400.3.3.1[G]
Adopted 06/24/97
Amended 03/10/08
Amended 06/20/14
Amended 08/17/15
Guidelines
on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
Background
At its meeting on May
16, 1997, the Board of Governors adopted the recommendations in the report of
the University of North Carolina Committee to Study Post-Tenure Review. A copy of that report is available at General
Administration. Post-tenure review is
defined in the report as “a comprehensive, formal, periodic evaluation of
cumulative faculty performance, the prime purpose of which is to ensure faculty
development and to promote faculty vitality” (p. 8).
The report asserts that
review of the performance of tenured faculty in the University shall be “to
support and encourage excellence among tenured faculty by:
1.
Recognizing and rewarding exemplary faculty performance;
2.
Providing for a clear plan and timetable for improvement of performance of faculty found deficient; and
3.
For those
whose performance
remains deficient, providing
for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may, in the most serious cases, include a recommendation for discharge” ( p.
12)
The report also
provides broad principles for carrying out such reviews but leaves room for each institution to develop
the details of its own process
following the release
of guidelines by General Administration. In keeping
with Section 602 of The Code,
the board of trustees
of each constituent institution shall adopt the policies
and regulations governing
performance reviews of tenured faculty. Institutional policies and procedures will also be approved pursuant
to Policy 400.3.3 and should be included
in all appropriate documents of the constituent institutions.
The report further specifies that “developing a system of post-tenure review will require
reexamination of the effectiveness of current faculty personnel policies as well as planning
and program review policies”
(p. 13). Initiation of these performance reviews in the University of North Carolina provides constituent institutions with an opportunity to create a policy that examines
individual faculty contributions to departmental, school/college, and university goals as well as to
the academic programs in which faculty
teach. Thoughtful attention
to the ways in which post-tenure review can promote
faculty vitality across their careers will assure that such
reviews lead to increased
effectiveness within the university.
Guidelines to assist in formulating institutional policy concerning performance reviews
of tenured faculty are set out below. These
guidelines have been promulgated and are periodically reviewed to assure the
continuing rigorous application of post-tenure review as intended by the Board
of Governors as described in Policy 400.3.3.
Guidelines
Each constituent institution shall observe
the following guidelines in developing
or revising institutional policies
and procedures for post-tenure review:
1.
Proposed revised policies must be submitted
to General Administration for approval
in accordance with any timeframe established and communicated by the
president of the University, or his or her designee.
2.
Institutional policies shall assure that each tenured
faculty member
undergoes a cumulative review no less frequently than every five years. (Note: a review undertaken to grant tenure or to decide on promotion qualifies as such a cumulative review.)
3.
Institutional policies
shall assure that
faculty performance
will be examined
relative to the mission
of the institution, college, and program.
4.
Institutional policies
shall be
in compliance with the criteria and procedures for due process and for discharge or other disciplinary action established in Chapter VI of The Code of
the University.
5.
Post-tenure reviews
shall evaluate all aspects of the professional performance of faculty, whose primary responsibilities are teaching,
and/or research, and/or
service. If faculty responsibilities are primarily
only in one or two of these areas,
the post-tenure review and resulting
recommendations should take this allocation of responsibilities into account.
6.
At
the beginning of the post-tenure review cycle, the faculty member shall develop
with his/her department chair a five-year goal or plan. This plan can be modified annually by the
faculty member, in consultation with the department chair, as deemed
appropriate by changes in institutional, departmental, or personal
circumstances. This plan should
indicate milestones aligned with annual performance evaluations.
7.
Institutional policies
shall show the relationship between the annual performance review of tenured
faculty and the post-tenure review criteria. Annual performance reviews,
however, are not a substitute for the “comprehensive, periodic, cumulative review” required by the Board
of Governors. The post-tenure review
process can be informed
by annual reviews but must involve an additional assessment as described
in these guidelines.
8.
Institutional policies
shall explicitly involve peers in the post-tenure review process. A peer review committee for a department or academic unit will be selected
by a process agreed upon by the tenured
faculty in that unit. The faculty
member being reviewed will not have the option of selecting
members of the peer review committee. The department chair or academic
unit head must consult with
the peer
review committee in rendering his or her evaluation.
Deans must provide an evaluative review in addition to the review conducted
by the peer review committee and the department chair. The provost must certify that all aspects of
the post- tenure review process for that year are in
compliance with policy and guidelines.
9.
Institutions
shall provide ongoing support and training for all post-tenure review
evaluators, including peer review committee members, department chairs or
academic unit heads, and deans. UNC
General Administration will prepare digital training modules that focus on the
basics of state personnel policy and UNC policies, regulations, and guidelines
related to personnel and tenure; the essential elements of a useful and
thoughtful review; how to prepare, conduct and manage a meaningful review
process; and how to provide constructive criticism in a positive manner. Campuses shall ensure that all post-tenure
review evaluators benefit from these modules and receive training in
campus-specific policies and procedures.
In submitting required annual post-tenure review reports, the provost will also certify that required
training has been conducted.
10.
UNC
General Administration will evaluate the training and post-tenure review
processes of all campuses during the 2016-2017 fiscal year. In subsequent years, UNC General
Administration shall review the post-tenure review processes of all campuses on
a three-year rotating cycle unless irregularities at a particular campus are
identified. If such irregularities are
identified, then UNC General Administration shall conduct more frequent reviews
of that institution as deemed appropriate by the president or his or her
designee. As part of this review, the
president or his or her designee will certify that the constituent institution is in compliance with all aspects of the policy and
guidelines.
11.
Institutional policies shall establish at least three
assessment categories. These categories
must reflect whether a faculty member exceeds expectations, meets expectations,
or does not meet expectations. Institutional
policies also shall assure that there is written feedback to the faculty member
being reviewed as well as a mechanism for the faculty member to respond to the
evaluation. As intended by the Board of
Governors, this feedback should include recognition for performance that
exceeds expectations. Because performance rewards are often part of the annual
review process, the post-tenure review may provide additional support for this
form of recognition. Any review that
results in an evaluation that the faculty member does not meet expectations
must include a statement of the faculty member’s primary responsibilities and
specific descriptions of shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member’s
assigned duties and the directional goals established. A faculty member’s
response to a review that the faculty member does not meet expectations will also be shared
at the next highest administrative level.
12.
Institutional policies
shall require individual development or career plans for all faculty
members who
do not meet expectations in the cumulative review. These plans must include specific
steps designed to lead to improvement, a specified timeline
in which improvement
is expected
to occur, and a clear statement
of consequences should
improvement not occur within
the designated timeline.
The use of mentoring
peers is encouraged, and progress
meetings with the department chair or academic unit head must occur on at least a semi-annual basis during the specified timeline. If duties are modified as a result of an assessment that the faculty member does not meet expectations, then the development or career plan should
so indicate and take into
account the new allocation of responsibilities.
As
policies are developed and revised, institutions shall consider resource
implications of a meaningful performance review system, identifying in advance
the sources of support for the process and its outcomes.
Implementation
of revised institutional
policies will be effective
upon approval as provided in Policy
400.3.3.