundaries and establishing a culture of positivity while recognizing and working to solve impediments.
Open dialogue focused on problem-solving and frequent iteration of ideals you’ve established for the team creates buy-in to the goals if the focus is on positive solutions and adherence to shared goals.

For leaders across health professions education, transparency also means being candid about the constraints we operate under: budget realities, accreditation requirements, university-level decisions that affect our schools but originate above us. Faculty and staff can tell the difference between a leader who is transparent about limitations and one who simply withholds information; the former builds trust, while the latter breeds speculation. I try to over-communicate the “why” behind decisions, even unpopular ones, because faculty and students who understand the reasoning behind a policy are far more likely to support it, or at least respect the process that produced it.

Transparency is particularly critical in clinical and professional programs, where students and faculty alike often sit at the intersection of academic policy and patient care. When curriculum changes, remediation policies, or resource allocations are communicated clearly and consistently, not just announced but explained, it reduces the anxiety that naturally accompanies change in a high-stakes training environment.

Authenticity

Being authentic and clear in the implementation of a shared set of goals requires courage, both for the leader and the rest of the team, because it requires honesty that may be hard for some to hear. But when that authenticity is expressed in a positive and respectful way, it can be a huge contributor to the group’s culture. In practice, this means open dialogues where both parties feel secure in identifying weaknesses that can then be corrected with support from leadership, a different approach from faculty, or both.

Authenticity can be the hardest of the three to sustain for some, because it asks leaders to be consistent not just in policy but in their own vulnerability. In a professional school setting, where faculty are often experts in their own right – clinicians, scientists, scholars – an authentic leader has to be willing to admit uncertainty, acknowledge mistakes publicly, and invite pushback without becoming defensive. This is uncomfortable, particularly for leaders trained in disciplines that prize expertise and precision, but a great leader must have and further develop the emotional intelligence to thrive in this area. But faculty and students recognize insincerity quickly, and once trust is lost through a perceived lack of authenticity, it is exceedingly difficult to rebuild.

Across the health professions, authenticity also means being honest about the trade-offs inherent in our work. Not every faculty member will get everything they want, not every student concern can be immediately resolved, and not every decision will be popular. What authenticity offers is not the promise of consensus, but the assurance that decisions are made openly, for stated reasons, and with genuine consideration of the people affected. Leaders in health programs alike report that faculty trust is built less by getting every decision right and more by being honest, in real time, about how and why decisions were made.

The goal should be to not only create a culture that brings out the best in the dean, faculty, and students, but to create one that outlives the current leader.

Author:
Dave Weldon, PhD
Dean of the School of Pharmacy, William Carey University

Dr. Dave Weldon serves as the Dean of the School of Pharmacy and Professor of Medicinal Chemistry in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at William Carey University. Dr. Weldon’s professional goals involve student instruction and scientific research. He contributes to innovative teaching models for the instruction of pharmacy school students and is committed to shaping the standards of curricula among all pharmacy schools.