Annual Performance Review
The annual performance review serves three distinct purposes:
- To comply with Board of Regents requirements to encourage faculty to establish goals for continued academic progress
- To guide decisions about salary adjustments
- To institute the first step in the post-tenure review process for tenured faculty (ACD 506-10)
For assistant professors, the first and second purposes apply. The review covers the previous 36 months with substantial emphasis on the current year.
For tenure-track faculty, the annual performance review is distinct from the progress toward tenure review. While the progress toward tenure review is prospective, the annual performance review is retrospective. The annual performance review should not be considered predictive of the probationary review or the promotion and tenure review.
Per established unit criteria, all tenure, tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty will be evaluated on scholarship, service and teaching (as it applies).
Units are required to submit the following to the dean's office:
- Summary worksheet showing numeric department and chair/director evaluation ratings of all faculty members in scholarship, teaching and service, and the overall rating (satisfactory or unsatisfactory)
- Written chair/director evaluation for the current year
The post-tenure review assures accountability for sustained, high-quality performance, and promotes continued professional development. The post-tenure review is guided by the Principles for Post-Tenure Review at ASU approved by the University Senate in 1996. These principles are delineated as follows.
Value of Tenure Principle
Tenure in American universities is valued and must be protected by providing greater accountability through a positive, constructive, forward-looking, peer-based, and faculty-driven post-tenure review system.
The post-tenure review should not divert a substantial amount of faculty time from teaching, research, and service activities.
Burden of Proof Principle
The burden of proof for tenured faculty is with the university to demonstrate that the faculty is an unsatisfactory performer.
The plan for post-tenure review should not necessitate a major legislative appropriation in order to be implemented.
Reliance on Annual Reviews Principle
Consistent with Board of Regents policy, administrative and faculty review of performance, judged on an annual cycle, will serve as the basis for identifying cases in need of attention.
Universality of Concern Principle
Any and each incidence of overall unsatisfactory performance will be addressed. Performance evaluation is based upon agreed-to criteria related to teaching, research and service.
Progressive Concern Principle
Repeated instances of unsatisfactory performance will result in college-level involvement in the faculty improvement plan.
Performance Improvement Principle
A key element in post-tenure review is performance improvement, which could be entered voluntarily by anyone seeking to improve or involuntarily (i.e., mandatory) by receiving unsatisfactory performance ratings in the annual performance evaluations.
Ongoing Administrative Evaluation of Process Principle
Each year the dean, in consultation with the head of the unit and two faculty from another unit in the college, will evaluate the review process and the performance ratings of the faculty of the college. The dean is responsible for providing independent verification that the annual review process effectively measures performance.
During the spring semester, units will be notified of faculty undergoing post-tenure review and materials due to the Dean's Office.
Human Resources Manager