Revisiting Career Sabotaging in Academic Medicine

• Academic Medical Centers
• Workplace Violence
• Mentoring
• Career Mobility
• Professional Burnout

Editor – We read with interest the perspective by Busari, “The Harm We Cause: Spotlighting the Detrimental Consequences of Malicious Envy in Academic Medicine.”¹ The article introduces “career sabotaging” (CS) as a persistent and intentional pattern of behaviors that obstruct professional advancement. This framing is valuable because it moves the discussion beyond isolated acts of incivility and highlights cumulative, career-directed harm that often is still difficult to detect within academic systems. Busari defines CS as a relational process rooted in malicious envy and supported by survey findings in which 74.3% of respondents reported personal experience with such behaviors.¹

These observations resonate with broader evidence in the literature documenting high rates of harassment, incivility, and adverse workplace climate in academic medicine, particularly among marginalized groups, with measurable effects on mental health and workforce sustainability.² We agree that naming CS as a distinct construct is an important contribution. The emphasis on intentional, career-oriented obstruction adds conceptual clarity to existing frameworks such as bullying or social undermining. The work also highlights how these behaviors may be normalized within systems that outwardly promote meritocracy.

At the same time, several considerations merit further discussion. The study relies on a convenience sample and uses non validated survey instruments, which limits generalizability and interpretability. More importantly, the central role of malicious envy as the primary explanatory mechanism may oversimplify a complex issue. Envy was not directly measured, and the relationship appears largely theoretical.

Evidence suggests that barriers to advancement often arise from organizational conditions rather than individual motivations alone. Promotion and tenure processes can be inconsistent and opaque, creating opportunities for unequal evaluation and vulnerability to bias.³ Access to sponsorship, a key driver of career advancement, is uneven and shaped by gendered and cultural dynamics, which further influences who progresses within academic hierarchies.⁴ Additionally, scholars engaged in nontraditional or equity-focused work often meet misalignment between their contributions and institutional reward systems, limiting recognition and advancement.⁵

These patterns suggest that what is perceived as career obstruction may reflect the interaction between interpersonal behaviors and institutional structures. CS may therefore function not only as an individual phenomenon but also as an emergent property of environments characterized by ambiguity, concentrated power, and limited accountability.

We invite the author to clarify several points that could strengthen this emerging framework:

1. How can CS be empirically distinguished from related constructs such as bullying, social undermining, or systemic bias in future studies?

2. What validated measures could be developed to assess CS and its proposed link to malicious envy?

3. To what extent do organizational factors, such as promotion criteria or sponsorship access, mediate or amplify CS?

4. How might institutions identify and address CS when behaviors are subtle, normalized, or embedded within routine professional processes?

Future research should examine CS across diverse institutions using mixed methods and objective career outcomes. This approach would help decide whether CS is a distinct construct or a reframing of known inequities within academic medicine.

Despite these limitations, Busari’s perspective makes a meaningful contribution. It challenges assumptions of meritocracy and draws attention to forms of harm that shape career trajectories and workforce equity. Recognizing and rigorously studying CS may help institutions move toward more transparent, accountable, and inclusive academic environments. We look forward to the author’s response.

• Received April 25, 2026.
• Accepted May 26, 2026.