Academic anesthesiology has increasingly used grant dollars, citation impact factor, and publication numbers to measure faculty productivity. While they were originally designed as proxies for quality, they now risk becoming the mission driving the specialty. Academic anesthesiology departments are facing increasing faculty burnout, leaving departments bottom-heavy and lacking creativity, mentorship, and leadership. This has consequences for anesthesiology and patient care. Self-determination theory helps explain this pattern by showing how controlling metrics erode autonomy, competence, and relatedness, the core drivers of motivation. To protect the vitality of the specialty, departments must realign their missions with values that metrics cannot easily capture: teaching, mentorship, integrity, and community engagement. Diversified portfolios and balanced scorecards demonstrate feasible ways to support these values within financial constraints. Aligning systems with principles rather than proxies will allow departments to cultivate innovation and restore medicine's moral foundation. Metrics may guide us, but they must never define us.
Chu et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: