Annual Performance and Planning Review
Annually, each faculty member must meet with the Chair to review his or her performance in achieving previously established academic goals, to receive the work assignment, and to mutually establish the academic goals to be achieved by the faculty member during the coming year. (UTHSC Faculty Handbook, Sections 4.14.3.2; 4.16.3; 5.3.2)
The annual performance and planning review process is conducted within Digital Measures’ workflow system. The multi-step process walks the faculty member and evaluator(s) through the annual review process that is outlined in the UTHSC Faculty Handbook in Appendix J. More information regarding the Digital Measures workflow can be found here.
The Department Chair is the academic and administrative leader of the department's faculty. The Chair is responsible for the management of the department's activities, including direction of the work of the faculty. The assignment of faculty workloads and work sites is the responsibility of the Chair, in consultation with the Dean when appropriate. The Chair is responsible for the equitable assignment of faculty responsibilities and assures that an appropriate balance of time and effort is committed within the department to teaching, research, service, and, if applicable, patient care. The Chair is responsible for overseeing the career development of all faculty members in the department. In a large department the Chair may delegate some of these responsibilities to Division Chiefs. (UTHSC Faculty Handbook, Section 4.4.1)
Summary of Interim Probationary Review of Tenure Track Faculty (Form 2)
NOTE: Form 2 should only be used for the mandatory Interim Probationary Review of Tenure Track Faculty.
EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS FOR RANK: This rating designates that during the evaluation period the individual achieved and consistently exhibited unique and highly meritorious levels of professional performance beyond the agreed-upon goals and objectives. This rating will be assigned to an individual who achieves uncommon levels of meritorious performance in his or her field; and makes meaningful and significant contributions to the mission, goals and objectives of the department, college, and university, as well as to his or her professional field. Eligible for significant merit pay or performance-based salary adjustment that is consistent with campus, college, and department fiscal situations.
MEETS EXPECTATIONS FOR RANK: This rating designates that during the evaluation period, the faculty member achieved and consistently exhibited the level of the expected performance on the agreed upon goals and objectives and who has contributed to the mission, goals and objectives of the department, college and university, as well as to his or her professional field. Eligible for minimum merit pay or performance-based salary adjustment that is consistent with campus, college, and department fiscal situations.
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT FOR RANK: This rating designates that during the evaluation period, the individual exhibited a level of performance that did not consistently meet all the agreed-upon goals and objectives. This rating will be assigned to an individual who may require some assistance or feedback in achieving and sustaining a level of professional performance necessary to meet the agreed-upon goals and objectives. This rating is intended primarily as a means of formally communicating that a special effort must be made in addressing specific performance deficiencies. When this rating is given, it should be accompanied by a commitment by the Department Chair to assist the individual in identifying the mechanisms for overcoming the detected deficiencies, as deemed appropriate.
UNSATISFACTORY FOR RANK: Unsatisfactory Performance in Teaching, Research, or Service is defined as adequate cause for termination of a faculty member’s appointment and includes the following: a. Failure to demonstrate professional competence in teaching, research, or service; or b. Failure to perform satisfactorily the duties or responsibilities of the faculty position, including but not limited to (1) failure to comply with a lawful directive of the Chair, Dean, or UTHSC Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs with respect to the faculty member's duties or responsibilities; or (2) inability to perform an essential function of the faculty position, given reasonable accommodation, if requested.
(See UTHSC Faculty Handbook, Appendix J)
A review of the improvement plans/written plans that accompany the Annual Performance and Planning Review (APPR) of faculty members for whom they are required reveals disparities in items that are included in the plans. In isolated instances, the Performance Improvement Plan used for staff evaluations has been used as a template for a faculty member’s evaluation.
The purpose of the written Annual Review Improvement Plan, hereafter referred to as the Improvement Plan, is to assist the faculty member in meeting departmental expectations.
See, also, the guidance in the UT System Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure (relevant sections from the UTHSC Faculty Handbook and the UT System Policy document is appended.
The Annual Review Improvement Template (Form 9 - PDF version to preview layout Word version with expandable cells) was developed to assist faculty members and department chairs in constructing, evaluating, and monitoring the Improvement Plan.
Questions on the development of an Improvement Plan may be directed to college faculty affairs leadership or to Kristi Forman, Director of Faculty Affairs at kforman1@uthsc.edu or 901.448.3285.