|Current Status: Active PolicyStat ID: 2194269|
Annual Faculty Reviews
Annual Faculty Review
CGU expects that all faculty members conscientiously and with professional competence discharge the duties appropriately associated with their positions. In order to insure that these expectations are met individually and collectively, there is a system of annual review of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty members whose appointments, at some time, require APT review. The primary purposes of this annual review is to assist faculty in setting and meeting meaningful professional goals and also to assess their performance in meeting professional responsibilities in the domains of scholarship, teaching and mentoring, and service. The reviews are used to recognize and judge faculty performance relative to disciplinary and university standards, and they also inform deliberations about merit salary increases, retention negotiations, and remediation and development efforts. In addition, copies of annual reviews are submitted to APT for consideration as part of its review processes for faculty renewal, tenure, and promotion. Information supplied for annual reviews also may be highlighted in various CGU publications or used to identify and call attention to faculty accomplishments and interests.
Information, Timing, and Review Period
Multiple sources and different types of information are used in conducting annual reviews. Some of the information is supplied directly by faculty members, whereas some of the information is compiled from university sources and records by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE). Each tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty member whose appointment, at some time, requires/required APT review is responsible for providing updated information and verifying the accuracy of university-compiled information for the prior calendar year by February 1 of each year. A faculty member who has served written notice of intent to retire or end their employment with CGU is not required to participate in the annual review process.
University-compiled information is made available to faculty members for inspection and approval well in advance of the February 1 deadline. Faculty members submit their materials (updated curriculum vitae and responses to open ended questions) electronically. The sources of data and how they are obtained or accessed are shown in the Appendix. The Provost or individual Unit Heads/School Deans may request time-limited supplements or permanent additions to this information data base, and especially in response to pressing institutional needs or when new and relevant data become available for use (including information that may be discipline-specific).
Although faculty reviews are conducted annually, they consider a rolling three-year period of scholarly and creative, teaching and mentoring, and service activity. This larger window of activity is specifically used in order to identify performance patterns. In addition, this three-year window helps account for natural fluctuations in scholarly productivity, teaching cycles, and service appointments, as well as in regularly scheduled periods of sabbatical leave.
Review Process and Responsibilities of Unit Head/School Dean
Review Rubrics and Benchmarks. Each Unit Head/School Dean, in consultation with the Provost and after seeking other input as deemed appropriate, develops a rubric or rubrics for combining sources of information to assess faculty performance overall and that also provides for separate assessment of faculty performance in the domains of scholarship, teaching and mentoring, and service. These rubrics take into consideration discipline-specific standards and practices, as well as discipline-specific metrics. They might also consider contributions to diversity, equal opportunity, and inclusion; unit or university missions, priorities, needs, and plans; as well as recent program and accreditation reviews and reports.
There are multiple models of faculty success, faculty members should develop and be working to develop different goals over time, and the external environment, including program and university needs, may change and evolve so as to differentially prioritize certain activities at different times. The definitions of faculty success are instantiated in performance benchmarks developed by the Unit Hear/School Dean in consultation with the Provost and after seeking other input as deemed appropriate. These benchmarks are likely to vary with discipline, stage of career, type of appointment, and internal or external demands and responsibilities (e.g., administrative appointments, grant-supported or professional service activities, etc.). The benchmarks should be consistent with established professional responsibilities and align with CGU APT guidelines and university-wide performance standards. These performance benchmarks or expectations are established in advance of faculty submitting their review materials. These benchmarks are used to assess faculty performance and in giving explicit and nuanced feedback to faculty members about their performance across multiple domains of professional responsibility.
Feedback to Faculty Members. When applied, the rubric and benchmarks are used to classify faculty members into one of five performance categories: superior, above expected, expected, below expected, or inadequate. At minimum, these categories are used to characterize the overall performance of faculty members, although they also can be used to separately characterize faculty performance in terms of scholarship, teaching and mentoring, and service. Faculty members within a unit, department, or school are likely to be distributed across the performance categories so that few faculty members are typically classified as "superior" or "inadequate," and the majority fall into the "expected" performance category.
In addition to performance category information, the Unit Head/School Dean is responsible for preparing individualized written feedback for each faculty member. This feedback should summarize their assessments and help guide the continuing professional development and growth of the faculty member. The written feedback should also comment on the scope and appropriateness of the faculty member's stated professional goals and note the degree of progress the faculty member has made toward accomplishing those goals.
Subsequent to transmitting the individualized written feedback, the Unit Head/School Dean holds an individual meeting with each faculty member in his or her academic unit. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the faculty member's review materials and goals as well as the Unit Head/School Dean's assessments and classification(s) based on appropriate rubrics and benchmarks. In addition, new professional goals can be developed, and helpful resources and training opportunities can be identified and discussed.
Recommendations to Provost. By May 1, the Unit Head/School Dean forwards to the Provost by a summary of the results for his or her academic unit, including identifying the performance categories of each faculty member and copies of the written feedback distributed to each faculty member. These results may be accompanied by requests for special awards or recognition, and also may be used in negotiating merit salary increases and bonuses.
A faculty member who believes that a rubric has been misapplied or that inappropriate or incorrect benchmarks have been utilized in their review can appeal their classification(s). This appeal should be submitted in writing within two weeks of receiving the written assessment of their performance, and should focus on correcting factual errors, identifying differences of interpretation, and explaining how established rubrics or benchmarks are inappropriate or have been misapplied. The Unit Head/School Dean may revise their written assessment based on material presented as part of this appeal or opt to forward the written appeal along with the original assessment of the faculty member to the Provost.
The Provost will review the submitted materials within a reasonable period of time, and at his or her discretion, arrange a meeting with the faculty member and/or Unit Head/School Dean, to insure that all relevant information has been included in the performance assessment and that appropriate rubrics and benchmarks have been fairly applied. The Provost will then determine the final assessment of the faculty member for this annual review cycle, including category placement and feedback.
If this appeal process is unsuccessful in reaching satisfactory resolution, the faculty member has two weeks in which to initiate a formal grievance in accord with CGU's formal grievance process (see http://cgu.edu/Include/handbook/Faculty%20Grievance.pdf). The basis of this grievance should be an allegation that there has been an infringement, breach, misinterpretation, or misapplication of CGU policy or procedures for annual reviews.
Patterns of Under-performance and Ameliorative Action
Although expected to be rare, the annual review may reveal patterns of under-performance among some faculty members. Specifically, an overall performance assessment of "inadequate" in any annual review or three consecutive overall performance assessments of "below expected" are defined as a persistent pattern of under-performance. In these instances, and after consulting with the relevant Unit Head/School Dean, the Provost will meet with the individual faculty member to discuss circumstances that may have contributed to this pattern of under-performance. The goal of this meeting is for the Provost and faculty member to jointly develop a mutually agreeable plan to encourage improvement of performance through the vehicle most appropriate for the individual; this plan may include change in duties and terms of appointment.
Alternatively, and if there is disagreement between the Provost and the faculty member about the faculty member's judged pattern of under-performance (either an annual review classification as "inadequate" or three consecutive classifications as "below expected"), an appeal can be made to have APT review the written documents from the review (e.g., review information from the faculty member and OIT, copies of the Unit Head/School Dean assessment, the faculty member's appeal letter, etc.). In this case, APT is charged with determining whether the faculty member's performance is, in fact, below what is expected or inadequate as judged against institution-wide standards. The Provost will transmit relevant files to APT with a request that the committee review the materials at its next scheduled meeting or as expeditiously as possible. Following its review, APT shall prepare a written statement of its evaluation of the case. This evaluation may include separate commentary on each performance domain, but should also include an overall assessment of the faculty member's performance. APT's written statement is sent to the faculty member under review, the Unit Head/School Dean, and the Provost. If APT determines that the assessment received by the faculty member is warranted, then the Provost will take appropriate action after further consultation with the faculty member and relevant Unit Head/School Dean.
A pattern of under-performance may be used as grounds for withholding salary increases or denying sabbatical leave privileges. In the case of substandard performance that is judged to be clear dereliction of duty, the Provost could decide to pursue disciplinary charges against the faculty member through the Faculty Disciplinary Committee (see http://cgu.edu/include/handbook/Faculty%20Disciplinary%20Policy.pdf).
Free-response questions completed by faculty member:
Adopted by CGU Board of Trustees on June 3, 2015