Girish.P,

You are facing quite a common issue. I am assuming you are employed in a US university. Is it a teaching or research university? Some of these factors can help me focus my answer to your problem.

I have served on tenure and promotion committees at the department, college and university levels at a couple of universities. So I have quite a bit of experience on these issues.

Lets break down your case. Tenure is typically made up of 4 components. Research, teaching, service and factor X. (Factor x= is the unknown, which nobody talks about, could be political, they dont have the line, etc).

You dont talk about your teaching or service. I am assuming its well over the average compared to the rest of the university.

That leaves the research and the factor X, which in your case is the political factors you mentioned.

Lets begin with factor X. This is something that is tough to deal with since nobody wants to talk about it in public. My recommendation is forget about political factors. Simply because its so intangible and can consume so much of your time, and thus is not worth it.

That leaves Research. You seem to have a good research record for an up and coming researcher at a mid level school. As you are at a university with aspirations, looking at past records of tenured faculty is not a good measure. Standards change all the time. Its not political or anything personal but just reality.

Given that both your dept head and dean have recommended you dont go up for tenure is something to consider carefully. Let me explain why.
1. There is no political motivation and they are just advising you of the reality.
2. There is political motivation, and they just dont want you at the university.

I suspect its point #1. However in either case, its tough hurdle to overcome. Sure you can apply and fight the process. The problem with that is you are going to lose a lot of time, money, energy and general health, as well as the opportunity cost of future publications. I have seen far too many of my friends suffer because of this.

How about applying for tenure and hoping for the best. Nothing wrong with that. Is being turned down for tenure better than resigning? Frankly, it does not matter at all. There is no stigma either way. Many of the most productive have been turned down for tenure. The only issue with applying is the time it takes to prepare the package. Since you need to prepare these documents one day anyway why not apply?

And also remember things change so fast. You may have a new dean next month, who may feel that you are a good fit. One just never knows.

So my advice to you is as follows.

1. Forget all the political factors. Dont waste time discussing it.
2. Apply for tenure (put up a great packet). Noone can stop you from doing that
3. Continue working hard on your research and teaching.
4. Keep looking for other jobs.

These 4 factors will keep you productive, healthy, happy and very successful.

Very sound advice. I would just emphasize the continuing to look for another job. Even if you are awarded tenure, do you really want to work in that environment long term? Getting tenure will allow you more freedom to look. Also, be ready for denial, although this will give you a much shorter window (although generally there is a terminal year contract). One other suggestion, consider having a meeting with both your chair and the dean (probably difficult to get them together) to let them know that you appreciate their counsels, but that you would like to go through with the process and that you value their input in putting together the best portfolio you can.

Many forward-looking schools have a midstream review 3 years into the tenure track. The purpose of this midstream review is to see how the candidate's progress on the tenure track is going. Their research is reviewed, including how many papers have been published, are in review, are being worked on, and being planned.

The problem usually arises when Colleges are reluctant to act even after a midstream review is disappointing. Very few schools will fire the professor under review; instead they will give them very dire warnings in an effort to "shake them up" and have them speed up their work to make it at tenure time. Thus in all my years, I am yet to see a midstream review result in a dismissal. Since papers take a couple years from inception to publication, most committees know the most likely outcome of tenure appraisal during such midstream reviews. However, hope always seems to triumph over rational straight line projections of the candidates current record into the future.