Author: Jones JH
Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2025. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000007728
This letter to the editor challenges academic medicine’s pursuit of “perfection” in faculty advancement. The author reflects on clinical training—where complications, rejected manuscripts, or declined grants are seen as part of growth—and argues that advancement systems should embrace imperfection as a marker of engagement rather than risk-aversion. In some institutions, only “sure things” are put forward for promotion to ensure perfect success rates, which may unintentionally slow faculty development and discourage innovation.
The letter stresses that advancing diverse academic contributions—clinical care, teaching, mentorship, and service—is critical, and that striving for universal success may undervalue the full spectrum of scholarly growth. Rather than pursuing flawless advancement records, departments should foster environments where imperfection signals meaningful contribution and resilience.
What You Should Know
• Perfection in clinical and academic settings is rare and can be misleading.
• Manuscript rejections, grant denials, and clinical complications are part of professional growth.
• Risk-averse promotion structures may suppress innovation and slow career development.
• Departments should value a broad spectrum of contributions, not just perfect publication or grant records.
• Embracing imperfection encourages resilience, inclusivity, and long-term advancement.
Practice Implication
Academic anesthesiology programs should reassess advancement metrics to ensure that imperfection is recognized as part of growth. Supporting faculty through setbacks, and rewarding teaching, mentorship, and clinical care alongside traditional metrics, may help cultivate stronger, more diverse leaders.
References
Jones JH. Anesth Analg. 2025. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000007728
Thank you Anesthesia & Analgesia for allowing us to use this article.