Annual Performance Review and Post-tenure Review
The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) requires all faculty to be formally evaluated on their performance once every twelve months. The University of Arizona Handbook for Appointed Personnel (UHAP) sets forth guidelines for the annual review process for faculty, professional personnel and administrators.The ABOR mandate for post-tenure review (Policy Manual, 6-201h) has been incorporated into UA policy in revised UHAP language (UHAP 3.10). This revised language combines ABOR policy language with that of the UA document on Post-tenure Review, passed by the Faculty Senate in October 1996.
Thus, the revised language in UHAP represents the official UA policy on both the annual performance review for all faculty and administrators, and post-tenure review for tenured faculty.
Annual Performance Review for All Faculty
Performance reviews for faculty are conducted annually. Reviews
are initiated in January and written evaluations must be completed by April
15. Timelines for submission of materials are determined by colleges and
units. Reviews, based upon calendar years, cover the previous three to
five years of work. The review period is determined by individual colleges
and units.
The annual review of all faculty provides a basis for the assessment and development of faculty performance and ensures accountability to the University community and the citizens of Arizona. Its function is both formative and summative: it involves faculty in the design of their own performance expectations within the context of their unit's mission, and it provides a peer and administrative review process to evaluate the success of each year's work.
Post-tenure Review for Tenured Faculty
For tenured faculty, the outcomes of the annual performance
review are determined by post-tenure review policy. If overall performance
is satisfactory or better, faculty remain in the regular annual performance
review process and may be eligible for rewards and/or merit increases available
to faculty for that review period.
If the performance of a tenured faculty member is found to be unsatisfactory, the faculty member will be required to enter either a faculty development plan or a performance improvement plan, depending on the extent of the deficiency. Details of both plans are described in UHAP.
The faculty development and performance improvement plans are developed collaboratively by the faculty member, peers and administrators of the unit. The plans will state goals with monitoring and benchmarks.
Failure to meet plan objectives will mean:
- an automatic overall unsatisfactory rating (requiring entrance into
a performance improvement plan) in the case of a failed faculty development
plan
or- consideration for termination of service in the case of a failed performance improvement plan
Appeals of performance ratings and performance improvement plans are available through processes outlined in UHAP.
Probationary and Sixth-Year Reviews for Tenure-Eligible
Faculty
Probationary and sixth-year (mandatory) reviews for tenure-eligible
faculty occur during the early fall, according to guidelines developed
at the college and unit levels. It is important to note the different functions
of these reviews from the annual performance review.
Annual performance reviews are taken into account as part of the promotion and tenure process, but are not determinative on promotion and tenure issues. Satisfactory ratings in the annual performance reviews do not necessarily indicate successful progress toward promotion and tenure.
Progress towards promotion and tenure requires scholarly accomplishment over a period of years in the broader range of faculty responsibilities, and includes evaluation by external referees, which is not a part of the annual review process. Criteria and decisions with regard to promotion and tenure are described in UHAP. Tenure-eligible faculty should consult with their unit heads for details on the probationary and sixth-year reviews as applied in their particular areas.
Five-level Rating ScaleA five-level annual review rating scale shall be used throughout the University for the annual performance review. The rating scale is adapted from the Faculty Senate-approved plan for merit-based compensation, and facilitates institutional comparisons. It may be used in determining merit-based salary increases when such funds are available. Units may choose to use different titles for the individual ratings, but must maintain the overall format of four divisions of "overall satisfactory" and one rating of "overall unsatisfactory."
Suggested Timeline for Annual Review Cycle
The following timeline for reviews may be modified by units, as long
as the May 15 deadline for completion is met.
| January 31 | Faculty submit all review materials to unit |
| February 1-April 15 | Peer reviews and unit head reviews are conducted |
| April 15-May 15 | Unit heads meet with individual faculty to discuss reviews and goals for the next review period |
| April 15-September 15 | For faculty with "overall unsatisfactory" evaluations, enhanced evaluations occur (100 days maximum) |
Appeals
Appeals of performance ratings are available through processes outlined in
UHAP 3.10.06.
Reference Documents
University Handbook for Apointed Personnel: Chapter 3.10 Annual Performance Review
Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual: 6-201h
UAINFO
 |
This site is maintained by Office of the Provost, The University of Arizona Administration Building 512, PO Box 210066 Tucson, Arizona 85721-0066 phone: (520) 621-1856 fax: (520) 621-9118 |
http://academicaffairs.arizona.edu