Please Log In using your OIT USERNAME.

This Page will only work with Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher.
Netscape will NOT work correctly.

COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES
FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM

1. Assist faculty members in attaining their professional and career goals;
2. Assist academic departments in attaining their organizational goals (as outlined in their
   Strategic Plans, accreditation reports, etc.) and continue providing leadership and service to their clientele;
3. Foster cooperation in the department by using a system that benefits individual faculty members and the department alike;
4. Establish a system for documenting and reporting faculty activities;
5. Articulate salary increases, merit pay, tenure and promotion in recognizing faculty accomplishments; and
6. Provide a fair and equitable means of evaluating the activities and contributions of faculty members.

PROCEDURE:


1. Individual Faculty/Department Head Procedure
   
   
   1. Near the end of each Spring quarter , each faculty member completes a portfolio of the year's activities based on the pre-approved PLAN OF WORK for the past year (January 1 to December 31). The PLAN OF WORK, based on the job analysis/position description, is a management plan defined jointly by the faculty member and the department head. The PLAN OF WORK provides the framework for the performance evaluation system based on the percentages of time allocated to administration, extension, instruction, research, professional development, and/or service and includes a description of the specific duties/responsibilities to be performed by the faculty member, as well as goals and performance standards related to those goals/responsibilities. It is recognized, however, that the PLAN OF WORK is a working document that can, and indeed should, change to reflect changing needs and opportunities. Changes in PLANS OF WORK that involve overall redistribution of effort or changed goals and priorities must be agreed upon by both the department head and the faculty member. In these cases, the portfolio then reflects the revised PLAN OF WORK, but documents why the original PLAN OF WORK was modified. The FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION WORKSHEET ONLINE is used by the faculty member to summarize goals, accomplishments, goals not accomplished, additional comments (e.g., extenuating circumstances), support needed to reach goals, and goals for the next academic year, beginning January 1 and ending December 31.
      
      In addition to the WORKSHEET, the faculty member should place in the portfolio a current vita in the format required by the Auburn University promotion and tenure committee and any documentation that pertains to his/her assignments/accomplishments. The documentation required for the portfolio conforms to that outlined in the Auburn University Faculty Handbook, "Promotion Criteria and Considerations." Thus, an individual with an 80 percent teaching assignment and a 20 percent Research/Creative Work assignment must present the bulk of his/her documentation from items described under Teaching and additional documentation that is specified in the Research/Creative Work section. In any category of assignment, the target faculty member should provide any information that will assist the department head (or, if relevant, a peer review committee) in determining the quality, originality, and innovativeness of the work performed.
   
   
   
   2. After the portfolio is completed it is turned in to the department head.
   
   
   
   3. The material is reviewed by the department head who then prepares the FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL SUMMARY, a narrative statement summarizing the faculty member's performance for that year. Specifically, the narrative statement should address each of the faculty member's responsibility areas. The narrative statement also should include the department head's evaluation of the faculty member's performance of his/her duties/responsibilities, productivity, work behavior, and implications/results of performance. The SUMMARY also should include information on areas of achievement, as well as areas of improvement needed, i.e., whether that individual exceeds, meets, partially meets, or does not meet job responsibilities. The narrative is guided by the percentage of time allocated to each job responsibility and is based on the information provided in the portfolio. Additionally, the narrative should include information that is relevant to the issue of collegiality as described in the Auburn University Faculty Handbook. Specifically, the following items should be addressed:
      
   
   
   
   • Are the individual's professional abilities and relationships with colleagues compatible with the departmental mission and with its long-term goals? Has the individual exhibited an ability and willingness to engage in shared academic and administrative tasks that a departmental group must often perform and to participate with some measure of reason and knowledge in discussions germane to departmental policies and programs? Does the candidate maintain high standards of professional integrity?
   • In order to answer the above questions, the department head also must consider the rank of the faculty member being assessed. Specifically, consistent with the Auburn University Faculty Handbook, Assistant Professors should be working toward tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor. Associate Professors should be working toward promotion to Full Professor. Full Professors should be performing work commensurate to the responsibilities of that rank, including leadership and academic guidance for faculty at the Assistant and Associate ranks (See Auburn University Faculty Handbook for more detailed information on academic ranks).
   
   
   
   4. After the department head prepares the FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL SUMMARY a meeting is set up between the faculty member and the department head to discuss the SUMMARY. Discussion ensues regarding the feedback. When areas of improvement are noted in the SUMMARY, the department head and the faculty member develop a plan to achieve improvement in the designated area(s) and a time line to accomplish the improvement(s). The plan may include identification of possible mentors that could assist in the process. Any mentoring arrangement would be based upon mutual interest and agreement between the faculty member and the mentor. (In addition to this annual meeting, however, it is important that the department head provides effective supervision for each faculty member throughout the performance evaluation period. There must be an explicit mode of communication/feedback between the department head and the faculty member. A faculty member should not have to wait until an annual performance evaluation is conducted to find out how s/he is performing job duties.)
   
   
   
   5. At the end of the meeting the faculty member is asked to sign his/her SUMMARY form, indicating only that s/he has read it. A copy of the signed SUMMARY is then given to the faculty member. Signature does not imply agreement with the evaluation. A faculty member is encouraged to respond to the department head about the evaluation, in writing, within 30 days if s/he does not agree with it.
   
   
   
   6. In the process of conducting performance evaluations, the College of Human Sciences will comply with all Auburn University policies and procedures as outlined in the Auburn University Faculty Handbook. Specifically, any faculty member who does not agree with the SUMMARY may file a grievance following procedures outlined in Article VI of the Auburn University Faculty Handbook entitled, "General Faculty Grievance Procedure."
   
   
2. Peer Review Procedure



• Peer evaluations are required at Auburn University when faculty members apply for graduate faculty status, promotion, and tenure. Therefore, departments are strongly encouraged to incorporate a peer review procedure (defined by each department) into annual performance evaluations so that individual faculty members will receive frequent performance-related feedback from their peers in all assigned areas of work. If a department opts to build peer evaluation procedures into the annual performance appraisal process, written procedures should be made available to all faculty members in that department and a vote of the faculty should be taken to determine departmental support for the peer review procedures. A majority of faculty members in the department must vote in favor of adopting the procedures before they are implemented. Additionally, when peer evaluations are conducted, the results must be summarized in writing by the department head and provided to faculty members during the annual performance evaluation meeting.