ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Organizational inaction sustains destructive leadership in healthcare.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Destructive leadership is increasingly recognized as a distinct and harmful form of influence, yet the response of organizations to such leadership remains theoretically underdeveloped. Objective: This article develops a theory of organizational inaction in the face of destructive leadership and explains why organizations differ in their capacity to recognize and confront such conduct. Using a theory-driven, integrative conceptual-development approach, this Hypothesis and Theory article synthesizes research on destructive leadership, organizational silence, psychological safety, institutional theory, normalization of deviance, and useful illegality to develop an explanatory framework of organizational inaction. Organizational inaction is defined as the systematic failure of an organization to recognize, process, escalate, or intervene against destructive leadership despite the availability of signals, experiences, or structural indicators that harmful leadership is occurring. The article differentiates this construct from organizational silence, psychological safety, institutional inertia, and the organizational bystander effect. Building on the healthcare sector as a particularly revealing organizational field, the article proposes that organizational response depends on two capacities: recognition and intervention. Crossing both dimensions results in four heuristic ideal types on continuous dimensions-functional, blind, paralyzed, and incapable organizations. The article further develops formal propositions that specify the antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences of these types and integrates organizational silence, psychological safety, institutional theory, and normalization of deviance into the proposed model. The article argues that destructive leadership persists not only because of leader pathology or follower susceptibility, but also because organizations vary systematically in the structures, interpretations, and informal practices that shape whether harmful leadership is seen and whether action becomes possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.