Striving for equity in academia: embracing the power of no in decision-making

Abstract

In academia, saying “yes” to opportunities and “no” to distractions is crucial for effective decision-making. Here, we emphasize the importance of carefully considering commitments and courageously declining those that may lead to overextension. We highlight that discernment is vital, particularly for junior faculty/scientists and those with marginalized identities, as overcommitment can hinder career advancement. The “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test” offers a practical heuristic for evaluating opportunities, enabling academics to make informed choices. Saying “no” effectively involves preserving personal and professional integrity by declining tasks that do not align with one’s abilities or interests. However, challenges in saying “no” are multifaceted, including fear of missing career advancements, pressures to please superiors or peers, and perceived negative consequences. This decision can be even more complex for individuals with minoritized identities, as additional expectations and responsibilities may arise due to implicit biases. The article provides a scheme for academics when deciding whether to accept or decline opportunities. The “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test” is a simplified scheme based on the Japanese concept of Ikigai, which comes from two words that mean life’s purpose. The concept allows an individual to determine their reason for being and aim to align their time spent with as many components that satisfy the following four categories: what one loves, what one is good at, what one can be paid for, and what the world needs. The more overlap, the more alignment with Ikigai, and the more compelling reason to say yes. Once one has determined that they can say no, effectively saying “no” involves clear and direct communication, offering alternatives, expressing gratitude, and considering a “not now” approach if unable to commit immediately. To promote inclusivity, we suggest recommending individuals from diverse backgrounds for opportunities. By amplifying underrepresented voices, we can foster a healthier academic environment. Saying “no” empowers academics to prioritize meaningful contributions and maintain work–life balance. Embracing the power of “no” is essential for maintaining integrity and well-being in academia. Junior faculty/scientists and individuals with marginalized identities may face additional challenges in their decision-making. By carefully evaluating commitments and effectively declining non-aligning opportunities, academics can focus on what truly matters, fostering a supportive and thriving academic environment.

The article underscores the pivotal role of judicious decision-making in academia, advocating for the discernment to embrace valuable opportunities and the courage to decline distractions, thereby preserving integrity, ensuring work–life balance, and promoting an equitable distribution of opportunities to foster a diverse and inclusive professional landscape.

Introduction

In academia, the ability to say “yes” to opportunities and “no” to distractions is a critical skill that requires careful consideration and courage (Hinton et al. 2020, Somerville et al. 2021). In most cases, saying “yes” can open doors to new opportunities, collaborations, and advancements, leading to professional growth, novel discoveries, and impactful contributions to one’s field. In concert with the apparent attraction of accepting new opportunities, antiquated principles such as increased work and commitments signifying academic productivity can also prompt overzealous commitment to tasks. Consequently, most individuals—particularly junior faculty/scientists—are unlikely to receive systematic academic training on making and navigating complex decisions and complicating distinguishing optimal commitments (Bankston and McDowell 2018, Zimmerman 2018).

Decision-making in academia is not just about individual growth but is intrinsically linked to fostering equity. The continual acceptance of new roles and responsibilities can lead to overcommitment and, in some instances, underperformance in other areas. This is particularly challenging for those with marginalized identities (Titanji et al. 2022). In a landscape where opportunities and resources have historically been unequally distributed, individuals from marginalized groups may feel compelled to accept opportunities presented as a means to advance and overcome existing barriers. This can lead to a cycle of overextension, where the quality of work and well-being are compromised, undermining the goals these opportunities are meant to support.

Furthermore, the systemic inequities embedded in academia can result in these individuals being offered opportunities that are less about professional advancement and more about filling quotas or being allocated an unfair share of service and committee work (Rodríguez et al. 2015, Campbell and Rodríguez 2019, Carson et al. 2019). This hinders professional growth and perpetuates inequity within the academic ecosystem; the disparities in academic promotion rates observed across marginalized groups are a testament to this. Several studies have shown that women are promoted at lower rates when compared to men, and racially/ethnically minoritized individuals are promoted up to 7 years later than their white counterparts (Bickel and Whiting 1991, Carr et al. 1992, Fang et al. 2000, Bissell et al. 2021, Abdul-Mutakabbir et al. 2022).

Therefore, empowering all academics, especially those from historically excluded backgrounds, to exercise judgment in accepting or declining opportunities is a step toward redressing these imbalances. It fosters an environment where individuals are evaluated and offered opportunities based on merit and potential rather than preconceived biases or stereotypes. In this reimagined landscape, saying “no” becomes a powerful tool for equity, enabling every academic to prioritize opportunities that align with their skills, interests, and career aspirations and contributing to a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable academic environment.

Saying “yes” and the importance of saying “no”

The primary factor in assuming new roles and responsibilities lies in discerning which opportunities align with one’s professional goals and personal values and which ones may lead to overextension or compromise the quality of work. Academics must maintain professional integrity by only agreeing to what they can genuinely commit to and complete at a high standard. This often involves making difficult decisions and prioritizing tasks based on relevance, feasibility, and potential impact.

Before considering whether to accept an opportunity, evaluating whether declining as an option is critical. Saying “no” is not a standalone decision; it’s tied to various academic responsibilities. It requires balancing personal goals with the needs of the department and institution. Each decision impacts the individual, their professional roles, and the broader organizational goals. So, the first step is to assess the broader effects and practicality of saying “no,” ensuring that such a decision is as well considered as saying “yes.”

What are the reasons driving saying “yes” to an opportunity? They are aligned with one’s personal mission or reason for being. Professionals need to determine this to align their decision-making with their mission.

Ikigai (Schippers and Ziegler 2019) is a Japanese concept that refers to the reason for being, a source of value in one’s life, or the things that make one’s life worthwhile. It is often associated with the happiness and satisfaction derived from balancing four fundamental elements.

• What you love (your passion) refers to what brings you joy and fulfillment.

• What the world needs (your mission) refers to what the world, or your community, requires and values.

• What you are good at (your vocation) refers to your skills and talents, the things you excel at.

• What you can be paid for (your profession) is about making a living from your skills and talents.

The intersection of these four elements is where Ikigai is found, leading to balance, fulfillment, and contentment. It is a holistic perspective that integrates personal passions, skills, and societal contributions, emphasizing a balanced lifestyle that is both personally fulfilling and socially valuable. For any particular opportunity, the more aligned with Ikigai, the more compelling the reason to say “yes.”

While Ikigai offers a profound pathway to evaluate opportunities, the “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test” is a pragmatic tool for quick assessment. This can be used as a litmus test to gauge the immediate and tangible impacts of the opportunity (Fig. 1B).

Figure 1.

Frameworks of decision-making in academia. (A) Ikigai concept: Illustrates the intricate intersection of four fundamental elements—what you love (passion), what the world needs (mission), what you are good at (vocation), and what you can be paid for (profession). Each element is represented as a distinct yet overlapping section, converging at the center to depict Ikigai—the epitome of personal and professional fulfillment. (B) Fame, Fortune, and Fun Buckets: depicts three distinct buckets representing the criteria of Fame, Fortune, and Fun. “Fame” is characterized by enhanced professional visibility and reputation; “Fortune” emphasizes salary support, resources, and funding for impactful work; “Fun” underscores alignment with personal passions and interests. Each bucket is a filter to evaluate and categorize professional opportunities for balanced decision-making.

• Fame: Evaluate if an opportunity boosts professional visibility and reputation, offering a platform to highlight skills and achievements to a broader audience.

• Fortune: Assesses the availability of salary support, resources, or funding that enables the execution of important, impactful work beyond financial gain.

• Fun: Examines the alignment of the opportunity with personal passions, ensuring it brings joy and satisfaction, and is aligned with individual preferences.

If the task or commitment does not satisfy any of these, it is a sign that it would be wise to say “no.” The more strongly this commitment invitation satisfies each of these, the more compelling the reasons to say “yes.” This test provides a simple and effective way to quickly assess the potential benefits of a task or commitment and decide accordingly. Turning down functions that do not align with abilities or interests—or that bring fortune, fame, or fun—helps to prevent compromises in the quality of work and maintains the integrity of one’s academic pursuits. Table 1 shows some abstract examples of how this tool can be applied.

Table 1.

Examples of decision-making using the “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test.”

Example request	Details	Fame	Fortune	Fun	Decision
Invitation to speak at an international conference	This is on a topic that the faculty member has just published an important research study.	Accepting would enhance the individual’s academic reputation through the dissemination of their work and networking opportunities.	No direct financial gain.	The topic aligns with the individual’s passion and attending the conference might bring enjoyable opportunities to see colleagues.	Yes. Good alignment with Ikigai and passes the “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test.”
	This is on a topic that is not directly in the prevue of the faculty member.	Accepting could enhance the individual’s academic reputation through the dissemination of their work and networking opportunities.	No direct financial gain.	The topic does not align with the individual’s passion or expertise.	No. Poor alignment with Ikigai and fails “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test.”
Offer to run a new graduate course	This is a topic on which the faculty member has significant expertise and aligns with their research. It would also provide salary support.	Minimal impact on academic reputation unless the faculty member can disseminate innovative work.	It would provide additional income or protected time.	The individual does not enjoy additional teaching, but will be able to have an existing course removed from their teaching load to accommodate for the new course.	Yes. Good alignment with Ikigai and passes the “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test.”
	This is a topic that would require significant outside work to develop a curriculum in an area not familiar to the faculty member.	Minimal impact on academic reputation.	Extra income but at the expense of research time.	The individual does not enjoy additional teaching.	No. Poor alignment with Ikigai and fails “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test.”
Invitation to join a collaborative research initiative	This is an invitation to work with a group that has significant resources to contribute, which would greatly increase the impact of the collective scientific advancement.	The project’s innovative nature can boost reputation.	No immediate financial gain but potential future grants.	The project aligns with the individual’s interests and the individual likes to work with the collaborator.	Yes. Good alignment with Ikigai and passes the “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test.”
	The collaborator is interested in a topic that is peripherally related to the scientific expertise of the faculty member and would require significant resources from the investigative team.	Dissemination of work could result in building academic reputation.	No direct financial gain unless funding is successful.	The additional workload and purview outside of the specific area of expertise might limit enjoyment of this work.	No. Poor alignment with Ikigai and fails “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test.”
Invitation to lead a new DEI committee	The initiative aligns with the faculty member’s passion for social justice, and there is institutional support.	Enhances reputation by showcasing leadership and commitment to DEI.	This will allow protected time to do work.	The faculty member is passionate about DEI and finds this work rewarding.	Yes. Good alignment with Ikigai and passes the “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test.”
	The initiative has little institutional support and resources.	Minimal impact on reputation as it is seen as a mandatory activity.	No financial gain and requires a significant time investment.	The faculty member is passionate about DEI and finds this work rewarding.	No. Poor alignment with Ikigai and fails “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test.”

Note: these examples are simplified and abstract. In reality, decision-making is a complex process influenced by a myriad of factors, including personal circumstances, professional obligations, mental and physical health, and more. These examples are meant to illustrate the concepts but should not be taken as exhaustive or universally applicable.

While a valuable tool, the “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test” has certain limitations that warrant consideration. Its criteria are subjective, and outcomes vary greatly depending on individual values and perspectives. The test does not fully encapsulate the dynamic and complex nature of the professional environment, and it may not always accommodate the intricate nuances of real-world decision-making, which is often influenced by a blend of emotional, psychological, and ethical factors. A significant limitation is the test’s lack of provision for evaluating the time and effort required for each opportunity. This crucial aspect directly impacts an individual’s capacity and well-being. Balancing fame, fortune, and fun can also be intricate, especially when these elements conflict. Moreover, the test does not inherently promote diversity and inclusion, nor does it explicitly consider the mental and physical well-being of the individual. As such, while helpful, the “Fame, Fortune, and Fun test” should be employed judiciously and in conjunction with a more comprehensive, holistic decision-making approach, ensuring that decisions are well-rounded, sustainable, and aligned with personal and professional objectives.

Another important note is the balancing act required to meet individual, departmental, and institutional needs. Saying “no” is not an isolated decision but is deeply intertwined with the broader academic responsibilities and commitments ecosystem. It’s a dance of aligning personal boundaries and career aspirations with the overarching goals and needs of the department and institution, ensuring a harmonious coexistence of individual and collective objectives. Each decision reflects an intricate tapestry woven from the threads of personal aspirations, professional obligations, and institutional expectations, requiring a nuanced approach that fosters an environment of quality, integrity, and inclusivity. It is important to assess first whether one can say no.

Challenges of saying “no”

The prospect of turning down an opportunity can be daunting, and the reasonings for this can be explained as multifaceted. The reasons may include the fear of missing out on potential career advancements, the pressure to please or impress superiors or peers, perceived negative consequences, cultural or social norms, and a lack of prioritization and time management skills. Furthermore, for junior faculty/scientists, the requirement for establishing a track record of productivity can make saying “no” feel unambitious. The power dynamic imbalance, often between junior and senior faculty, can also complicate the decision to say “no” to opportunities for fear of harsh repercussions.

The decision to say “no” can be even more complex for individuals with marginalized identities (i.e. race/ethnicity, sexual/gender, and disabled) due to the reasonings previously described in addition to perceived additional expectations and responsibilities (Hewertson and Tissa 2022, Rice et al. 2023). These expectations are often led by implicit and explicit biases, which can give rise to imposter syndrome—or the internalized fear of being exposed as a fraud—commonly reported amongst marginalized individuals (Russell 2017, Warraich et al. 2017, Inouye 2021, Hewertson and Tissa 2022). This may also lead to a reluctance to say “no” because of a fear of being perceived as unworthy or incapable, resulting in overcommitment and an inability to set boundaries.

In addition to this circumstance, cultural expectations and community pressures can also play a role in the challenges of saying “no” to individuals from marginalized backgrounds. Cultural norms, such as collectivism or communal solid ties, may emphasize the importance of collaboration and collective goals, making it easier to decline opportunities or requests without facing potential criticism or scrutiny from their community (Carrero 2002, Sherman et al. 2022). In concert with the need to be a voice for their respective community, marginalized individuals may experience stereotype threat, which is the fear of confirming negative stereotypes associated with their identity. This can create added pressure to comply with requests or opportunities to prove their capabilities and competence, even if not aligned with their goals or interests (Carrero 2002). An example would be the designation of additional responsibilities for marginalized individuals within their academic communities, such as serving as representatives or advocates for their communities, taking on mentoring roles, or participating in diversity and inclusion initiatives—the minority tax (Rodríguez et al. 2015, Campbell and Rodríguez 2019, Carson et al. 2019). These added responsibilities can make it harder to say “no” to other requests or commitments.

Recommendations for academics: knowing whether to say “yes” or “no”

The decision to decline opportunities in academia is complex and requires careful consideration of various factors. It is not merely a matter of personal preference or immediate convenience but a strategic choice that can significantly impact an academic’s career trajectory, emotional well-being, and contribution to their field. Here, we delve deeper into the factors that academics should consider when deciding whether to say “no.”

• Alignment with academic and personal goals. The first step in deciding whether to say “no” is to evaluate how the request or opportunity aligns with academic and personal goals. This involves considering whether the task or commitment contributes to long-term aspirations, research interests, or academic progress. If the task or responsibility aligns well and supports these goals, it may be worth saying “yes.” However, if it does not contribute to these objectives or even detracts from them, it may be more beneficial to say “no.”

• Assessment of time and resources. The next factor to consider is the time and resources required for the task or commitment. This involves a realistic assessment of the current workload, upcoming deadlines, and available resources. If taking on a new task would stretch resources too thin or lead to the neglect of other important duties, it may be necessary to say “no” to maintain a manageable workload and ensure high-quality work.

• Impact on existing commitments. Another important consideration is the impact of the new task or commitment on existing responsibilities. If saying “yes” would lead to neglect of other important tasks or commitments, or if it would result in overcommitment that could lead to burnout, it may be necessary to say “no.” Maintaining a balance of obligations is crucial for long-term success and well-being in academia.

• Personal boundaries and well-being. Personal boundaries and well-being should also be considered when deciding whether to say “no.” This involves evaluating whether saying “yes” would stretch personal boundaries, compromise mental or physical health, or impede personal life. Prioritizing self-care and maintaining personal boundaries is essential for long-term academic success and happiness. Saying “no” in such cases is a way of safeguarding personal well-being.

• Opportunity cost. Finally, the concept of opportunity cost is a crucial factor in the decision to say “no.” This involves considering what other opportunities or tasks could be pursued if time and resources were not devoted to the new task or commitment. If the potential benefits of these different opportunities outweigh the benefits of the new task or responsibility, it may be more beneficial to say “no” to the new task and “yes” to these other opportunities.

Saying “no” effectively

After deciding to say “no,” it is important to say “no” effectively. Moreover, saying “no” effectively involves being clear and direct, offering alternatives or solutions, expressing gratitude, using “I” statements to explain constraints, and considering a “not now” approach if unable to commit immediately. These strategies can help academics communicate their decision respectfully and assertively while maintaining positive relationships and fostering future collaboration possibilities. Additionally, the best leaders are inclusive and open-minded; therefore, saying “no” provides an opportunity to promote others in the field.

Thus, when recommending someone, always consider promoting underrepresented individuals. By actively seeking out and recommending people from diverse backgrounds, including women, people of color, individuals from marginalized communities, and those with disabilities, we can help amplify their voices and provide them with opportunities they may not otherwise have access to. Table 2 provides examples of how to say no.

Table 2.

Strategies for saying “no” effectively.

Concept	Example
Being clear and direct	“Thank you for considering me for this opportunity. I’ve reviewed the project details, and after careful consideration, I must decline at this time. My current commitments require my full attention, and I wouldn’t be able to give this project the focus it deserves.”
Offering alternatives or solutions	“I appreciate the invitation to join the editorial board. Unfortunately, I’m unable to commit at the moment. However, I can recommend Dr Smith, who has a wealth of experience in this field and may be interested and available.”
Expressing gratitude	“Thank you for the offer to speak at the conference. It’s an honor to be considered. Regrettably, I have a prior engagement on the same dates. I’m grateful for the opportunity and hope to collaborate in the future.”
Using “I” statements to explain constraints	“I’m honored by the invitation to contribute to your journal. However, I’m currently focused on several time-sensitive projects and won’t be able to provide the quality of work expected. I hope to collaborate on future editions.”
Promoting individuals who are underrepresented in the field	“While I’m unable to participate in the upcoming workshop, I’d like to recommend Dr Jones, a talented researcher in our field. She is an outstanding speaker has made significant contributions to the field.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, saying “no” is not just a personal decision but a strategic choice that holds profound implications for individual well-being, professional integrity, and the broader quest for equity in academia and the professional realm. It is crucial in preserving integrity, fostering a healthy work–life balance, and maintaining high-quality academic work. This is especially resonant for junior faculty/scientists and those with marginalized identities, who may face additional pressures and complexities in their decision-making process.

Every “no” can be an empowered “yes” to something else that serves better. It is not just about saying “no”; it is about saying “yes” to the things that truly matter, and in doing so, contributing to a shift toward a more equitable distribution of opportunities. When individuals, particularly those from historically excluded backgrounds, are empowered to decline opportunities that do not align with their goals or well-being, it prompts a reevaluation and redistribution of these opportunities, fostering a more inclusive and equitable professional landscape.

As Steve Jobs said, “People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I’m actually as proud of the things we haven’t done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying no to 1000 things.” In this light, every “no” becomes a catalyst for systemic change, driving organizations and institutions to reassess, diversify, and democratize opportunity allocation.

So, turn the fear of missing out into the joy of missing out and embrace the power of “no.” In doing so, we prioritize our well-being and professional integrity and contribute to unfolding a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive professional world where opportunities are accessible and available to all.

Funding

T. H. S. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH; R21AI52833, R01DA052255, R01DA054526); and positions on the IDSA Digital Strategy Advisory Group (Vice Chair), National Association of MD-PhD Programs Executive Committee, AAMC Group on Research, Education, and Training (GREAT) MD-PhD Section Steering Committee (Chair), and AAMC GREAT MD-PhD Section Communications Committee. J.A.M. has participated in advisory board for Shionogi and Entasis Therapeutics and has received an honorarium and is also an appointed member of the CVSH National Health Equity Advisory Board

Conflict of interest

None declared.