A. PURPOSES OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
The School of Business has two types of faculty: Tenure-track/tenured faculty and Lecturers/Clinical. In the case of Tenure-track/tenured, faculty are evaluated on three performance areas: Teaching, Service and Research. In the case of Lecturer/Clinical, faculty are evaluated on Teaching and Service.
In order to fulfill the mission and objectives of the School, the faculty aims to achieve high levels of performance in teaching, service and research if required. While satisfactory performance is required in all measured areas, the faculty member is expected to excel in at least one area. The annual performance appraisal aids in recognizing the level of faculty achievement. This in turn will form the basis for such actions as:
- pay and/or merit increases
- faculty development
- equity determination
- promotion and/or tenure
- ongoing communication between the evaluator and the evaluatee
- legal and ethical compliance
- administrative or other special assignments.
Overall, the main purposes of faculty performance appraisal are to provide bases for recognizing past achievement and for determining future improvement and activity.
B. PERFORMANCE LEVELS
The School Dean makes one of three judgments in each area, Teaching, Service and Research if required. These judgments are described as:
These judgments translate into salary recommendations as follows:
- LEVEL A: Receives 3 Excellents if Tenure-track/Tenured, 2 Excellents if Lecturer/Clinical
- LEVEL B: Receives 2 Excellents and 1 Satisfactory if Tenure-track/Tenured, 1 Excellent and 1 Satisfactory if Lecturer/Clinical
- LEVEL C: Receives 1 Excellent and 2 Satisfactory if Tenure-track/Tenured
- LEVEL D:
- Receives 3 Satisfactory if Tenure-track/Tenured (But mandatory notation is added to the annual evaluation indicating that three Satisfactory evaluations is not adequate in terms of making progress toward promotion or tenure.)
- Receives 2 Satisfactory if Lecturer/Clinical (But mandatory notation is added to the annual evaluation indicating that two Satisfactory evaluations is not adequate in terms of making progress toward promotion.)
- LEVEL E: Receives an Unsatisfactory rating in one or more of the three areas
- LEVEL A+ EXCEPTIONAL: Noteworthy accomplishments, earning public acclaim in the profession, region, state, nation or world
In all cases, the School Dean makes an evaluation based on evidence submitted by the faculty member in the annual service report. If information is used that is not in the service report, the Dean should make this known to the faculty member.
Procedures for Implementation
The faculty annual appraisal procedures are built around the dates set by the administration. Faculty submit their annual report using the electronic reporting system. The sequence of events and their duties/timings are as follows:
The Dean gives the faculty members a copy of the School’s goals and objectives for the academic year and requests of the faculty members a broad, brief written statement of their goals (including professional development goals) for the academic year. These goals are to provide direction for the year’s activities. The Dean may confer on the professional goals for the upcoming year.
The faculty members submit their annual reports on the responsibilities carried out during the prior calendar year only. The reports follow the format of the IU Kokomo Faculty Service Report Forms.
The faculty member and Dean may confer on the service report. This meeting is for the purpose of clarification and understanding the contents of the service report and elaborating if needed.
The Dean reviews the faculty member’s report, makes an assessment of the overall performance level, prepares a written appraisal and furnishes a copy to the faculty member on the university form.
The faculty member responds, within 10 days, indicating agreement/ disagreement with the evaluation, and signs the form, acknowledging the evaluation.
If there is a disagreement—the following procedure adopted as recommended by the Task Force on Tenure and Promotion:
- The faculty member receives a written response from the Dean.
- If the faculty member is still dissatisfied, s/he sends a response to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
- The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs provides a written response to the faculty member.
- If the faculty member is still dissatisfied, s/he may pursue the case with the Faculty Board of Review.
- Add LINK to Due PROCESS DOCUMENT
The criteria for annual performance evaluation are essentially those stated in the School of Business Promotion and Tenure Criteria document, as adopted 4/91 and amended to the present, applied in an annual evaluation context. This is explained in the statements to follow.
It is to be understood and underscored that Promotion and Tenure are not merely a cumulative result of annual performance evaluations, nor are annual evaluations absolute predictors of P&T outcomes. On the other hand, the trend of annual performance evaluations should be consistent with an individual’s readiness for promotion and tenure and certainly may serve as documentation in that regard.
Example: A person going from Associate Professor to Professor rank may have EXCELLENT annual ratings in research, having produced one or more refereed articles per year along with an active research agenda. This does not guarantee promotion, even if research is the primary criterion and the person is consistently SATISFACTORY in the other areas, but it can serve as evidence in support of a person’s promotion case.
Evidence of Teaching Performance may include any area under I(C) of the School P&T Criteria document (hereafter referred to as the P&T Criteria).
A faculty member’s performance in the area of teaching will receive one of three ratings:
EXCELLENT: A faculty member has evidence of outstanding evaluations of teaching from one or more sources, and has also demonstrated outstanding achievements in teaching-related areas.
SATISFACTORY: A faculty member has evidence of satisfactory evaluations of teaching from one or more sources, and has also demonstrated satisfactory achievements in teaching-related areas.
UNSATISFACTORY: A faculty member has not demonstrated evidence of satisfactory performance in teaching or teaching-related areas.
Research (If applicable)
Within the School of Business there are two vehicles by which faculty can be evaluated in the area of principal research. The first is publication. Evidence of performance can be in the form of authorship of articles that appear in refereed professional journals and other evidence as stated in II.D of the P&T criteria. Each article/item authored may be used as evidence of performance in only one year, either when it has been accepted for publication or when it appears in print. The second vehicle for evaluation of research is a person’s on-going research agenda, documented as stated in II.D of the P&T criteria.
A faculty member’s performance in the area of research will receive one of three ratings:
EXCELLENT: A faculty member has published one or more articles in refereed professional journals, and has also maintained a consistent and active research agenda.
SATISFACTORY: A faculty member has not published in a refereed journal, but has maintained a consistent and active research agenda and shows other evidence of achievement in publication/presentation of research.
UNSATISFACTORY: A faculty member has not published in a refereed journal, has not maintained a consistent and active research agenda, and has little or no evidence of publication/presentation of research. If there has been no refereed journal publication or other substantial research evidence of one’s work for more than two consecutive years, an UNSATISFACTORY rating will result.
Within the School of Business, the vehicle by which faculty can be evaluated in the area of service is contribution to any or all of three constituencies: a) the university, b) learned and professional societies, and c) the community. Here, significance and substance are more important than quantity. Evidence of value and substance in service may be presented in any area(s) in III.C of the P&T criteria.
A faculty member’s performance in the area of service will receive one of these ratings:
EXCELLENT: A faculty member has contributed significantly in activities with at least one constituency and has some evidence of a contribution to other constituencies.
SATISFACTORY: A faculty member has contributed significantly internally or externally, and has little involvement in other activities; or, has moderate level of involvement in several areas.
UNSATISFACTORY: The faculty member has not contributed significantly to any constituency and has minimal or no service activity.