Very disappointing - Anonymous employee Atrium Health Employee Review

1.0
Mar 7, 2014
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

There are many fine mid-management leaders who effectively are the ones continuing to keep the organization profitable and running day-to-day.

Cons

Senior leadership has been in place too long and is extremely adverse to change. Although all the right words are stated to the contrary, their actions and ivory tower mentality reflect a resistance to accepting the need to evolve with the times. Leaders who are aggressive (note: aggressive, not assertive) will be nurtured to move up in the organization. Many of these individuals are cut-throat in their behaviors, and not appropriate for a non-profit organization. The leadership who operate with true integrity are often manipulated by those whose only objective is to rise to the next level in the corporation, regardless of who they disrespect along the way. Many of its leadership thinks they are operating under an admirable set of values, and unfortunately, the vast majority of the leaders are not.

Explore other reviews about Atrium Health

5.0
May 27, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good benefits, work life balance

Cons

have to use PTO for holidays

1
2.0
Jun 21, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

I spent many years in outpatient rehabilitation and saw firsthand how much meaningful patient care can happen when clinicians are empowered. Earlier in my tenure, there were real opportunities for growth, mentorship and professional development. The team was collaborative and deeply committed to patients, and support staff worked hard under challenging circumstances. Those are strengths worth acknowledging.

Cons

As leadership changed, the culture around performance and advancement shifted. Over time I felt that institutional memory, specialty expertise and long‑term contributions were not valued consistently. Promotion practices seemed opaque, and I saw clinicians with substantially less experience and questionable communication acumen move into roles without clear explanations. Most importantly, I experienced increasing friction between high performers and leaders whose roles felt more performative than grounded in clinical or operational expertise. That tension appeared to be tolerated by the institution. Questions about decisions were discouraged, and requests for discussion went unanswered—even when they came from people with decades of service and a record of strong outcomes. After years of above‑average performance reviews, the feedback I received near the end of my tenure seemed inconsistent with my record and, in my view, hypocritical. This sudden shift in narrative felt like a mechanism to justify decisions already made rather than an honest assessment. For clinicians who invest deeply in their programs and relationships, contradictory or last‑minute feedback is demoralizing and undermines trust in the review process. Although department leaders appear to view themselves as emotionally intelligent, my experience was quite different: they delivered polished, stoic performances but did not exhibit the empathy, listening, or unbiased 360 assessment skills that clinicians need from leadership. That disconnect was another source of friction between high performers and management.

1
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All