Academic Affairs Process and Procedures

Effective date: January 2026 (replaces 2016 and 2019 versions)

The purpose of this document is to identify key policy statements related to annual written performance summaries, and to provide guidance from the Office of the Provost on their implementation.

Written performance summaries for all regular faculty have long been a part of the annual salary adjustment process. Policy language (last updated in winter semester 2025) can be found in SG 3.08.6.6. Here are the key points:

• For each regular faculty member, a written performance summary is created annually. This summary will include a performance rating (“less than satisfactory performance”, “satisfactory performance”, “exemplary performance”) which will inform the faculty member’s annual salary adjustment. 
  • Note: Along with the performance rating, regular faculty can also be considered for a “special salary adjustment” due to equity concerns or other pertinent issues. See SG 3.08.3 for details.
     
• As stated in SG 3.08.6, written performance summaries should include:
  • The unit head’s summary of peer evaluations (or the unit head’s recommendations if peer evaluation is not done).
  • A discussion of the faculty member’s performance in teaching (or professional effectiveness for library faculty), scholarship, service, and the significant focus commitment from the Faculty Workload Plan.
  • For untenured regular faculty, a discussion of any departmental concerns regarding contract renewal, tenure, or promotion, if relevant.
     
• The written performance summary will also be used in personnel actions. BOT 4.2.10.5 states that “written performance summaries from the Faculty Annual Salary Adjustment Program for the period relevant to the action under consideration” are among the documents required of the candidate, that policy also defines which years are relevant.
   
• It is the responsibility of the candidate to retain their performance summaries and include them in their dossier. Starting with the summaries for 2024 (created in winter 2025 semester), written performance summaries will be archived in Workday.  Pre-2024 summaries should be maintained in department files by the unit head.
  
  Additional guidelines from the Office of the Provost:
   
• Unless problems have been identified, no special annual review process should apply to untenured regular faculty.
   
• However, for untenured regular faculty, the peer reviewers (or the unit head) should pay particular attention to any potential concerns regarding contract renewal, tenure, and promotion. It is appropriate to identify these potential concerns in the written performance summary.  Note that tenured faculty applying for promotion will include their summaries in their portfolio, so those summaries may include commentary relevant to that personnel decision.
   
• For untenured regular faculty, the unit head should present the faculty member with an original and a copy of the written performance summary. The untenured regular faculty member will sign the original and return it to the unit head and retain the copy for later inclusion with personnel review materials. This signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the summary, but rather simply it has been received. 
   
• For all faculty, it is appropriate for the unit head to raise or document performance concerns in a Written Performance Summary and to address performance improvement.
  ​​​​​​​
• Although the faculty handbooks are silent on this aspect, the faculty member may write a response of not more than one page, which will become part of their written performance summary. Requests by faculty members to include these responses in the Workday repository will be honored.  In addition, faculty members who disagree with their merit rating or their salary adjustment may appeal using pertinent supporting material according to the procedure specified in the BOT 4.2.18.
  
  Questions can be directed to Senior AVP Ed Aboufadel.