Post-Tenure Development & Review

Preamble

Post-tenure review in the College of Human Medicine is based on the following principles; 1) protection of academic freedom, 2) setting standards for a high level of faculty performance, 3) improving the reputation of programs within the college, university, and the academic community, and 4) recognition that Michigan State has in place guidelines for post-tenure review. The processes for post-tenure review outlined in this document will remain consistent with those outlined in the Faculty Handbook of the University. The goals of the review process will be both summative and formative. The summative processes will outline criteria to identify tenured faculty who have made outstanding accomplishments to their department, college and the university and faculty who are performing below expectations as documented by departmental performance criteria as applied by the chair/director and in consultation with the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development.

Post-tenure review in the College of Human Medicine is premised upon the existence of standards, processes and expectations being in place within each department. These processes include:

• Unit administrators (i.e. Deans, Chairpersons, Directors) have requested and have on file documents from each faculty member describing their annual accomplishments
• Unit administrators have in place a rating process for assessing each faculty member’s accomplishments
• All faculty shall be evaluated on an annual basis and informed in writing of the results of his/her review by the unit administrator.

Formative Processes

Outstanding faculty performance will be noted by the unit administrator who will collaborate with the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development to nominate faculty for awards and to assist in merit raises and market adjustments as appropriate.

If a faculty member has received at least two consecutive written annual evaluations indicating that they have failed to meet expectations, then the faculty member and unit administrator will collaborate with the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development to develop a program to assist the individual in refocusing efforts and/or developing skills in order to achieve expectations.

It is expected that by the end of the next year the faculty member will be actively engaged in completing the program outlined for them. By mid-year of the following year substantial progress is to be made on meeting agreed to performance expectations and by one year later, the faculty member should have improved their performance to be at or above expectations. Annual evaluation of performance to achieve expectation will be done by the chair and in consultation with the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development.

Throughout this process, faculty who fail to show a good faith effort and performance outcomes toward improvement as set by the above program will be referred to established university policy and procedures as described in the Faculty Handbook.

Establishing Performance Criteria

For post-tenure review to be an effective mechanism for improving the performance or rewarding the outstanding contributions of faculty, each department will have in place performance criteria with respect to teaching, clinical activities/service, administration, and research. Performance criteria should be consistent in principle but will differ in specifics across departments. Recognizing different emphases on teaching, research, administration and clinical care, departments and units need to explicitly define performance at or above expectations for each area of endeavor.

CHM Post-Tenure Review within University Policies Defined in the Faculty Handbook

The Faculty Handbook of the University sets out polices for “Faculty Review”, “Post-Tenure Review”, “Interpretation of the term ‘Incompetence’ by the University Committee on Faculty Tenure”, “Dismissal of Tenured Faculty for Cause” and “Dismissal of Tenured Faculty for Cause (Cont)”, “Policy and Procedure for Implementing Disciplinary Action Where Dismissal is not Sought”, and “Policy and Procedure for Rescission”. Post-tenure review within the College of Human Medicine is consistent with these policies.

Post-Tenure Review Process in the College of Human Medicine

Unit administrators are responsible, along with their faculty, for setting performance criteria and for establishing, in collaboration with the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development, a remedial process for faculty who fall below threshold. To this end the Ad Hoc Faculty Advisory Committee on Faculty Development and Post-Tenure Review (Fall 2004) has reviewed University policies and policies from other colleges, and has offered procedures that reaffirm departmental and administrative units central role in evaluation of tenured faculty. The committee has proposed a process for remediation and a timeline by which the faculty member, the unit administrator and the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development can tailor programs that will offer faculty members the opportunity to achieve at or above expectations and to promote faculty vitality. Should this not occur in a timely manner, then university policies can be invoked.

Just as the university has established a framework for identifying and improving substandard performance, the College of Human Medicine extends this policy to include a system for rewarding outstanding performance among tenured faculty. In an era where the recruitment of faculty is expensive, time consuming and disruptive to careers, it is important that the College have in place a mechanism to reward and acknowledge outstanding accomplishments in order to retain promising and mature scholars, teachers and researchers.