Editor – The concept of career sabotaging (CS), as articulated in my recent paper, The Harm We Cause: Spotlighting the Detrimental Consequences of Malicious Envy in Academic Medicine,1 introduces a novel lens through which subtle but consequential barriers to advancement in academic medicine can be understood. CS is related to constructs such as incivility, social undermining, bullying, and systemic bias. However, it differs from these constructs in that it depends on (1) an upward comparison, (2) a perceived threat posed by the success of others, and/or (3) a sense of intimidation stemming from a strong professional or academic standing of peers. It is also important to note that there are six conditions that typify CS, the central one of which is always the intent to harm.1 Because CS is not an event-triggered phenomenon, it differs from toxic workplace behaviors intended to hinder other people’s ability to achieve success or establish (and maintain) positive relationships.
The triggers within toxic workplace situations usually coincide with a victim’s promotion, award, or increased visibility. However, the trigger of harmful behavior in CS is malicious envy, a destructive form of envy characterized by antisocial and obstructive actions that have been empirically linked to knowledge hiding and counterproductive work behavior.2,3 Within academic medicine, CS can manifest as overt hostility or through institutionally sanctioned processes such as promotion evaluations, authorship decisions, and the differential allocation of opportunities. A faculty member who faces revised promotion expectations or unexplained delays after securing a major grant, for example, reflects such a pattern of obstruction tied specifically to their success.4
Discussion
In their letter to the editor, Ebere-Bank et al.5 argue that CS may function not only as an individual phenomenon but also as an emergent property of environments characterized by ambiguity, concentrated power, and limited accountability. The authors’ observation corroborated the construct of CS and its conceptual definition in the Busari1 paper; however, four questions were raised that needed further clarification:
The first question was, how can CS be empirically distinguished from related constructs such as bullying, social undermining, or systemic bias in future studies?
Any new concept with the potential to have a transformative impact on professional practice and academia requires a critical appraisal of its relevance and credibility before adoption. Advancing empirical research on CS will therefore be a logical next step, but will also require the development of validated, career-specific instruments. Existing measures, such as the Benign and Malicious Envy Scale (BeMaS),6 provide a robust framework for assessing dispositional envy, distinguishing between self-improving (benign) and destructive (malicious) forms. Therefore, in discerning the concept of CS, it is important to recognize that malicious envy, characterized by hostility and a desire to diminish others’ advantage, is particularly relevant in academic and professional workplaces.6
The second question concerned which validated measures could be developed to assess CS and its proposed link to malicious envy.
Currently, no validated measure or tool exists that captures career sabotage as conceptualized in the recently published paper on the harm we cause.1 Developing a scale to identify and measure the severity of CS would therefore be a logical next step. Such a career-sabotaging scale would have to include domains such as obstruction of promotion, denial of opportunity, suppression of recognition, and administrative delay tactics. Furthermore, such a scale could also allow for more precise operationalization of CS and enable testing of hypothesized causal relationships. Empirical strategies that may be used include longitudinal designs to examine whether sabotage behaviors increase over time following measurable achievements, as well as experimental vignette studies that manipulate target success to assess behavioral intentions. These approaches could help establish a career-sabotaging pathway that consists of three elements, namely upward comparison, malicious envy, and career sabotaging.
The third question was to what extent do organizational factors, such as promotion criteria or access to sponsorship, mediate or amplify CS?
In response, it is important to note that CS must be understood within the broader organizational context of academic medicine and professional practice. Research has demonstrated that sponsorship plays a critical role in career advancement, providing individuals with visibility, advocacy, and access to opportunities. Unfortunately, access to sponsorship in healthcare practice and academia is uneven, with many faculty perceiving inequities along gender, ethnicity, ableness, and other lines. These disparities create conditions in which individuals with influence can selectively enable or obstruct career progression.6 Similarly, promotion systems characterized by ambiguity and subjective evaluation contribute to inequities in advancement. Evidence suggests that inconsistent criteria and reliance on subjective assessments introduce bias and limit transparency in decision-making processes. Within such systems, CS can be enacted through seemingly legitimate mechanisms, including the reinterpretation of standards or selective withholding of support.7
The final question was, how might institutions identify and address CS when behaviors are subtle, normalized, or embedded within routine professional processes?
As noted in the malicious envy paper, a critical challenge in addressing CS is its subtlety and normalization within routine processes.1 Traditional reporting systems, for example, are insufficient for detecting this phenomenon, necessitating a need for data-driven and pattern-based approaches. Institutions may also need to conduct career trajectory analyses to identify discrepancies between performance and advancement and network analyses to examine disparities in access to sponsorship and leadership roles. Addressing CS, therefore, requires a multifaceted approach. Structural interventions should include implementing transparent promotion criteria, standardized evaluation processes, and distributed decision-making policies. Accountability mechanisms, such as dashboards that track progress metrics, can help identify inequities and trigger corrective action. Furthermore, cultural interventions would be needed to reduce excessive competition and foster collaborative environments that reward mentorship and collective achievement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, career sabotaging represents a distinct and impactful manifestation of malicious envy within academic medicine and healthcare delivery. The phenomenon operates at the intersection of individual psychology and organizational cultures, and by integrating insights from envy research, organizational behavior, and academic medicine, the CS construct provides a foundation for future empirical investigation and institutional reform. A follow-up study designed to investigate the prevalence of career sabotaging in academic and professional work environments and the associated factors that contribute to its prevalence among healthcare professionals and scholars is currently under IRB review.
- Received June 5, 2026.
- Accepted June 16, 2026.
References
- 1.↵Busari JO. The Harm We Cause: Spotlighting the Detrimental Consequences of Malicious Envy in Academic Medicine. Clin Med Res. 2026;24(1):1-8. doi:10.3121/cmr.2025.2075.
- 2.↵Duffy MK, Ganster DC, Pagon M. Social Undermining in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal. 2002;45(2):331-351. doi:10.2307/3069350.
- 3.↵Lange J, Paulhus DL, Crusius J. Elucidating the Dark Side of Envy: Distinctive Links of Benign and Malicious Envy With Dark Personalities. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2018;44(4):601-614. doi:10.1177/0146167217746340.
- 4.↵Su X, Chen C. The Influence of Workplace Envy on Employees’ Knowledge-Hiding Behavior Based on a Comparative Analysis between Generation Cohorts. Behav Sci (Basel) 2023;13(9):716. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090716
- 5.↵Ebere-Bank D, Arcia-Diaz R, Soyemi K. Revisiting Career Sabotaging in Academic Medicine. Clin Med Res 2026;24(2):47-48. doi:10.3121/cmr.2026.2134
- 6.↵Lange J, Crusius J. Benign and malicious envy scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2015. doi:10.1037/t40261-000
- 7.↵Levine RB, Ayyala MS, Skarupski KA, “It’s a Little Different for Men”-Sponsorship and Gender in Academic Medicine: a Qualitative Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36(1):1-8. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-05956-2ta
