Academic Affairs Manual (ACD)
![[horizontal rule]](acdhr.gif){kind=small}
| Effective: 2/21/1990 |
Revised: 1/9/2006 |
![[ASU logo]](asu.gif) |
ACD 507–08: Annual Performance Evaluation |
Purpose
To describe the annual performance evaluation procedures for academic professionals
Sources
Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual - 6–301, 302
Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University
Applicability
All categories of academic professionals, i.e., those with year-to-year, multiple-year, probationary, and continuing appointments, including part-time academic professionals
Policy
All academic professionals shall have annual performance evaluations.
Principles and Purpose
The university administration will use written performance evaluations as the basis for merit increases.
Performance evaluations should promote the effectiveness of academic professionals by articulating the actions that will enhance professional contributions, recognizing applications of relevant talents and capabilities, and identifying issues of position effectiveness that were below expectations and should be addressed during the next evaluation period.
Each performance evaluation shall document that position effectiveness, professional contributions, and institutional, professional, and/or community service, in accordance with the academic professional’s job description during the evaluation period, were considered.
Relationship to Other Reviews (Probationary, Continuing Appointment, Promotion)
Annual performance evaluations do not cumulate into continuing appointment or promotion decisions.
For probationary academic professionals, the annual performance evaluation should not be confused with the probationary review. Annual feedback on progress toward continuing appointment may occur at the same time and be based upon the same material as the annual performance evaluation, but probationary reviews are prospective and reflect the unit’s estimate of the candidate’s future promise. Thus, the procedures and standards used in annual performance evaluations are different from those used in retention, promotion, and continuing appointment reviews. Annual performance evaluations are retrospective and summative, whereas continuing appointment reviews are prospective and summative.
Typically, units expect different levels of performance for annual performance evaluations (e.g., unsatisfactory, satisfactory, merit, and so forth) than for retention, continuing appointment, and promotion (which require excellence). Procedures differ in that the final decision about the performance level in an annual evaluation is made by the unit head, whereas the final decision in a probationary, continuing appointment, or promotion review is made by the president based on independent assessments from the unit personnel committee, unit head, college personnel committee, dean, and (in the case of continuing appointment and promotion) the designated university committee.
Even though annual performance evaluations differ significantly from probationary, continuing appointment, and promotion reviews, there are some common elements. Annual performance evaluations should be as similar as possible to the other reviews in terms of the categories of work that are evaluated, the definitions and scope of each of these kinds of work, and the types of evidence that academic professionals are expected to provide for the review.
Conduct of the Evaluation
The unit head is responsible for an annual evaluation of the performance of each academic professional employed within the unit.
The unit head shall conduct the evaluation with reference to the performance contract specified in the academic professional’s job description and according to university policy and to the procedures established by the unit. The unit head should solicit advice from the immediate supervisor or primary evaluator, if different, appropriate peers and/or committees pursuant to departmental guidelines.
The evaluations are to be completed and filed with the appropriate dean’s office by April 30 each year. Records of annual performance evaluations are not forwarded to the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University.
Units may develop additional procedures for monitoring progress throughout the year, such as a six-month review, especially for new employees.
Evaluation Materials
The academic professional shall provide materials to the unit head per unit guidelines. While guidelines may vary across units, generally these materials should include (at a minimum) the current job description, a current curriculum vitae, goal statement for the evaluation period, and an activity report for the evaluation period.
Procedure
The unit head will provide a written evaluation of the academic professional’s performance to the academic professional at least 24 hours before their meeting to discuss the evaluation.
The unit head and the academic professional will then discuss the evaluation, set goals for the next evaluation period, and agree on modifications to the job description if necessary.
If the discussion results in a need to revise the written evaluation or the job description, the unit head will write an amendment to the evaluation. The unit head and the academic professional will both sign the evaluation document and any amendments, verifying that they have been received and discussed.
Appeal of Annual Performance Evaluations
An academic professional who disagrees with the outcome of the annual performance evaluation may appeal to the next administrative level above the unit head or to a departmental appeals committee if such a body exists. The academic professional must appeal to the administrator within 30 days after the evaluation discussion.
The administrator must respond within 30 days after the request is received. The final decision lies with the administrator.
There are no procedures for hearings except when a grievance is filed charging failure to follow university policies and procedures. The academic professional can, however, ask that his/her written request for the appeal become part of the record of the performance evaluation.
Nonreappointment
With the exception of academic professionals with continuing appointment, an academic professional who receives an overall unsatisfactory rating in a performance evaluation may receive a notice of nonreappointment under ACD 508–01, “Nonreappointment.”
An academic professional with continuing appointment may be dismissed for just cause or released for financial exigency or reorganization under Arizona Board of Regents policy 6-301, “Conditions of Professional Service.” See also ACD 507–09, “Post-Continuing Appointment Review.”
Cross-References
For information on year-to-year appointments, see ACD 507–03, “Year-to-Year Appointments.”
For information on multiple-year appointments, see ACD 507–04, “Multiple-Year Appointments.”
For information on probationary appointments, see ACD 507–05, “Probationary Appointments and Review.”
For information on continuing appointment, see ACD 507–06, “Review for Continuing Appointment”
For information on promotion, see ACD 507–07, “Review for Promotion.”
For information on nonreappointment, see ACD 508–01, “Nonreappointment.”
skip navigation bar