Executive Research Report | Critical Integrative Evidence Synthesis
The Tenure Fallacy
in Healthcare Leadership
Why Twenty Years in One Hospital Is Not Proof of Superior Leadership
Prepared for healthcare boards, executive search committees, senior leaders, and governance bodies | 2025
Five years as a leadership renewal thresholdDr. Emrick’s independent research and survey of healthcare leaders strongly indicate that making a purposeful career move approximately every five to eight years significantly improves leadership performance with each transition. Each new role broadens job scope, increases market knowledge, exposes the leader to different organizational cultures, and forces renewed learning, adaptation, trust formation, and proof of effectiveness. The advantage compounds across a career.
A five-to eight-year move is not simply a change of employer. It is a renewed test of whether leadership can travel.
Author’s synthesis
The claim this report rejects, and the claim it advances
“I have been at this hospital for more than 20 years; therefore, I am better equipped to lead than someone who has worked in several organizations.”
“A leader is better equipped when the record shows sustained, independently verified outcomes, adaptive learning, trust formation, and durable improvement across materially different challenges. Multiple institutions can provide stronger replication opportunities, but mobility earns no credit without depth and results.”
Executive conclusions
| Conclusion | Evidence-based interpretation | Board implication |
|---|---|---|
| Purposeful five-year movement is the primary finding. | The independent survey indicates that leadership performance improves with each approximately five-year move as scope, market knowledge, culture, and adaptive experience expand. | Treat well-executed movement as cumulative leadership development, then verify the outcomes achieved in every setting. |
| Tenure is context, not a competency. | Years indicate exposure and continuity. They do not directly measure judgment, adaptability, ethics, innovation, or outcome quality. | Do not score years as leadership quality. Verify what occurred during those years. |
| Institutional capital is real but local. | Long-tenured leaders accumulate tacit knowledge, relationships, and political understanding that can improve execution. | Value local capital while testing whether it has become dependency, insulation, or gatekeeping. |
| Career variety can create an adaptive range. | Varied roles and institutions can force leaders to relearn culture, rebuild trust, and challenge their own operating assumptions. | Reward breadth only when assignments were sufficiently deep, and outcomes were verified. |
| Mobility is not portability. | Frequent moves can represent learning or avoidance. Churn can damage hospitals, and outside successors can overcorrect. | Distinguish sustained contextual variety from shallow job-hopping. |
| Dynamic settings raise the value of renewal. | Tenure-performance relationships become less favorable when executive paradigms and external conditions diverge. | Require evidence of external calibration, strategic renewal, and constructive dissent. |
| Portable performance is the stronger standard. | Replicated outcomes across distinct settings provide a stronger test of capability than a single environment over time. | Use outcome attribution, contextual breadth, trust rebuilding, and legacy as the selection standard. |
Board-level action
- Replace tenure thresholds with evidence thresholds.
- Ask for comparable baselines, intervention logic, outcome trends, and third-party verification for each major role.
- Separate institutional knowledge from transferable capability in succession and executive search scorecards.
- Test whether a long-tenured leader repeatedly renewed the system or merely became inseparable from it.
- Test whether a mobile leader stayed long enough to own consequences and leave a durable capacity.
Leadership is not a residence history. It is a pattern of reproducible outcomes.
Author’s synthesis
The institutional-tenure fallacy
The fallacy occurs when duration in one organization is treated as sufficient evidence of superior leadership capability. It is a specific form of proxy error: boards observe an easily measured variable, years employed, and infer a difficult-to-measure construct, leadership quality. The analytical error is symmetrical. Tenure is not excellence, and movement is not excellence.
What tenure proves, and what it cannot
| Tenure can reasonably support | Tenure cannot establish by itself |
|---|---|
| The individual remained in or returned to the institution. | The individual produced superior outcomes. |
| The individual acquired exposure to local history and routines. | That the knowledge transfers to a different system. |
| The institution tolerated, valued, or depended on the individual. | That continued appointment reflected an objective performance comparison. |
| Relationships and informal networks had time to develop. | That those relationships were trustworthy, inclusive, or performance-enhancing. |
| The leader experienced some environmental change over time. | The leader changed assumptions rather than defending them. |
Count materially different problems solved under independent scrutiny, not calendar years accumulated under one badge. Twenty years is a numerator without a meaningful denominator.
The attribution problem
Institutional performance is jointly produced. A leader inherits strategy, capital, talent, brand strength, payer position, physician alignment, community trust, board quality, and prior investments. A long tenure increases the observed association between the leader and the institution, but the association does not resolve attribution. Mobility can provide quasi-replication because the surrounding conditions change.
Longevity is evidence of staying. It is not evidence of learning.
Author’s synthesis
Why the fallacy persists
Method and evidence discipline
The report uses two evidence streams: the author’s independent research and survey of healthcare leaders, from which the central five-year finding is drawn, and a rapid, critical integrative review used to test the theoretical mechanisms, boundary conditions, and counterfactuals of the findings. Evidence was published through January 2025, with hospital-specific systematic reviews weighted as the most contextually relevant.
Claim-strength standard
Direct or convergent empirical evidence supports the direction of the claim. Examples: tenure builds local knowledge; succession can disrupt performance; adaptability is central in healthcare leadership.
Evidence supports mechanisms, but the exact hospital leadership comparison has not been directly tested. Example: career variety may strengthen cross-context adaptability.
An original construct, measure, or hypothesis requiring validation. Examples: the Portable Leadership Evidence Index and the observed-performance equation.
The evidence cannot sustain an absolute conclusion. Examples: all multi-institution leaders are better; all 20-year leaders are stagnant.
Evidence synthesis: thirteen core sources
| Source and design | Central finding | Implication for the thesis | Primary limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hambrick & Fukutomi (1991), tenure life-cycle theory | Executive attention, commitment, and responsiveness can change over tenure. | Tenure effects are dynamic, not uniformly positive. | Conceptual, not hospital-specific. |
| Miller (1991), empirical executive study | A long tenure can weaken the fit between the organization and its environment. | Longevity can become costly when assumptions harden. | Corporate sample and historical context. |
| Henderson et al. (2006), longitudinal industry comparison | Tenure-performance patterns differed by environmental dynamism. | No universal optimal tenure; context matters. | Two corporate industries. |
| Brochet et al. (2021), S&P 1500 longitudinal study | Average firm value followed a hump-shaped relation with CEO tenure; decline was earlier under dynamism and lower adaptability. | Adaptability moderates the value of experience. | Firm value is not hospital performance. |
| Luo et al. (2014), large executive dataset | Employee relationships strengthened with tenure; customer relationships were curvilinear. | Internal embeddedness and external orientation can diverge. | Corporate relational proxies. |
| Crossland et al. (2014), Fortune 250 longitudinal study | CEO career variety was associated with strategic novelty and dynamism. | Breadth can expand strategic repertoire. | Novelty is not automatically better performance. |
| Karaevli & Hall (2006), theoretical model | Career variety may build cognitive, behavioral, and socio-emotional adaptability. | Explains mechanisms connecting breadth to portability. | Requires further causal validation. |
| Dries et al. (2012), matched field study | Career variety was positively associated with learning agility. | Supports the learning mechanism. | Small sample and noncausal design. |
| Spanos et al. (2024), healthcare scoping review | Adaptation, innovation, collaboration, and self-development were dominant future leadership themes. | Healthcare directly requires renewal and adaptive capability. | Mixed academic and gray evidence. |
| Varga et al. (2023), hospital trust systematic review | Trust rests on ethical, supportive, accessible, competent, and empowering leadership. | New leaders must rebuild trust; tenure alone is insufficient. | Only 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. |
| Schepker et al. (2017), CEO succession meta-analysis | Succession disrupts short-term performance; outsider-driven change did not assure long-term gains. | Mobility and outsider status must not be romanticized. | Cross-industry succession literature. |
| Hermes et al. (2025), hospital CEO turnover systematic review | Turnover has varied predictors and can impose temporary performance and failure risks. | Career variety must be separated from destabilizing churn. | Heterogeneous measures and designs. |
| Leggat & Balding (2019), hospital quality management study | Leadership churn can weaken quality management and continuity of clinical governance. | Assignment depth and transition quality are material. | Australian context. |
Tenure creates valuable institutional capital, and its returns depend on continued adaptation. Career variety creates opportunities for adaptive development and cross-context validation, and its returns depend on depth, learning, and durable results. Turnover creates disruption, and its cost depends on succession quality, context fit, and the value of strategic renewal.
A 20-year tenure may identify a proven institutional leader. It does not identify a portable leader until adaptability and outcome replication are demonstrated.
Author’s synthesis
Tenure is a life cycle, not a straight line
CEO tenure theory describes changing seasons of executive service rather than a constant return to experience. Early periods involve mandate formation, learning, experimentation, and legitimacy building. Later periods can generate expertise and commitment, but also narrow information channels, attachment to established paradigms, and reduced responsiveness (Hambrick & Fukutomi, 1991).
Figure 1. Competing mechanisms across institutional tenure
Interactive rebuild of the author’s conceptual synthesis of tenure life-cycle theory. The curves are illustrative and do not identify a universal optimal tenure or a hospital-specific threshold.
Figure 1 reframes the question from “how long is too long” to “what mechanisms are currently active”. Local knowledge often accumulates. Renewal pressure and external attentiveness must be actively maintained. Insulation risk is conditional, not inevitable. Boards should look for evidence that long-tenured leaders continue to test assumptions, import external knowledge, and tolerate dissent.
Where longevity becomes a leadership risk
What long tenure genuinely provides
A rigorous critique of tenure cannot pretend continuity has no value. Long service can produce institutional capital: local history, decision pathways, clinical interdependencies, physician relationships, labor dynamics, and community expectations. Trust research shows time can allow trustworthy behaviors to accumulate into credible relationships, although time alone does not ensure trust (Varga et al., 2023). A multilevel study of 1,753 employees under 250 team leaders found incremental positive effects of leader and team tenure diversity beyond individual tenure (Steffens et al., 2014). The strongest defense of a 20-year leader is repeated renewal through distinct eras, not the calendar.
Long tenure deserves credit when it compounds learning, trust, and durable performance. It deserves scrutiny when it compounds insulation, dependency, and unquestioned assumptions.
A leader who cannot be replaced may have built influence, but not necessarily an institution.
Author’s synthesis
Why career variety can matter
Career variety refers to meaningful exposure across different roles, functions, institutions, industries, markets, or governance contexts. Its value is not novelty for its own sake. Variety matters because it interrupts automaticity: the leader must diagnose a new system, distinguish universal principles from local habits, earn trust without inherited status, and deliver through unfamiliar relationships.
Figure 2. How career variety may produce portable capability
Original conceptual model. Career variety is an input opportunity, not the outcome. The pathway requires learning, sufficient assignment depth, verified results, and context-sensitive application.
Career variety
Materially different contexts
Adaptive learning
Reflection and integration
Assignment depth
Consequence ownership
Verified results
Independent evidence
Portable capability
Context-sensitive application
Three forms of adaptability (Karaevli & Hall, 2006)
Cognitive
Expands the frames leaders use to interpret problems.
Behavioral
Expands the repertoire of actions they can deploy.
Socio-emotional
Increases tolerance for ambiguity, identity transition, and the interpersonal strain of unfamiliar environments.
The model is theoretically powerful but should not be misread as causal proof. Variety creates learning opportunities; leaders still must reflect, integrate, and change. Field studies link career variety to learning agility (Dries et al., 2012) and learning agility to leadership competence and career success (Dai et al., 2013). A longitudinal study of Fortune 250 CEOs found career variety positively associated with firm-level strategic novelty (Crossland et al., 2014).
Figure 3. Healthcare leadership competency themes
Percentages calculated from the source counts reported by Spanos et al. (2024). Academic and targeted gray-literature groups differ in purpose and quality; the bars should not be interpreted as pooled prevalence estimates. The review also identified consumer and community engagement as a fourth recurring demand.
Contextual range as replication
Multiple institutions function as imperfect replications. When a similar outcome is achieved more than once despite contextual variation, confidence in portable capability increases. Replication is still imperfect because roles differ, selection is nonrandom, and external conditions change. Nevertheless, the inference is stronger than a single uninterrupted institutional association.
The strongest evidence is not that a leader moved. It is the leader who produced defensible results despite the changes in inherited advantages, relationships, and routines.
The countercase: mobility can fail
The case for career variety becomes intellectually weak if it ignores the costs of leadership movement. Hospitals are relational systems. Executive transitions interrupt decision pathways, unsettle teams, delay strategy, and can shift attention toward the new leader’s agenda.
Empirical studies (1987 to 2024) in a 2025 systematic review linking hospital CEO turnover with temporary financial decline and increased failure risk (Hermes et al., 2025).
CEO successions across 60 samples: negative short-term performance effects and no direct long-term benefit from succession alone (Schepker et al., 2017).
Scoping review describing instability, human capital loss, financial costs, and possible effects on morale and patient care from CEO turnover (Mathew et al., 2024a).
Inside successors made less strategic change and showed more favorable long-term performance in the aggregate, while outside successors made more change that was associated with lower long-term performance. The result is not an argument against career variety. It is a warning against equating externality with wisdom. Quality-management research in Australian hospitals likewise warns that leadership churn can weaken quality governance and continuity (Leggat & Balding, 2019).
The productive mobility boundary
| Productive career variety | Shallow executive churn |
|---|---|
| Assignments were long enough to own implementation and consequences. | Departure preceded stabilization or outcome maturity. |
| Responsibilities increased, or contexts materially differed. | Titles changed, but the leadership test did not. |
| Outcomes were independently verified and survived departure. | Claims rely on narrative, activity, or unverified attribution. |
| The leader changed their approach based on context. | The same playbook was imposed repeatedly. |
| Successors and systems were stronger after the departure. | The organization remained dependent, disrupted, or depleted. |
Shallow tenure can evade accountability
A mobile executive can claim the visible beginning of a transformation while avoiding its operational middle and eventual consequences. Boards should examine the temporal chain: baseline, intervention, implementation, stabilization, outcome, and post-departure persistence. Portable capability also includes knowing when not to transfer a prior solution: an academic medical center, a rural hospital, an investor-owned system, and an outpatient network may require different governance instincts.
Mobility becomes evidence only when it contains depth, consequence, ownership, contextual learning, and durable results.
Portable leadership performance
Portable leadership performance is the capacity to diagnose materially different institutional contexts, build legitimate trust, adapt strategy and behavior, reproduce defensible outcomes, and leave a durable capability that persists beyond the leader’s presence.
Proposed, unestimated observed-performance model. O is the observed outcome, P portable capability, L local institutional capital, C context fit, H inherited system strength or burden, E entrenchment or insulation. Tenure may increase local capital and entrenchment risk at the same time; its net effect is conditional.
Figure 4. Leadership Validation Matrix
Original framework. The horizontal axis measures meaningful contextual breadth. The vertical axis measures strength, duration, and independent verification of outcomes. Only high breadth combined with strong evidence supports a portability conclusion.
Portable Leadership Evidence Index (PLEI)
An original decision-support tool, not a validated psychometric scale, and not a mechanical hiring cutoff. Its purpose is to force comparable evidence across six domains and prevent years served from dominating judgment. Score a candidate below: 0 = absent; 1 = claimed but weakly evidenced; 2 = partial or single-context evidence; 3 = strong evidence with limited replication or durability; 4 = strong, replicated, independently verifiable, and durable.
Replicated outcomes 25%
A score of 4 requires comparable, sustained improvement in at least two materially different contexts, with credible baselines and independent verification.
Contextual range 15%
Substantial variation in governance, market, mission, workforce, scale, operating condition, or clinical complexity.
Learning and adaptation 15%
Documented changes in diagnosis, strategy, or behavior after evidence contradicted the leader’s initial model.
Trust and culture rebuilding 15%
Credible local trust formation across clinicians, staff, executives, boards, and community stakeholders.
Strategic renewal 15%
External calibration, constructive dissent, innovation discipline, and abandonment of obsolete assumptions.
Durable legacy and succession 15%
Results persisted, successors were prepared, decision systems improved, and key-person dependency declined.
PLEI = 100 × Σ [ wj × ( sj / 4 ) ]
Partial or single-context evidence across domains. A narrative evidence file should accompany every score.
Figure 5. Proposed PLEI weighting
Weighting reflects the thesis’s priority on outcome replication. Validation, reliability testing, and outcome calibration are required before formal adoption.
Evidence rules
- Use pre-intervention baselines and at least 24 to 36 months of trend when the outcome permits.
- Separate enterprise outcomes from departmental outcomes and personal attribution from team contribution.
- Prefer third-party evidence: audited financials, quality reports, board evaluations, regulatory findings, workforce surveys, and successor testimony.
- Document adverse outcomes and abandoned strategies, not only successes.
- Assess persistence after departure or after direct executive attention moved elsewhere.
The PLEI should structure judgment, not create false precision. It cannot compensate for ethical concerns, poor context fit, weak clinical governance, or material omissions. It should also not penalize a leader for limited mobility when that leader has passed materially different tests within the same system.
From biography to evidence
Figure 6. Board decision architecture
Original governance sequence. Verification comes first because unverified career narratives are vulnerable to halo effects. Context variation is assessed second. Adaptation and trust are then tested, continuity benefits and disruption risks are priced, and context fit decides.
Replace the standard resume discussion
| Weak question | Stronger question |
|---|---|
| How long were you there? | Which outcomes required enough time to mature, and what persisted after your direct involvement ended? |
| Why did you leave? | What did you complete, what remained unfinished, and what consequences did you continue to own? |
| Have you worked in a system like ours? | Which assumptions from your prior context would be dangerous to import here? |
| How many people did you lead? | How did leadership behavior change across professional groups, cultures, and levels of trust? |
| What was your greatest success? | What was the baseline, intervention, counterfactual, measurable result, and independent source? |
| Are you loyal? | How have you demonstrated stewardship, succession, and durable capacity in every setting? |
- Identify three periods when your original operating assumptions were wrong. What evidence changed your mind?
- Which outcomes improved because of your decisions rather than institutional momentum, and how was attribution established?
- Which practices did you import from outside, and which entrenched local practices did you end?
- Who can disagree with you safely, and what consequential decision changed because of that dissent?
- What would deteriorate if you left tomorrow, and what does that reveal about succession and institutional dependency?
- Which result persisted without your direct sponsorship, and for how long?
- Which results were repeated across different settings, and what exactly differed between those settings?
- Where did a strategy that worked previously fail, and how did you adapt?
- Did you remain long enough for adverse effects and second-order consequences to become visible?
- What did your successor inherit that was stronger, and what evidence shows the gain persisted?
- Which departures were driven by opportunity, conflict, performance, governance, or incomplete work?
- How did you build trust before your reputation had local meaning?
| Outcome domain | Evidence boards should request | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Quality and safety | Risk-adjusted harm trends, reliability measures, event learning, and accreditation findings. | Prevents financial or volume results from substituting for clinical performance. |
| Workforce | Vacancy, turnover, engagement, leadership depth, labor cost, and psychological safety. | Tests whether results were achieved through durable capacity or workforce depletion. |
| Access and equity | Wait times, service availability, referral completion, geographic and demographic gaps. | Tests whether operational improvement reached the population. |
| Operations | Throughput, capacity use, schedule reliability, cycle time, and standard work maturity. | Tests execution rather than announcement. |
| Finance | Margin, cash, productivity, capital returns, payer performance, cost structure. | Tests stewardship and organizational viability. |
| Culture and succession | Trust measures, speak-up climate, internal promotions, successor readiness, and dependency risk. | Tests whether the leader left a stronger institution. |
Use the scorecard during document review, interviews, and reference checks. An evidence citation must accompany each 0 to 4 rating. Blank evidence fields should not be converted into favorable assumptions.
- Replicated outcomes: at least two materially different contexts with baseline, trend, duration, and independent source.
- Contextual range: objective differences in governance, mission, market, workforce, operating conditions, or scope.
- Learning and adaptation: specific instance of changed diagnosis or behavior after disconfirming evidence.
- Trust and culture: multiple stakeholder groups; trust, engagement, psychological safety, and conflict evidence.
- Strategic renewal: external comparison, constructive dissent, abandonment of obsolete practices, innovation discipline.
- Durable legacy: persistence after departure or delegation; successor readiness; lower key-person dependency.
- Disruption burden: reorganizations, turnover, unfinished work, transition costs, quality or culture disruption.
- Ethics and transparency: disclosure quality, adverse-result ownership, fairness, and governance integrity.
Implications for incumbent development
Boards do not need to remove long-tenured leaders to create contextual range. They can deliberately expose incumbents to enterprise rotations, external peer review, cross-system collaboratives, integration assignments, new market responsibilities, turnaround mandates, and independent leadership assessments. The objective is not movement. It is renewed testing.
Do not ask whether longevity or mobility is better in the abstract. Ask which candidate has the strongest evidence of context-sensitive, ethically achieved, repeatable, and durable healthcare performance.
Twenty years can prove continuity. Only evidence can prove leadership.
Author’s synthesis
References
Brochet, F., Limbach, P., Schmid, M. M., & Scholz-Daneshgari, M. (2021). CEO tenure and firm value. The Accounting Review, 96(6), 47–71.
doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0295Crossland, C., Zyung, J., Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2014). CEO career variety: Effects on firm-level strategic and social novelty. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 652–674.
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0469Dai, G., De Meuse, K. P., & Tang, K. Y. (2013). The role of learning agility in executive career success: The results of two field studies. Journal of Managerial Issues, 25(2), 108–131.
jstor.org/stable/43488163Dries, N., Vantilborgh, T., & Pepermans, R. (2012). The roles of learning agility and career variety in identifying and developing high-potential employees. Personnel Review, 41(3), 340–358.
doi.org/10.1108/00483481211212977Hambrick, D. C., & Fukutomi, G. D. S. (1991). The seasons of a CEO’s tenure. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 719–742.
doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279621Henderson, A. D., Miller, D., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). How quickly do CEOs become obsolete? Industry dynamism, CEO tenure, and company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(5), 447–460.
doi.org/10.1002/smj.524Hermes, M., Winter, V., & Wild, E.-M. (2025). Predictors and effects of hospital chief executive officer turnover: A systematic review. Health Care Management Review, 50(3), 197–210.
doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000441Karaevli, A., & Hall, D. T. (2006). How career variety promotes the adaptability of managers: A theoretical model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 359–373.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.05.009Leggat, S. G., & Balding, C. (2019). The impact of leadership churn on quality management in Australian hospitals. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 33(7/8), 809–820.
doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-08-2018-0216Luo, X., Kanuri, V. K., & Andrews, M. (2014). How does CEO tenure matter? The mediating role of firm-employee and firm-customer relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 492–511.
doi.org/10.1002/smj.2112Mathew, N. V., Liu, C., & Khalil, H. (2024a). Factors associated with health CEO turnover: A scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 24, 861.
doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11246-yMathew, N. V., Liu, C., & Khalil, H. (2024b). Causes and consequences of health care CEO turnover in Australia and retention strategies: A qualitative study. INQUIRY, 61.
doi.org/10.1177/00469580241233250Miller, D. (1991). Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management Science, 37(1), 34–52.
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.1.34Schepker, D. J., Kim, Y., Patel, P. C., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Campion, M. C. (2017). CEO succession, strategic change, and post-succession performance: A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(6), 701–720.
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.03.001Spanos, S., Leask, E., Patel, R., Datyner, M., Loh, E., & Braithwaite, J. (2024). Healthcare leaders navigating complexity: A scoping review of key trends in future roles and competencies. BMC Medical Education, 24, 720.
doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05689-4Steffens, N. K., Shemla, M., Wegge, J., & Diestel, S. (2014). Organizational tenure and employee performance: A multilevel analysis. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), 664–690.
doi.org/10.1177/1059601114553512Varga, A. I., Spehar, I., & Skirbekk, H. (2023). Trustworthy management in hospital settings: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 23, 662.
doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09610-5The reference list prioritizes the sources most directly used in the argument. Corporate executive studies were included to identify mechanisms and boundary conditions, not to declare hospital-specific effect sizes. Healthcare reviews were weighted more heavily for contextual interpretation.