Effective Faculty Evaluation:
Annual Salary Adjustments,
Tenure and Promotion

Chapter 5. Evaluation for Promotion

1. Relationship of Tenure and Promotion

   Two special cases concerning the relationship between of promotion to the rank of associate professor and tenure should be mentioned. First, as noted in the previous section, a negative decision concerning promotion to the rank of associate professor during the final year of probation ordinarily constitutes a decision that the candidate's work lacks sufficient excellence to justify tenure.

   Second, a probationary faculty member might have truly exceptional performance but be employed in a program that was declining or facing elimination. It would be possible in this case for the person to be promoted in a shorter-than-average time, yet be denied tenure because of factors of institutional need that were beyond his or her control. Thus tenure is neither adequately predicted by annual salary adjustment recommendations nor even by promotion recommendations.
   
   

2. Kinds of Errors

   Although it does not have the gravity of a tenure decision, a promotion decision for a tenured person also involves a very long-term commitment by the University. Here, too, prudence suggests caution in making a favorable decision. On balance, the lesser harm to the greatest number of people is caused by an error in making an incorrect negative promotion recommendation than in making an incorrect positive one.

   An incorrect decision to promote a person can create long-term problems. The University is committed to providing the person the benefits of the rank for decades to come even if productivity is seriously deficient. This can cause embarrassment and create morale problems for colleagues.

   An incorrect unfavorable decision is likely to be much less serious because it can be righted in any subsequent year. Although it will probably cause a temporary morale problem for the person not promoted and could trigger a resignation, it does not typically create any irreversible long-term problems. Here, too, however, ethical and humanitarian concerns dictate that the University should minimize the number of such errors to the extent that this is possible without increasing the number of the oth er kind.
   
   

3. External Peer Reviews

   For promotion to the rank of full professor, reviews by outside peers should be a standard part of the materials assembled. By the time a person merits consideration for promotion to full professor, the record of achievements should be extensive and the reputation with appropriate populations should be well established. Hence external peer reviews have their greatest utility in reaching decisions regarding promotion to the rank of full professor. Their limitation of not addressing institutional missions and needs is not a disadvantage in promotion considerations because promotion is based mainly on individual excellence, which peer reviews are particularly well suited to address.

   As mentioned above, outside peer reviews are often used in tenure deliberations and in decisions concerning promotion to the rank of associate professor. These two uses could well be considered options available to the department faculty, the department head, the dean, or the candidate.

   Selection of outside reviewers should include some named by the candidate as well as some named by the department. It would seem reasonable for equal numbers to be chosen by each party. Four or six outside reviewers might be a reasonable number.

   Reviewers should be selected on the basis of their qualifications to assess the work of the candidate. This does not require personal acquaintance with the candidate. Care should be taken to avoid the candidate's co-authors, dissertation committee members, or other persons who may be perceived to have potential biases. At the same time, personal acquaintance and even some degree of professional association with the candidate should not necessarily disqualify a reviewer. Faculty members make contact with professional colleagues elsewhere through their common interests, and those common interests often qualify them to assess one another's work. Reviewers should not be chosen for their lack of contact with the candidate but for their ability to render an objective professional judgment of the candidate's work.

   The reviews should be invited by the head and sent directly to the head with assurance that, to the extent allowable by law, the candidate will not have access to them.

   Once the reviews have been obtained, it is appropriate for the department head to provide a brief cover statement to be included in the candidate's file for the edification of those who will review it. The cover statement should, as a minimum, indicate (a) who selected each reviewer, (b) the qualifications of each reviewer, and (c) the aspect(s) of the candidate's performance that each reviewer is well qualified to assess.

   Outside review is more useful for evaluating research and professional service than other forms of service or teaching. It is important also to recognize that it can have a built-in bias favoring those with heavy research assignments. Research publications are easily sent off for review. Teaching is less easily "packaged." For this reason, the outside reviewers should be provided with a clear sense of the candidate's assignments in each area of professional activity.

   Another way to avoid bias is to secure reviews from peers who are experts in what the candidate has been expected to do most. Thus a person with heavy research responsibilities might very appropriately be evaluated by eminent researchers.

   A person with heavy teaching responsibilities would appropriately be assessed by outside reviewers known for their excellent instruction or for their scholarship in the evaluation of instruction in the field of interest. In identifying such persons, one might consider persons who (a) have received awards for outstanding teaching that are based on rigorous criteria, (b) are recognized for scholarship in the evaluation of college teaching, (c) are widely recognized by peers and students as outstanding teachers, (d) provide editorial services to professional journals concerned with teaching in the candidate's field, (e) publish research in the teaching of the candidate's discipline, and (f) publish informed, thoughtful commentaries concerning instruction in the discipline. Such reviewers can not, of course, observe the candidate's teaching, but this is not a problem because direct observation is not a very good basis for summative evaluation of teaching. Outside reviewers of instructional effectiveness can examine such packageable indicators of teaching effectiveness as syllabi, tests, instructional materials, and bibliographies.