Annual Evaluation
Annual evaluation provides an opportunity for a collaboration between faculty members and their supervisors about achievements, areas for improvement, and a realistic assessment of performance in areas of responsibility. The annual evaluation materials and report should be accompanied by a discussion between the faculty member and their supervisor, as well as mentors and colleagues of the faculty member, about how best to support the success and continued contributions of the faculty member.
These guidelines are for annual reviews, which are required to be completed for all faculty annually (see requirements in University Rule 12.01.99.M1). College guidelines should also be consulted for specific process and criteria through a collaboration among the faculty and administrators in each college.
Process
The annual review provides the process to evaluate the faculty member’s accomplishments in the context of departmental, college/school, and university goals. Annual reviews are to be conducted in an environment of openness and collegiality, with an emphasis on the constructive development of the individual faculty member and the institution.
The focus of the annual review process will vary by title and rank. For academic professional track faculty, the annual review process will serve primarily as an evaluation focusing on performance and potential for reappointment and promotion. For tenured or tenure-track faculty, the annual review must take into account the fact that progress in a scholarly career is a long-term venture; therefore, a three to five-year horizon may be necessary for the accurate evaluation of scholarly progress. Furthermore, an annual review process should be conducted differently depending on the different stages of a faculty member's career. For all non-tenured faculty on tenure track, the annual review process must provide feedback on progress toward tenure and/or promotion. For tenured associate professors, the process must be used to identify the faculty member's progress toward promotion to professor. For faculty not on tenure track the annual review must provide feedback on renewal of appointment and progress made toward promotion to the next higher rank if applicable.
Department heads/deans with faculty who have budgeted joint appointments will collaborate with the heads of the appropriate units to develop accurate annual reviews. In all cases, there should be one unit where more than 50% of the appointment is located or where the faculty and unit leaders have agreed the administrative responsibility of annual evaluation is located; the unit leader is responsible for the final evaluation. Leaders of units in which a faculty member holds non-budgeted or administrative appointments can submit input to be considered as part of the review process.
Each faculty member should receive a single review. In cases of a budgeted joint appointment, the department head of the ad loc unit for the faculty member will take primary responsibility and incorporate feedback from the other unit. In cases of a partial administrative appointment, the department head of the ad loc unit for the faculty member will take primary responsibility and incorporate feedback from the administrative supervisor. In cases of a majority administrative appointment, the administrative supervisor will take primary responsibility and incorporate feedback from the academic supervisor proportionate to the academic appointment of the faculty member.
Evaluation Report
A written document stating the department head's evaluation for the year, considering weight assigned to activities, as well as any areas of concern, will be provided to the faculty member. The faculty member indicates receipt by signing a copy of the document and should be allowed to provide written comments for the file if they so choose. A faculty member refusing to sign the receipt of the document will be noted in the file. All documents will be placed in the faculty member's personnel file.
Annual reviews should include an informed judgment by the administrator of the extent to which the faculty member complies with applicable rules, policies, and procedures. No faculty member may receive an overall satisfactory rating if they are out of compliance with System Regulation 33.05.02, which addresses required training.
When there is a change of department head, care should be taken not to disrupt continuity. It is expected, however, that performance criteria and college and department priorities may change over time. Faculty members must be kept informed of current expectations and have input into changes in evaluation guidelines through shared governance.
Relation to Merit Considerations
In all cases, the annual review shall serve as the primary documentation for the evaluation of job performance in the areas of assigned responsibility and for merit salary increases.