January 26, 2007
Download Word VersionTO: Executive Officers, Associate and Assistant Officers, Council of Deans, Chairs and Directors
FROM: Robert C. Bates
Provost and Academic Vice President
SUBJECT: Annual Review 2006 - Faculty and Administrative Professional Personnel
The evaluation of faculty and administrative professional personnel is a vital part of the administration of each area. Please share these instructions with all of those people for whom annual review is required. Distribution is important to prevent misunderstandings and to ensure that salary increases and promotions are made objectively, equitably, impartially, and as recognition of merit.
Annual review forms should be prepared for all permanent faculty and administrative professional employees who have not submitted a resignation (or a plan for retirement) effective for 2007. In addition, reviews should be completed for all temporary faculty and administrative professional employees, including those paid by grant funds (e.g., post docs), who would be eligible for salary increases if salary money were available and they were reappointed.
The period of this annual review is January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006. The review is intended to address performance during a single calendar year.
Annual reviews should be done in a careful, systematic manner with special attention to the strengths and weaknesses of those under review. There is no substitute for a thoughtful annual review as a guide to critical personnel decisions. The annual review should provide the basis for rewards. It also provides an opportunity to look forward, to agree on goals and objectives, and to reaffirm or redirect work assignments and activities.
The annual review is intended to provide feedback about the employee's performance relative to the department's expectations. The review should include an outline of principal duties and responsibilities and an evaluation of performance. Faculty are to be evaluated in terms of their performance in instruction and advising, research and creative accomplishments, service activities, issues relating to promotion of an effective workplace and such other criteria as are appropriate to the person's responsibilities and the functions of the unit. Reference should be made to publications, student evaluations of teaching and any other indicators of performance. The review of administrators, deans, directors, and chairs must include evaluation of their performance in assuring equal employment opportunity, contributing to affirmative action and contributing to climate issues. Care should be taken to rate actual performance, rather than anticipated potential performance. The written review should not make predictions about the outcome of future promotion or tenure decisions.
Annual reviews are intended to reflect the direct supervisor and/or director/chair's assessments of the employee's performance and do not require input from other employees. However, the director/chair should solicit feedback from supervisors of employees at distant locations.
Merit ratings are defined as follows: A merit rating of 5 is to be used only when performance is truly outstanding. A merit rating of 4 indicates that the employee's performance exceeds expectations. A merit rating of 3 indicates expectations have been met (no matter how high those expectations may be). A rating of 2 suggests improvement is necessary. A rating of 1 is unsatisfactory. Ratings need not be in whole numbers, but distinctions should not be finer than 0.1.
The numerical rating and the written review should be consistent. This means that the comments should be evaluative and indicate relative quality, rather than simply catalogue activities. Reviews should provide an assessment of productivity, quality of work, and the employee's accomplishments relative to goals of his or her position and of the institution.
The Faculty Manual requires that comparative feedback be provided to faculty in the form of the mean and standard deviation of the merit ratings for all faculty in the department or unit. However, no comparative information should be reported in departments having fewer than four faculty members on permanent appointment. This will preserve the confidentiality of ratings of individual faculty members.
Upon completion by the director/chair(s), the annual review shall be forwarded for approval to both the dean of the academic college or appropriate vice president and the campus Chancellor (if applicable). Each faculty member should also be given a copy of his or her completed annual review. The faculty member shall have a minimum of two working days to sign a statement indicating that he or she has read and has had the opportunity to discuss the report with his or her supervisor. Signing the review does not certify agreement with the substance of the review. A faculty member may append dissenting comments regarding the report's contents to the report. Within 30 working days of its receipt, each written statement so appended by a faculty member must receive a written acknowledgment that the statements have been reviewed by the immediate superior (normally the Dean[s]) of the evaluation writer (normally the Chair). All dissenting reviews are to be forwarded through the Dean to the Office of the Provost.
If the merit ratings assigned by the faculty member's Dean are identical to those assigned by the Chair, no additional faculty signature is required. When the dean's rating differs from that of the chair, a second signature from the faculty member is required on the form.
If in any year no funds are allocated for salary increases, or if only a cost-of-living increase is available, the annual review reports will be retained and preserved at the department or equivalent administrative level for inclusion in the next year's reviews. At that time, the evaluations will be averaged and used to determine salary increases.
A second, Progress Toward Tenure Review, must also be performed yearly for each untenured tenure-track faculty member. This review should assess the faculty member's cumulative progress towards tenure. Progress Toward Tenure Reviews should be done at the same time of year as the annual review and they should lead logically to the final tenure decision. Similar to the annual review, the local supervisor should be consulted when reviewing the progress of faculty members at distant locations. The progress toward tenure review should also be written and be signed by both the chair and the faculty member. Again, the faculty member has the right to attach a response to the review. Unlike the annual review, the progress towards tenure review is based on cumulative performance and requires the participation of all tenured faculty in the unit. The chair must also discuss the outcome of the review with the untenured faculty member. More information on Progress Toward Tenure Reviews is available in the Faculty Manual Section III, http://www.wsu.edu/Faculty_Senate/FM_contents.htm.
Annual Review Forms for Administrative Professional employees can be found in the Business Policy Procedures Manual 60.55 and a sample is attached to this packet. Administrative Professional employees will be given a copy of the completed written evaluation and shall have a minimum of five working days to sign a statement that he or she has read the evaluation and has had the opportunity to discuss it with his or her supervisor. The employee may add comments that disagree with the contents of the annual review. Within 10 working days of receipt of either comments or dissent the employee must receive written acknowledgement that the second line supervisor has reviewed the statements.
A web-based form is now available for use by faculty and administrative employees in submitting their activities for annual review. The form, entitled WORQS, is available at https://cahedb.wsu.edu. This year, the use of WORQS is mandatory for some colleges, but voluntary for the University as a whole. If all goes as planned, the form will be required across the University for the 2007 annual review, conducted in Spring, 2008. WORQS provides a standardized format for faculty and staff members to submit their materials for annual review. WORQS can also be used by administrators to write the annual reviews of their faculty and staff. However, for now, chairs will still print annual reviews to submit them to their deans. Electronic submission will be added in the future. If you have any questions about the use of WORQS, please contact Fran McSweeney, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs (fkmcs@wsu.edu).
Reviews should be sent to Human Resource Services by May 8, 2007. All dissenting reviews are to be forwarded through the Dean to the Office of the Provost. Note that an updated curriculum vitae or resume should be attached to each review. These guidelines do not change the tenure review timeline or requirements.
cc: Budget Office
Human Resource Services
JANUARY 1, 2006 - DECEMBER 31, 2006
ANNUAL REVIEW FOR FACULTY
NAME______________________________________________
WSU ID #________________________
ACADEMIC________ ANNUAL________ 10 MONTH________
YRS @ WSU______________DEGREE__________________
DEGREE YEAR________________
TITLE_______________________________________________
PROGRAM__________ BUDGET__________% SERVICE__________
DEPARTMENT_______________________________________
CHAIR MERIT RATING_______ DEAN MERIT RATING_______
UNIT MEAN/SD_______ CHANCELLOR MERIT RATING (when
applicable)________
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ANNUAL REVIEW STATEMENT:
___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT CHAIR SIGNATURE DATE EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE DATE
______________________________________________ ______________________________________________
DEAN/DIRECTOR SIGNATURE DATE CHANCELLOR SIGNATURE DATE
* Faculty member signature indicates that the employee has seen and had the opportunity to discuss this review. Faculty members may attach a response to this review.