Faculty Handbook
July 1999

Appendix J Procedure for the Annual Performance-and-Planning Review

General Information: UT Memphis Administrative Policy 1.110

The assignment of faculty work loads is the delegated responsibility of the Department Chair. The Chair is responsible for the equitable assignment of faculty responsibilities and assures an appropriate balance of time and effort committed to teaching, research, public service, and if applicable, patient care. It is expected that faculty will devote full-time to their academic duties, unless released time is officially approved.

Each spring, the Chair and individual faculty member agree upon the faculty member's goals and the Chair's expectations during the upcoming year. This process and these expectations are documented as part of the annual faculty evaluation [i.e., Annual Performance-and-Planning Review]. Specific teaching assignments are usually made on a semester basis by the Department Chair.

Educational activities in a health science center necessarily involve patient care, sophisticated research, and teaching of rapidly-changing and complex biomedical sciences. As is customary in most health science centers, faculty at UT Memphis are assigned to specific duties consonant with their individual expertise in teaching, research, or patient care. Faculty are expected to engage in research (or equivalent scholarly activities), patient care, or both as necessary elements of health science education.

Definitions and Applications of Faculty Performance Ratings

On June 17, 1999, the Board of Trustees approved a five-category scale for faculty performance ratings (i.e., Outstanding, Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory). Please read carefully the following definitions, as these will be applied for this year's Annual Performance-and-Planning Review.

OUTSTANDING: 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.

HIGHLY SATISFACTORY: This rating designates that during the evaluation period, the individual achieved and consistently exhibited a level of performance that exceeded the agreed-upon goals and objectives. This rating will be assigned to an individual whose valued performance exceeds the standard of professionalism and proficiency within a given field.

SATISFACTORY: This rating designates that during the evaluation period the individual achieved and consistently exhibited a level of performance that met the agreed-upon goals and objectives. This rating will be assigned to an individual whose competent performance exemplifies the standard of professionalism and proficiency within a given field.

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT: 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, or other appropriate university official, to assist the individual in identifying the mechanisms for overcoming the detected deficiencies, as deemed appropriate. This rating is a negative rating. The Chair and the faculty member must develop a written plan with a specific time frame, whereby the faculty member can meet the departmental expectations within the next year; this plan must be contained in the summary of the Annual Performance-and-Planning Review. A faculty member whose performance is rated as "needs improvement" shall be ineligible for rewards (including salary increases), and must provide to the Chair a written Interim Progress Report of remedial steps taken on his or her performance in area(s) noted as "unsatisfactory", with copies forwarded to the Dean.

UNSATISFACTORY: Unsatisfactory Performance in Teaching, Research, or Service is defined as adequate cause for termination of a faculty member's appointment and includes the following:

  1. failure to demonstrate professional competence in teaching, research, or service; or
  2. 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 UT Memphis Chief Academic Officer 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.

This rating is a negative rating. The Chair and the faculty member must develop a written plan with a specific time frame, whereby the faculty member can meet the departmental expectations within the next year; this plan must be contained in the summary of the Annual Performance-and-Planning Review. A faculty member whose performance is rated as "unsatisfactory" shall be ineligible for rewards (including salary increases), and must provide to the Chair a written Interim Progress Report of remedial steps taken on his or her performance in area(s) noted as "unsatisfactory", with copies forwarded to the Dean. Alternatively, for a non-tenured faculty member an unsatisfactory rating may lead to termination for adequate cause, and for a tenure-track faculty member, an unsatisfactory rating on the Mandatory Interim Review may lead to a notice of non-renewal.

The Board's policy on tenure states that a rigorous and thorough review shall be made of any tenured faculty member whose performance is rated as "unsatisfactory" in two consecutive Annual Performance-and-Planning Reviews. A Review Committee shall be convened by the Chair within 30 days of the second negative review, and shall be composed of the Chair, the Division Chief (if appropriate), the tenured departmental faculty peers (Faculty Handbook, Section 4.3.2), and faculty and administrative staff from outside the department.

Procedure for the Annual Performance-and-Planning Review

In large departments responsibilities delegated to the Chair may be delegated to other individuals. Annually, the Chair or designee must review the performance of departmental faculty having the following types of primary appointments: regular full-time (i.e., tenure-track and tenured), limited-term full-time, and part-time (Faculty Handbook, Sections 4.12.3.2, 4.14.3, 5.2.2, and 5.2.3). Examples of the summary documents for the Annual Performance-and-Planning Review (Forms 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004) are attached. Annual Performance-and-Planning Reviews must be completed no later than June [day], [year].

The goals of this review are the following:

  1. To facilitate communication between the faculty member and the Chair (or designee);
  2. To clarify the individual faculty member's goals and expectations for the coming year, as well as for the long range;
  3. To clarify departmental goals and the faculty member's role according to the Chair's expectations;
  4. To recognize areas of exceptional performance by the faculty member;
  5. To identify areas of performance that deserve additional effort by the faculty member; and
  6. To develop documentation that will facilitate objective determination of salary, promotion, and tenure recommendations.

The review procedure should include the following elements:

  1. The Chair requests from each faculty member: (1) a summary of activities and accomplishments for the previous academic year beginning July 1, [year], and (2) a summary of the faculty member's proposed academic goals for the year beginning July 1, [year]; these are to be completed by May [day], [year].
  2. During May and June [year], each faculty member must meet with the Chair. The purpose of this meeting is three-fold: (1) to review the faculty member's performance in achieving previously established academic goals, (2) to receive the work assignment for the coming academic year, and (3) to mutually establish the academic goals to be achieved by the faculty member during the coming year (Faculty Handbook, Sections 4.12.3.2 and 4.14.3). The Chair discusses with each faculty member his or her performance in teaching, scholarly activities, service, and/or patient care (if applicable). The Chair should, when appropriate, comment upon outstanding performance, or ways in which the performance can be improved. Finally, the Chair should assess the overall performance of the faculty member and assign one of the performance ratings listed above. In this review, the Chair should consider the following criteria, if appropriate:

    Teaching - Quality of instruction and instructional materials, interaction with students, level of participation, number of courses, number of contact hours, case loads, etc. Review should be obtained from all programs (both intra- and inter-collegiate) in which the faculty member participates;

    Patient Care - (if applicable) Quality and quantity of patient care, consultant role, etc.;

    Scholarly Activities - Research completed, research in progress, grants received, presentations delivered, papers published, continuing education activities, etc.; and/or

    Service - Committee participation, administrative assignments, consultantships, assistance of colleagues in research activities, offices held, etc.
  3. The following situations require specific discussions:
    1. For individuals with tenure-track appointments, this discussion must include the faculty member's progress toward tenure consideration (Faculty Handbook, Section 4.12.3.2).
    2. If this review coincides with the Mandatory Interim Review, the Chair must discuss the review of the individual's dossier by the tenured departmental faculty (or Collegiate Promotion and Tenure Committee, if appropriate) (Faculty Handbook, Section 4.12.3.3).
    3. For tenured faculty members requiring a Sixth-Year Review, this discussion must include the tenured departmental faculty peers' report (Faculty Handbook, Section 4.14.4)
  4. In addition, the Chair should include in the performance reviews of all faculty members a discussion of the UT Memphis Statement on Faculty Service Responsibilities dealing with faculty workload (Administrative Policy 1.110).
  5. The Chair prepares a narrative summary of the discussion, including assessment in each category, and his or her expectations of the faculty member for the next academic year beginning July 1, [year]. For faculty members with tenure-track appointments, the narrative should document the faculty member's progress toward tenure consideration (Faculty Handbook, Section 4.12.3.2).
  6. The Chair must attach the narrative summary to one of the following summary documents:
    1. For the usual Annual Performance-and-Planning Review, the Chair uses Form 0001.
    2. If this review coincides with the Mandatory Interim Review, the Chair uses Form 0002.
    3. For tenured faculty members requiring a Sixth-Year Review at the same time as this annual review, the Chair uses Form 0003.
  7. As soon as possible after the discussion, the faculty member should be provided with the Chair's review, including summary document (Form 0001, 0002, or 0003), narrative summary, and next year's goals and expectations. A period of five days is suggested as a guideline for this requirement. The faculty member may prepare an optional response to the Chair's review and expectations; this response, if any, should be attached to the summary document. A period of five days is also suggested as a guideline for this requirement, if applicable.
  8. In response to a negative rating, the Chair and the faculty member should develop a written plan with a specific time frame, whereby the faculty member can meet the departmental expectations within the next year; this plan must be attached to the narrative summary (Faculty Handbook, Sections 4.12.3.2 and 4.14.3). Alternatively, for a non-tenured faculty member an unsatisfactory rating may lead to termination for adequate cause (Faculty Handbook, Section 7.2), and for a tenure-track faculty member, an unsatisfactory rating on the Mandatory Interim Review may lead to a notice of non-renewal (Faculty Handbook, Section 4.12.3.3).
  9. The mutually established goals for the next academic year, with the Chair's comments, if required, should be attached to the summary document (Form 0001, 0002, or 0003).
  10. The summary document (Form 0001, 0002, or 0003), with all attachments, must be signed by both the Chair and faculty member (to acknowledge receipt of the review document) (Faculty Handbook, Sections 4.12.3.2 and 4.14.3). If Form 0001 or Form 0002 is used, the faculty member may, if desired, enter a self-evaluation in the column headed "Faculty Member". The original should be retained in the departmental office with complete copies provided to the Dean and the faculty member by June [day], [year].
  11. Upon completion of the review process, and no later than July [day], [year], the Chair should forward to the UT Memphis Chief Academic Officer a signed Certification of Faculty Review (Form 0004).