OVERVIEW
A regular review of faculty can improve the quality of the teaching, research, and service functions of the University. In addition, it will benefit individual faculty members by assuring that they are regularly informed of their status. Such a review shall include input from colleagues and students from the faculty member’s own administrative unit as well as from other appropriate units. The written summary of the review shall be provided to the faculty member, and the faculty member shall have ample opportunity to add written rebuttals or explanations.
Administrative faculty shall also be reviewed in terms of their administrative function.
Frequency of Review. The procedure for the actual review is best developed by the individual school, college, or division. Nevertheless, certain guidelines are appropriate for the University as a whole. All faculty with an FTE of 0.5 or more shall be reviewed as follows:
- Those on annual tenure shall be reviewed annually.
- Those on indefinite tenure shall be reviewed as follows:
- Assistant and Associate Professors shall be reviewed annually during their second through fifth years in rank at OSU and during any period in which they are reviewed intensively for promotion in rank. Otherwise, they shall be reviewed at least once every three years.
- Professors and tenured Senior Instructors shall be reviewed at least once every three years.
- Those on fixed–term Senior Research, Practice, Teaching, and Clinical professorial appointments shall be reviewed as described for faculty with indefinite tenure.
- Other fixed–term faculty with academic rank not described in (3), Instructors, Faculty Research Assistants, Senior Faculty Research Assistants, untenured Senior Instructors, and Research Associates, shall be reviewed annually during their first five years of service; during any period in which they are being reviewed intensively for promotion in rank and at least once every three years thereafter.
- Professional Faculty shall be reviewed annually.
- Faculty on multi–year or extended fixed–term appointments shall be reviewed annually.
However, no periodic review is required for the following faculty members on fixed–term appointments:
- Emeritus appointments
- Temporary postdoctoral appointments
- Visiting appointments for two years or less.
Any faculty member eligible for review is entitled to a review at any time, upon the member’s request.
Each school, college, or division shall annually report those members of its faculty reviewed to University Human Resources.
Nature of the Evaluation.
In each instance, the evaluation shall include
- a statement of current responsibilities of the faculty member; and
- signed comments on the faculty member’s progress in teaching, research or other scholarly pursuits, extension, librarianship, professionally related service, and University service from those persons designated by the department, school, or University to make the evaluations.
The sources of information used as the basis for the evaluation should be included. Sources to be used are current and former students, other faculty from this University or other universities, professional colleagues and, if appropriate, the public. In all instances, the evaluation shall be based only on material that is appropriate to the faculty member’s profession and the performance of faculty assignments.
The faculty member must be provided the opportunity of reading and initialing the evaluation and of furnishing written comments, explanations, or a rebuttal to the evaluations to be placed in the faculty member’s personnel records file. Disagreements on the contents of the file should be handled through normal University appeal procedures.
Initiation and Disposition.
The initiation of the review, except one requested by a faculty member, is the responsibility of the department head or chair or the appropriate administrative officer. Principal investigators are reminded that all faculty on their projects, including Faculty Research Assistants, should be reviewed following the guidelines in this chapter.
The review and all related materials are to be placed in the faculty member’s personnel records file that is maintained by the department.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts, Deans, Department Heads/Chairs, and other major unit leaders will receive continuous counsel on their effectiveness, including specific suggestions when improvement is needed.
Evaluation of their performance shall be one element of their annual review with their supervisor. In addition, they will be formally reviewed at intervals not to exceed five years. Formal reviews will include a request for input from individuals internal and external to OSU.
Annual Performance Reviews
No standard procedure for annual performance reviews will fit all cases because administrative positions vary greatly in scope and complexity. However, each performance evaluation shall be conducted personally by the administrator’s supervisor. This evaluation will be a part of the supervisor’s annual program/budget review and planning session. It is important that the process for annual reviews be transparent, including the time of year annual reviews are to be completed so that faculty, staff, and students may provide input should they wish to do so.
Annual evaluations may include the following and will provide opportunities for self-assessment:
- Key results for the past year.
- Key strengths in achieving those results.
- Key challenges and obstacles.
- A list of key goals/initiatives that are essential to address during the current academic year (these will be the unit leader’s main focus areas) and a description of what would constitute success in each of the goals/initiatives
The supervisor will meet with each direct report to discuss the accomplishments for the previous academic year and the goals for the current academic year.
The supervisor will write a memo summarizing the annual review meeting. The original will go to the unit leader, and a copy will be placed in the personnel file maintained in the supervisor’s office.
FORMAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts, Deans, Department Heads/Chairs, and other major unit leaders will be formally reviewed at intervals not to exceed five years. The first objective of the five-year evaluation is to evaluate past performance of individuals in leading their academic units or divisions on factors such as achievement of unit's strategic goals, mentoring and development of faculty and staff, and developing relationships with appropriate external constituents that will help position the unit for success in external grants and contracts, private philanthropy, and legislative funding priorities. The second and related objective is to seek input to help those administrators to better perform their responsibilities and to help them succeed in the future.
Formal reviews will provide opportunities for substantive input from
- all faculty, staff, and students within the unit;
- groups inside and outside the University who are significantly affected by the administrator's performance; and
- others in a position to observe and evaluate the incumbent's performance effectively.
Continuation of the incumbent's administrative appointment following the periodic performance evaluation requires a letter from the supervisor formalizing the action to continue the appointment. Should the supervisor wish to change any of the terms and conditions of the employee’s appointment, he/she is to contact the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs prior to issuing a letter to continue the appointment.
Process:
The supervisor requests the following from the incumbent:
- A list of individuals to contact regarding the incumbent’s performance. The comprehensive list must include all faculty and staff within the unit, and can be as extensive as needed. The list should include both internal and external colleagues and peers, if appropriate. The supervisor must give all faculty and staff within the unit an opportunity to provide input, but may or may not contact everyone else on the list, and may or may not add to the list.
- A current position description.
- A current CV.
- A brief document that includes significant accomplishments and future strategic goals for the incumbent and their college/division.
- A signed Waiver of Access to the raw information gathered, or a memo indicating the incumbent does not wish to waive access. The incumbent has a legal right to review all input from reviewers. However, they may waive access to the raw input if preferred. It is important that the supervisor makes clear to the reviewers whether or not the incumbent will retain their right to access the information. If a Waiver is signed, the supervisor will share with the aggregate input with the unit leader, sans attribution.
Once the list of contacts is finalized, the supervisor will provide a copy of the position description to individuals from whom he/she wishes to receive input and will ask that they respond to the following questions. (The unit leader may make suggestions for additional questions that might provide meaningful input.)
- What is your appraisal of ___’s overall effectiveness in her/his role as described in the position description?
- How does ___’s performance meet your expectations?
- What do you see as ___’s greatest strengths in this role?
- What do you see as major weaknesses or areas of specific concern in ___’s performance in her/his role?
- Do you have specific recommendations for improvement in ___’s performance?
- Other comments?
Input will be handled with the very strictest confidence and assuming a Waiver of Access has been signed, the incumbent will see a summary of input, sans attribution.
The supervisor will provide the incumbent with a summary of the major themes from the input and will meet with the incumbent to discuss the results of the evaluation, the incumbent’s goals, and any other issues.
This memo from the supervisor will become part of the incumbent’s official evaluation file in accordance with the Faculty Records Policy. The incumbent will be asked to sign the memo and add any comments, explanations or rebuttal they wish. A copy of the document will remain with the incumbent. The review and all related materials will be secured in the incumbent’s personnel records file maintained by the supervisor.
Disagreements on the contents of the review and/or the file are to be handled through the normal University appeal procedures.