Copyright © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company 1 Florida International University 2 Florida International University Corresponding Author: Tonette S. Rocco, Florida International University, Department of Leadership and Professional Studies, 11200 SW 8th St, Miami, FL 33199 Author Email: Roccot@fiu.edu New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development 28(4), 1-2 Advice to Tenure Earning Faculty Tonette S. Rocco 1 Thomas G. Reio, Jr. 2 We are happy to say we are well-published, senior faculty members who have been promoted without a hitch to Associate and then to Full Professors. We have served also on tenure and promotion committees and writ- ten external evaluation letters. While a number of tenure and promotion applications have been solid, sorry to say we’ve had the unpleasant experience of discussing a colleague’s poor academic record when review- ing materials for promotion at both ranks. Some may think it is worse for the colleague who is being evaluat- ed poorly, and of course that is the case. Notwithstanding, it is hard on those of us left, as well, to evaluate the poor performance of a colleague. And it is worse still for the committee members when we review the file of a colleague who had repeatedly advised several members of the committee that everything was “fine” over the years. We just can’t imagine why the candidate would say things were fine, when help was in fact clearly needed. In our experience, senior faculty ask because we want to help; that is, we want to support our junior colleagues and we certainly don’t want to judge a file inadequate when tenure and promotion time comes. Each tenure-earning faculty member that has been voted down by the committees we’ve served on has shared things in common. First, several senior faculty spoke up detailing invitations and offers of assistance that were rejected, ignored, or started and not pursued by the junior faculty member. Second, these senior faculty were persistent and consistent in offers of mentoring help in various forms, ranging from advice on method, publication outlets, and invitations to submit to a journal or book edited by the senior faculty mem- ber, to co-authorships of peer-reviewed journal articles. Third, these faculty members were puzzled by the refusal of help; hearing the junior faculty members’ refrain being repeated, “I’m fine. My research is on track. Thanks again.” Fourth, the senior faculty member was frustrated and saddened by the reality that the junior colleague forced committee members into a position to vote against him or her. We didn’t vote against faculty because they didn’t take our advice or help. We voted against them because they didn’t publish enough, or had too few publications in top -tier journals, made poor publication decisions, and didn’t put their promotional materials together in a professional manner. And in most cases, there were additional issues with teaching, service, and collegiality. The first issue to discuss is quantity. At a Research Intensive University, quantity is important. The expecta- tion is two to three peer-reviewed articles a year, meaning then there should be ten to fifteen articles in five