If every physician in your organization woke up tomorrow with complete financial freedom, how many would still choose to stay? It is a simple question, but the answer could reveal more about your organization than any employee engagement survey or annual retention report.
Remove the mortgage payments, student loans, family expenses, and financial obligations that keep people working, and what remains? Would physicians still choose to practice in your organization because they feel valued, respected, and supported? Would they stay because the work remains meaningful and the environment allows them to do it well? Or would many finally feel free to leave?
When I recently raised this question on LinkedIn, physicians responded with concerns about reimbursement challenges, administrative burdens, professional autonomy, and the growing difficulty of sustaining a meaningful career in clinical medicine. What stood out to me was the distinction between loving medicine and loving the environment in which medicine is practiced.
Many physicians still care deeply about their patients. They believe in the profession and find purpose in their work. But purpose alone cannot indefinitely compensate for disrespect, broken trust, excessive demands, or a workplace culture that repeatedly undermines the very people it depends upon.
Real physician voices, twice a week
Free, and one click to unsubscribe.
Sometimes physicians do not leave because they have stopped caring. They leave because they have cared for too long in an environment that appears unwilling to change.
The resignation that began years earlier
Health care organizations often treat physician departures as isolated events. A respected colleague announces an early retirement. An experienced physician reduces clinical hours. Someone transitions into consulting, research, administration, or an entirely different career.
Leadership may be surprised. Colleagues may wonder what happened. Exit interviews may produce familiar explanations. But the decision to leave may have been developing quietly for years.
It might begin with another evening spent completing documentation after the children are asleep. Another missed family occasion. Another policy that increases administrative work without improving patient care.
Then something more personal happens. A legitimate concern is dismissed. A promise is broken. A physician is publicly undermined. Someone raises a problem and is labeled difficult for doing so.
One incident may be manageable. Even several may be rationalized as unfortunate circumstances or the price of working in a demanding profession. But the cumulative impact of repeated disrespect can fundamentally change a person’s relationship with an organization.
Eventually, a physician who once advocated passionately for improvements stops speaking. Not because the problems have disappeared or because leadership has suddenly earned their trust, but because they have concluded that speaking up is no longer worth the personal or professional cost.
And that is when something particularly dangerous can happen. The physician begins taking silent action. They reconsider their future, explore alternatives, and gradually prepare for a life beyond the organization. By the time leadership recognizes the possibility of losing them, the decision may be much further along than anyone realizes.
When silence is mistaken for satisfaction
One of the most dangerous mistakes an organization can make is interpreting silence as evidence that things have improved. Meetings become quieter. The physician no longer challenges decisions. They stop offering suggestions and appear more cooperative, perhaps even more agreeable than before. Leadership may interpret this change as progress.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the physician may be updating their résumé, exploring other opportunities, developing additional skills, reducing financial obligations, or building alternative sources of income. Some begin planning a gradual reduction in clinical work. Others investigate relocation, different practice models, or careers outside medicine. The institution sees continued employment. The physician sees a temporary arrangement while preparing for a different future.
Organizational researcher Elizabeth Morrison has examined employee voice and silence, including why people withhold concerns and what organizations lose when employees stop sharing important information. Her work helps explain why the absence of complaints should never automatically be interpreted as satisfaction.
Of course, not every quiet physician is planning to leave, and not every departure reflects organizational dysfunction. People change careers for many legitimate reasons. But health care leaders should pay attention when previously engaged professionals stop offering ideas, asking questions, or advocating for improvement.
Sometimes, the most concerning employee is not the person openly expressing frustration. It is the experienced professional who has stopped believing that meaningful change is possible. Because the opposite of commitment is not always confrontation. Sometimes it is a quiet detachment. By the time the resignation arrives, the real decision may have been made months or years earlier.
We cannot keep treating burnout as an individual failure
For years, medicine has emphasized individual approaches to physician burnout. We encourage exercise, mindfulness, improved sleep, stronger boundaries, and resilience. These strategies can be valuable. As a family physician who has spent years advocating for well-being, I believe personal health, relationships, and emotional awareness deserve serious attention.
But there is a fundamental limitation in asking physicians to become more resilient without examining the conditions that require so much resilience in the first place. What happens when someone develops excellent coping skills but returns every morning to excessive workloads, inadequate staffing, poor communication, or destructive leadership? What happens when physicians become better at managing stress, but the organizational sources of that stress remain unchanged? We risk teaching people how to endure environments that should be improved.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine emphasized this problem in its 2019 report, “Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being.” The report called for a systems approach that addresses the structures, organization, and culture of health care rather than relying on individual interventions alone. This matters because burnout is not always evidence of insufficient personal resilience.
A physician can be resilient and still be overwhelmed. A physician can love patient care and still resent the conditions surrounding it. A physician can remain professionally committed while becoming emotionally detached from the organization employing them. These realities are not contradictory.
We need to stop assuming that the answer to every workplace problem is another wellness initiative, another resilience workshop, or another reminder to practice self-care. Sometimes the individual needs support. Sometimes the system needs to change. Often, both are necessary. Physicians should not have to become exceptionally skilled at coping simply to survive the environments in which they work.
Organizational culture is what people experience
Health care organizations frequently describe themselves using words such as compassion, collaboration, respect, integrity, and excellence. But organizational culture is not established by mission statements alone. It is revealed through everyday decisions.
Who gets heard? Who is held accountable? What happens when someone raises a concern about unsafe practices, bullying, discrimination, or inequitable treatment? Are mistakes treated as opportunities for improvement or occasions for blame? Does leadership respond with curiosity or defensiveness? Are the organization’s stated values applied consistently, including to those in positions of power? These questions reveal far more about workplace culture than a beautifully worded statement displayed on a hospital wall.
An organization cannot credibly promote psychological safety while punishing people who speak honestly. Psychological safety, extensively studied by Amy Edmondson and colleagues, concerns whether people feel able to take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions, acknowledging mistakes, or raising concerns, without fear of negative consequences. In health care, these dynamics extend beyond employee satisfaction. They influence communication, teamwork, organizational learning, and the conditions necessary for safe patient care.
When physicians believe that speaking honestly may damage their reputations or careers, silence can become a rational form of self-protection. Consider the physician who notices a recurring problem but has watched colleagues face negative consequences for raising similar concerns. They may decide that keeping their head down is the safest option. That decision may protect them in the short term, but it deprives the organization of the information it needs to improve.
When organizations repeatedly reward silence, they risk losing the very information that could help them recognize and correct their failures. A healthy culture does not require everyone to agree. It requires people to disagree professionally, raise concerns honestly, and trust that those concerns will receive fair consideration.
The compounded impact of disrespect
There is another dimension of organizational dysfunction that deserves greater attention: the cumulative erosion of trust. Not every harmful workplace experience involves an obvious crisis. Sometimes it is the repeated dismissal of legitimate concerns, favoritism, inconsistent accountability, humiliating communication, or a leadership culture in which employees are expected to show respect but do not consistently receive it. These experiences may accumulate over months or years.
What makes them particularly damaging is that physicians often begin their careers with a profound commitment to service. Medicine becomes intertwined with identity, purpose, and personal sacrifice. Many invest years in education and training, accept considerable responsibilities, and organize their lives around caring for others. When an organization benefits from that commitment but repeatedly fails to uphold its own responsibilities, the resulting injury can run deeper than ordinary workplace dissatisfaction.
Researchers Carly Parnitzke Smith and Jennifer Freyd have described institutional betrayal, examining how trusted institutions can compound harm through their actions or failures to respond appropriately. Not every disappointing management decision constitutes institutional betrayal. Organizations face genuine constraints, and leaders will not always make decisions that satisfy everyone. However, this concept offers a useful lens for understanding why an institution’s response to serious concerns can be as consequential as the original experience.
A physician may tolerate a difficult workload. They may accept that health care systems are imperfect and that not every problem can be solved immediately. What becomes harder to tolerate is the realization that the organization knows something is wrong and repeatedly chooses not to address it.
Imagine raising the same concern several times, only to be dismissed, ignored, or told that you are the problem. Eventually, you may stop asking how to improve the organization and start asking how to build a future that no longer depends on it. That is a significant shift. And leadership may not recognize it until the physician is already halfway out the door.
Retention is not the same as commitment
We need to be careful about how we measure physician retention. An organization may report relatively low turnover and conclude that its workforce is satisfied. Yet remaining employed does not necessarily mean someone wants to stay.
Financial responsibilities, professional identity, family circumstances, geographic limitations, and limited alternative opportunities can all influence that decision. Some physicians remain because they are committed to their patients but dissatisfied with the organization. Others stay because leaving would create financial or personal difficulties they are not yet prepared to manage. This is why the financial-freedom question matters.
It is a thought experiment, not a validated retention measure. Nor does it suggest that every physician who would choose to leave has experienced a toxic workplace. People change careers for many legitimate reasons. Some want new challenges. Others need greater flexibility or wish to pursue opportunities that better reflect their priorities. But the question forces us to distinguish between genuine commitment and constrained choice.
Are physicians staying because they feel respected, supported, challenged, and connected to meaningful work? Or are they staying because leaving would be too costly? Those are very different organizational realities.
A retention strategy that focuses exclusively on keeping positions filled may overlook the experiences of the people occupying them. Physicians can remain on payroll while becoming increasingly disengaged, emotionally exhausted, and disconnected from the institution’s goals. Retention should not be about making physicians more resilient so they can tolerate an ineffective system. It should be about building health care environments that people with genuine choices still want to be part of.
Leadership must be accountable for the environment it creates
Health care leaders face substantial pressures, including workforce shortages, financial constraints, regulatory requirements, rising patient demand, and competing organizational priorities. There are no simple solutions. But difficult circumstances do not eliminate the responsibility to lead with integrity.
Clinical excellence does not automatically translate into effective leadership. Neither do seniority, technical expertise, nor an impressive professional title. Leadership requires competencies that must be developed, including communication, conflict management, accountability, emotional intelligence, organizational change, and the ability to recognize the human consequences of management decisions.
Consider a scheduling policy that improves short-term coverage while repeatedly disrupting physicians’ family lives. Or a productivity target that looks impressive on a dashboard but reduces professional autonomy and meaningful patient interaction. Consider a management structure that protects a high-performing but destructive individual because confronting the behavior would be inconvenient. These decisions may appear operational. Their consequences are deeply human. And eventually, they become retention decisions.
The physician affected by an inflexible schedule may begin looking for a practice that offers more control over their time. The clinician whose professional judgment is repeatedly disregarded may seek an environment that respects their expertise. The employee who watches a powerful colleague escape accountability may conclude that the organization’s stated values are little more than words. Leaders do not need to be perfect. They do, however, need to be willing to listen, acknowledge mistakes, address harmful behavior, and take responsibility for the environments they create.
Every repeated dismissal, every unaddressed concern, and every failure of accountability can influence whether an experienced physician sees a future within the organization. The difficult question is whether leaders are willing to examine their own contribution to the problem.
What would make physicians choose to stay?
If health care organizations genuinely want to improve retention, they must move beyond exit interviews and wellness campaigns. They need to understand what is happening long before employees begin planning their departures.
That means creating meaningful opportunities for physicians to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. It means examining administrative burdens and workflows rather than treating every inefficiency as a personal time-management problem. It also means recognizing that flexibility, professional autonomy, and family responsibilities are legitimate considerations when designing sustainable medical careers.
Destructive behavior must be addressed consistently, including when the individual responsible holds considerable authority or delivers impressive financial or operational results. A high-performing employee should not be permitted to damage the people around them simply because the organization finds their behavior inconvenient to confront.
Leadership should also be evaluated beyond financial performance, patient volumes, and operational targets. Workforce trust, psychological safety, organizational culture, and the ability to retain experienced professionals deserve serious attention. These changes require resources and sustained effort. They also require organizations to be honest about what is and is not working.
Physician departures carry costs beyond recruitment and replacement expenses. Organizations risk losing clinical expertise, continuity of care, institutional knowledge, mentorship, and the trust developed through long-standing patient relationships. Remaining physicians may inherit additional workloads, creating further pressure on an already strained workforce. The consequences can extend well beyond the individual who leaves.
Physician retention is not simply a human resources concern. It is a health care delivery concern. Organizations cannot prevent every departure, nor should they expect every physician to remain indefinitely. The goal is not to eliminate career transitions. It is to stop losing talented professionals because preventable organizational problems have made staying unnecessarily difficult.
We need to move upstream from burnout
After more than fifteen years practicing family medicine, I remain deeply aware of the extraordinary dedication physicians bring to their patients. I also understand how easily that dedication can become an expectation of endless sacrifice.
Physicians are trained to recognize problems, make difficult decisions, and keep going when circumstances are challenging. Those qualities are essential in medicine. But they can also make it easier for organizations to normalize working conditions that should never become routine. When capable, committed professionals repeatedly compensate for dysfunctional systems, the system may appear to function better than it actually does.
The physician stays late. The colleague covers another shift. Someone absorbs the administrative burden. Another person decides not to raise the concern because they do not have the energy for another difficult conversation. The work gets done, but the cost does not disappear. It is transferred to the people carrying the burden.
My work has increasingly led me to a broader question: What happens when the environments in which people are expected to thrive contribute to their exhaustion? That question has changed how I think about physician well-being. I have not moved away from burnout prevention. I have moved upstream from burnout.
I am increasingly interested in the leadership decisions, management practices, organizational cultures, and systemic pressures that influence whether physicians can sustain meaningful careers without sacrificing their health, relationships, or humanity. Because the solution cannot simply be to produce physicians who are better at tolerating dysfunction. We need health care organizations that are better at recognizing and correcting it.
Perhaps the most important question health care leaders should ask is not how many physicians they have managed to retain. It is how many would still choose to stay if leaving were genuinely an option. That question requires more than a survey. It requires the courage to listen to uncomfortable answers, examine established practices, and acknowledge that an organization’s culture may be contributing to the very workforce crisis it is trying to solve.
Physicians should not have to choose between caring for their patients and protecting their own well-being. They should not have to remain silent to protect their careers or sacrifice their personal lives to demonstrate professional commitment. And they should not have to reach exhaustion before their concerns are taken seriously.
Sometimes the physician who appears to be staying has already decided to leave. They may still be caring for patients, supporting colleagues, and fulfilling every professional obligation. Their resignation letter has not arrived yet. By then, the organization may have lost something far more valuable than an employee. It may have lost years of experience, a trusted colleague, a mentor, and someone who once believed strongly enough in the institution to try to improve it.
The question is not only why physicians leave. It is what organizations have repeatedly asked them to tolerate before they finally do. If health care leaders are serious about retention, they must be willing to answer that question honestly. The strongest evidence of a healthy workplace is not that people cannot afford to leave.
It is that, even when they can, they choose to stay.
Tomi Mitchell is a board-certified family physician and certified health and wellness coach with extensive experience in clinical practice and holistic well-being. She is also an acclaimed international keynote speaker and a passionate advocate for mental health and physician well-being. She leverages over a decade of private practice experience to drive meaningful change.
Dr. Mitchell is the founder of Holistic Wellness Strategies, where she empowers individuals through comprehensive, evidence-based approaches to well-being. Her career is dedicated to transforming lives by addressing personal challenges and enhancing relationships with practical, holistic strategies.
Her commitment to mental health and burnout prevention is evident through her role as the host of The Mental Health & Wellness Show podcast. Through her podcast, Dr. Mitchell explores topics related to mental fitness and stress reduction, helping audiences achieve sustainable productivity while avoiding burnout.
Dr. Mitchell is also an author. Her book, The Soul-Sucking, Energy-Draining Life of a Physician: How to Live a Life of Service Without Losing Yourself, addresses the unique challenges faced by health care professionals and provides actionable solutions for maintaining personal well-being in demanding careers.
Dr. Mitchell’s expertise and advocacy have been recognized in her role as an executive contributor to USA Today, Thrive Global magazine, KevinMD, OK! Magazine, and Brainz Magazine, as well as across various television and radio platforms, where she continues to champion holistic wellness and mental health on a global scale.
Connect with her on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and book a discovery call to explore how she can support your wellness journey. For those interested in purchasing her book, please click here for the payment link. Check out her YouTube channel for more insights and valuable content on mental health and well-being.
