3.8.1 Annual Performance and Planning Review (APPR)
The University of Tennessee Board of Trustees Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure (BT0006) require that each faculty member and his or her department head engage in a formal annual performance-and-planning review. Each faculty member’s annual performance-and-planning review must proceed from guidelines and criteria contained in BT0006, this handbook, and all relevant bylaws.
Except as provided in section 3.8.5.5 of this handbook relating to tenured faculty members undergoing Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review, every tenure‑track and tenured faculty member at the University of Tennessee who is not on leave is reviewed annually. The goals of the APPR are to:
- review accomplishments as compared to previously set specific objectives for the faculty member by the faculty member and the head consistent with this handbook and departmental bylaws;
- establish new objectives for the coming year, as appropriate, using clearly understood standards that are consistent with this handbook and departmental bylaws;
- provide the necessary support (resources, environment, personal and official encouragement) to achieve these objectives;
- fairly and honestly assess the performance of the faculty member by the department head and, where appropriate, by colleagues; and
- recognize and reward outstanding achievement.
3.8.1.1 Rating Scale to be Applied in Evaluating Faculty Performance
Faculty performance must be evaluated in a manner consistent with all applicable campus, college, and/or departmental policies, procedures, and bylaws, and must apply the following performance ratings:
Far exceeds expectations for rank
Exceeds expectations for rank
Meets expectations for rank
Falls short of meeting expectations for rank
Fall far short of meeting expectations for rank
This section explains the articulation between this UTK/UTIA/UTSI – specific performance rating scale and the scale provided in the Board of Trustees Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure. That articulation is necessary for application of certain policies and procedures (for example the APPR process and the Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review process):
- An overall performance rating of falls short of meeting expectations for rank is consistent with “Needs Improvement for Rank” in the UT Board of Trustees “Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure.” An overall performance rating of falls far short of meeting expectations for rank is consistent with “Unsatisfactory for Rank” in the same document.
A faculty member with an overall performance rating of meets, exceeds, or far exceeds expectations for rank is eligible for any merit pay or other performance-based salary increase that may be authorized under campus, college, and/or departmental rules or guidelines. He/she is also eligible for any across-the-board salary increase.
A faculty member with an overall performance rating of falls short of meeting expectations for rank is not eligible for any merit pay or other performance-based salary increase that may be authorized under campus, college, and/or departmental rules or guidelines, but he/she is eligible for any across-the-board salary increase.
A faculty member with an overall performance rating of falls far short of meeting expectations for rank is not eligible for any merit pay or other performance-based salary increase that may be authorized under campus, college, and/or departmental rules or guidelines, nor is he/she eligible for any across-the-board salary increase.
Within 30 days of receipt of the fully executed annual review form, any faculty member whose overall performance is rated falls short of meeting expectations for rank must collaborate with the Department Head on an Annual Review Improvement Plan unless the performance rating triggers Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review. The Annual Review Improvement Plan is to be reviewed by the Head and recommended by him/her to the Dean for review and approval/denial. The next year’s annual review must include a progress report that clearly describes improvements in any area(s) rated at the level of falls short or falls far short of meeting expectations for rank in the evaluation that necessitated the improvement plan.
If a faculty member’s overall performance is rated falls far short of meeting expectations, the chief academic officer will initiate an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review. (See section 3.8.5, below.)
If a faculty member’s overall performance is rated falls short of meeting expectations in any two years during any four consecutive annual review cycles, the chief academic officer will initiate an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review. (See section 3.8.5, below.)
3.8.1.2 Timetable for APPR
Each faculty member at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is evaluated annually on his or her performance during the previous three academic years. Each faculty member at the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture is evaluated annually on his or her performance during the previous three calendar years. In either case, the three-year period is referred to as the “Evaluation Period.” For each tenured or tenure-track faculty member at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, the APPR will be completed in the fall semester of each academic year, as set forth in the Faculty Evaluation Calendar. For each tenured or tenure-track faculty member at the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, the APPR will be completed in the spring semester of each academic year, as set forth in the Faculty Evaluation Calendar.
3.8.1.3 Annual Retention Review for Tenure‑Track Faculty Members
In addition to (and at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, coincident with) the APPR described in Section 3.8.1, tenure-track faculty members receive an annual retention review. See below, Section 3.11.3.
3.8.2 Procedures for the APPR
The department head manages the APPR process for tenured and tenure-track faculty in a timely way to ensure compliance with all deadlines for submission of the review forms to the dean and chief academic officer. The APPR has three levels of review: by the department head, the dean, and the chief academic officer. In colleges without departments, the dean may also fulfill the functions of the department head, or may appoint someone within the college (for example, an associate dean), as stipulated in the college’s bylaws. A full account of the APPR process can be found in the appropriate appendix of this handbook.
3.8.2.1 No Ex Parte Communications During APPR Annual Review Process
The annual review process exists to provide fair, objective, and constructive feedback and relevant support to faculty members. As a means of preserving the integrity of the process, until the APPR has been fully executed by the chief academic officer, neither the faculty member under review nor any administrator managing or conducting the review is permitted to communicate substantive information about the review with others involved in the review process, especially those charged with making a recommendation at subsequent stages of review. For example, a department head shall not communicate with a dean about the substance of a faculty member’s review except through the transmission of the APPR materials. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to prohibit a faculty member under review from (a) consulting with his or her mentor regarding the substance or process of the review, (b) consulting with a University ombudsperson, (c) consulting with representatives of the Office of Equity and Diversity, or (d) pursuing possible rights of appeal available under Chapter 5 of this handbook.
3.8.2.2 APPR Improvement Plan
Faculty members who receive notice from the chief academic officer that they have received ratings of “falls short of meeting expectations for rank” must develop a plan of improvement and submit the plan to the department head within 30 days of receipt of the fully executed APPR unless the rating triggers an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review. The faculty member has the responsibility of developing a written response for each area needing attention in the APPR, including the goals and benchmarks for improvement and the resources, if any, to be allocated for this purpose. The faculty member will follow up on this plan at subsequent annual reviews. A complete description of the APPR Improvement Plan can be found in the appropriate appendix to this handbook.
3.8.3 Right to Appeal an APPR
The faculty member’s right to appeal is in addition to and different from the right to respond to each level of review, as described in the appropriate appendix to this handbook. An appeal may begin once the APPR is fully executed: that is, once the chief academic officer has confirmed or changed the APPR ratings and attached his or her signature. The faculty member’s right to appeal is described in Chapter 5 of this handbook. According to BT0006, an APPR rating is not appealable to the president.
3.8.4 Periodic Post-Tenure Performance Review for Tenured Faculty Members (PPPR)
As required by the Board of Trustees Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure, every tenured faculty member will receive a comprehensive performance review no less often than every six years. The procedures for this periodic review are set forth as an appendix to this handbook.
3.8.5 Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review for Tenured Faculty Members
Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review (EPPR) is an expanded and in-depth performance evaluation conducted by a committee of tenured peers and administered by the chief academic officer. Procedures for conducting an EPPR are set forth as an appendix to this handbook.
This policy recognizes that the work of a faculty member is not neatly separated into academic or calendar years. To ensure that performance is evaluated in the context of ongoing work, the period of performance subject to enhanced review is the five most recent annual performance review cycles. The chief academic officer must collect and maintain sufficient data regarding annual performance reviews to implement this policy effectively.
An Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review must be initiated when the chief academic officer determines that a faculty member has:
- requested an EPPR, after at least four annual performance review cycles since the last enhanced review (such as a previous EPPR or a review in connection with tenure or promotion);
- received one overall annual performance rating of “Falls Far Short of Expectations”; or
- received two overall annual performance ratings of “Falls Short of Expectations” during any four consecutive annual performance review cycles; or
- been deemed to fail to satisfy expectations for rank by a Periodic Post-Tenure Review Committee.
3.8.5.1 Administration of the EPPR by the Chief Academic Officer[1]
The EPPR process will be administered under the direction and oversight of the chief academic officer. As with any performance evaluation, the chief academic officer may overrule a performance rating assigned by a department head or dean during the annual review process with a detailed, written justification. The practice ensures that when an EPPR process is activated by one or more negative performance ratings (3.8.2, above), the chief academic officer is aware of existing concerns.
The task of administering the EPPR requires implementation of this policy and the procedures detailed in the relevant appendix to this handbook, as well as any additional steps the chief academic officer finds necessary to comply with the policy objectives. For example, the chief academic officer may be required to adapt the implementation of this policy to satisfy legal requirements (such as limitations on disclosure of student information) or respond to unexpected events (such as replacement of a committee member who becomes unable to serve).
3.8.5.2 Peer Review Committee’s Charge
The peer review committee is charged to review the information relevant to the faculty member’s performance during the review period and to conclude whether or not that performance has satisfied the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank.
As detailed in the relevant appendix to this handbook, the expectations for faculty performance may differ by campus, college, department, and even among sub-disciplines within a department or program. Those expectations may be commonly held standards in the discipline or sub-discipline. Those expectations may be stated explicitly in the faculty member’s own past annual performance reviews, work assignments, goals or other planning tools (however identified), as well as department or college bylaws, this handbook, Board policies, and in other generally applicable policies and procedures (for example, fiscal, human resources, safety, research, or information technology policies and procedures).
The peer review committee must reach a conclusion as to whether or not the performance has satisfied expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank. If the peer review committee concludes that the faculty member’s performance has not met the expectations for the discipline and academic rank, the committee must also recommend either that an EPPR improvement plan be developed as detailed in the relevant appendix to this handbook, or that tenure be terminated for Adequate Cause, as detailed in chapter 3 of this handbook.
The committee must report its conclusions and recommendations in writing, including an explanation for each conclusion or recommendation, and enumerating the anonymously cast vote and dissenting explanation for any conclusion or recommendation that is not adopted unanimously. The faculty member must have an opportunity to review and respond to the committee’s report.
All written conclusions, reasoning upon which they are based, and recommendations of the peer review committee must be reviewed and considered by the chief academic officer and the chancellor.
3.8.5.3 Review and Action by the Chancellor
The chancellor may accept the peer review committee’s conclusions and recommendations or make different conclusions in a written explanation provided to the faculty member with copies to the chief academic officer, dean, department head, and members of the peer review committee. Based on those conclusions, the chancellor may take further action as deemed appropriate, including (without limitation) actions described in Board policy, this handbook, or in any other policy and procedures generally applicable to faculty.
If the chancellor concludes (based on the recommendation of a peer review committee or based on independent review of the EPPR materials) that an EPPR improvement plan is warranted, the chancellor will promptly direct the chief academic officer to oversee development of the plan.
3.8.5.4 Final Review and Action Following Any EPPR Improvement Plan
If an EPPR improvement plan is implemented, the peer review committee must reconvene to review performance under the plan and to decide whether or not performance under the plan satisfies the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank. The committee must report its conclusions and recommendations in writing, as described in the relevant appendix to this handbook. The chief academic officer and the chancellor must review all conclusions and recommendations of the peer review committee. The chancellor may: accept the committee’s conclusions and recommendations; provide a written explanation of different conclusions to the faculty member with copies to the chief academic officer, dean, department head, and members of the peer review committee; or take further action deemed appropriate, including (without limitation) actions described in Board policy, this handbook, or any other policy and procedures generally applicable to faculty.
3.8.5.5 Coordination of the APPR and the EPPR Review Processes
In the case where a faculty member is undergoing EPPR at the same time that an APPR is due, the department head will coordinate the APPR with the EPPR peer review committee. Coordination will take one of the following forms:
- In the case where a faculty member is undergoing an EPPR during the time that an APPR is due, when possible the department head will postpone the APPR until the EPPR committee has issued its report and the report has been accepted by the chancellor. The report will be advisory to the department head in preparing the APPR, and it will become part of the APPR materials. The faculty member has the right to respond to the report. If it is not possible to postpone the review until the EPPR committee’s report has been accepted, then the department head will perform APPR without input from the committee.
- In the case where a faculty member is under an EPPR improvement plan, as described in section 7 of the relevant appendix to this handbook, the peer review committee will provide a written interim report to the faculty member and the department head on the faculty member’s progress in satisfying the expectations established in the EPPR improvement plan. The report will be advisory to the department head, and the faculty member has the right to respond to the report. The EPPR committee’s report will become part of the APPR materials.
The overall APPR rating awarded to the faculty member undergoing EPPR or under an EPPR improvement plan will determine eligibility for merit and across-the-board pay increases, as specified in 3.8.2, above. Any APPR materials produced while a faculty member is undergoing EPPR or under an EPPR improvement plan will be made available to the EPPR committee.
[1] Where indicated in the relevant appendix to this handbook, the chief academic officer may delegate tasks associated with the EPPR to a vice provost or other appropriate academic administrator, but will remain responsible for making any decisions assigned to the chief academic officer.