Academic scientists work long hours, against increasingly daunting odds, to publish the papers and win the grants that they hope will secure them a faculty post. For many, a tenured position is the ultimate accolade, especially in the United States.

Credit: Gustav Dejert/Getty

But dreams are sometimes dashed. Plans are sometimes foiled. Tenure may not come. Those denied it may react with anger, disgust and even depression. But there are plenty of ways to prepare for the tenure decision and to press on when it does not go according to plan. Candidates need to make sure that they are summoning all possible resources to secure tenure. And they should recognize that a denial, if it comes, can actually have a silver lining by forcing researchers to take stock of their strengths and choose a new path.

In the United States at least, tenure has become harder to achieve. Survey data released this month by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in Washington DC found that the proportion of assistant professors in non-tenure-track posts was 23.4% for 2013–14, compared with 20.8% for 2010–11. At the same time, the 2014 National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators report that the proportion of US-trained science and engineering PhD holders working in academia that has achieved tenure fell from 53% to 48% between 1997 and 2010. Although tenure success rates can be more than 80%, they are much lower at some universities — particularly at prominent private ones known for their selectivity, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge (see Nature 495, 28–31; 2013). In Europe, tenure-track positions are becoming more popular (see 'Success in Europe').

Perhaps the best way to deal with suspicions of tenure denial is to seek out candid assessments, and not just be content with informal words of encouragement from colleagues.

Most universities have some kind of formal evaluation at the mid-way point to tenure, generally after three to four years of employment. Some have gone further, taking steps to increase transparency in the tenure process and to improve mentoring to provide tenure candidates with better feedback. The provost at Stanford University in California runs workshops for assistant professors every year to demystify the tenure process, and the University of California system has created a peer-review process that involves the department chair and faculty members and takes place every two years. In 2012, the Women Faculty Forum at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, piloted a programme called 'side-step mentoring' in which junior female faculty members are matched with mentors from another department, in part to help them to navigate the tenure process. The approach has now been adopted university-wide.

“Ask for the critical, meaty stuff, such as 'How many peer-reviewed articles, grants, or books are expected?',” says Mark Aldenderfer, an anthropologist and dean of the School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts at the University of California, Merced. “An honest mentor needs to be part of the game plan.”

A frank self-assessment can help, too — not just of performance but also of how well the researchers think they fit into a university's research environment. “Lots of times, the people who don't get tenure have done brilliant work; it just doesn't fit into a coherent programme that matches the mission of the department,” says Lisa Graumlich, dean of the College of the Environment at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Young faculty members should become adept at reading the political dynamics at play. “Everyone acknowledges that there is a political part to tenure, but no one likes to admit it,” says Priyamvada Natarajan, a Yale astronomer and former chair of the Women Faculty Forum. Still, it is a balancing act: ducking department politics by never talking at faculty meetings or expressing an opinion can be damaging. “Young faculty need to find their own personal strength to express their point of view, and not fade into the woodwork,” says Graumlich. “Otherwise how can colleagues determine whether they have the potential to become leaders?”

Back up or backfire?

Networking is never more important than at the tenure stage. If external experts are unwilling to write a letter of support for the tenure application, then they either don't know you or don't want to write a negative letter. Neither is a positive sign.

A robust network of colleagues can also help to send signals of interest in switching to another university when aspiring researchers feel that tenure is unlikely. When ecologist Brendan Bohannan saw a friend and colleague one year his senior denied tenure at a prestigious university, he got nervous. “I didn't understand the decision and decided I needed a safety net,” he says. He got in touch with his network of colleagues, formally applied for four positions, and ended up securing a tenured post at the University of Oregon in Eugene.

Researchers need to tread carefully here. Although it is wise to cover bases, the efforts can be misinterpreted: if word gets out to colleagues, they may come to question the commitment of the candidate. “I see a lot of people wasting time doing this, but it doesn't create the safety net people think it's going to,” says Graumlich. “Mulling over an exciting, unsolicited opportunity is one thing, but you don't want to appear to be playing a game by trolling for jobs.”

But the opposite can also be true. “I've seen people who come up for tenure start getting offers, and it changes the framing for the tenure decision,” says Karen Cook, Stanford's vice-provost for faculty development and diversity. “The question becomes, 'do we want to lose this person?'.”

The worst-case scenario is being surprised by a tenure denial — yet it is hardly uncommon. Some may choose to appeal. This, if nothing else, offers a way for people who feel they have been mistreated to channel their anger and frustration, says Greg Scholtz, director of academic freedom, tenure and governance at the AAUP. And they may feel that by filing a grievance, they are improving an institution's policies and helping those who come after them. In rare cases, appeals are successful, but usually the decision was close and just a few faculty members needed to change their votes to reverse the decision.

The AAUP sometimes intervenes if procedural steps — inadequate notice of denial, no written reasons given for denial or no opportunity given to appeal — are not followed. Since 2000, it has handled around 200 such cases but intervened, or formally communicated with university administrations on the complainant's behalf, in only 10–20% of those.

Those left behind

The tenure process can be heart-wrenching not only for those who are denied, but also for the colleagues they leave behind. When Liz Hadly was a new assistant professor studying ecology at Stanford, she formed strong bonds with her tenure-track colleagues. Ultimately, though, she was the only one to get tenure.

It tore those relationships apart and left Hadly with something akin to survivor's guilt. “We were all very close, had written grants together,” she says. “I considered them respected colleagues.”

They did have one thing in common, she recalls — they all channelled their emotions into finding new opportunities. A few got jobs at other research institutions and one went on to be incredibly successful in business. “People land on their feet quickly if they are well known and well regarded,” Hadly says.

Moving forward

Ultimately, those denied tenure have to move on — and that generally means seeking out a faculty position elsewhere. Search committees will, understandably, want to know what happened.

Lisa Graumlich: “Young faculty need to find their own personal strength to express their point of view.”

Candidates should therefore be sure to understand why they were denied tenure and be able to present the setback in context. Bohannan says that the people he has seen weather tenure denial made clear to prospective employers why they were denied tenure to counter the perception of sub-par performance. For example, if a candidate's publication record is thin, but they have multiple publications in the pipeline, they could argue that the decision was premature.

Colleagues can help. When writing letters for people who have been denied tenure, Cook says, she focuses on the strengths of the candidate, their research record, teaching accomplishments and the role that they have in the institution. Those skills don't just disappear, and other universities are often only too happy to scoop up high-quality candidates.

Life in academia can go on after a tenure denial (see 'Moving on'). “Almost everyone in the academy knows wonderful stories of people who got denied and found the right home,” says University of California vice-provost Susan Carlson. “It's certainly not the end of the road.”