Faculty Senate Back to Main Page
Post-Tenure Review Implementation Guidelines


The University established a post-tenure review system to "…recognize and foster excellence, to help good faculty become better, and to identify and help underachieving faculty fulfill the potential that was recognized upon hiring and reaffirmed on the awarding of tenure." The process is intended to provide effective evaluation, useful feedback, appropriate intervention and timely assistance to ensure that every faculty member establishes and maintains an acceptable record of professional development and accomplishment during the various phases of his or her career.

The post-tenure review is normally a unit-level process that occurs every five years for each tenured faculty member. However, in the case of tenured associate professors, a college-level interim review or a formal evaluation for promotion may be substituted for the normal post-tenure review if conducted within the five-year span. The department or unit head, or the faculty member may also request a peer committee post-tenure evaluation at any time if it is considered to be beneficial to the professional development of the faculty member.

Process

The review will consist of the following steps:

  1. The unit head is responsible for developing and maintaining a multi-year plan for post-tenure review to maximize effective use of faculty and staff resources. The unit head will discuss the post-tenure review process with each eligible faculty member during the winter or spring of the academic year prior to a planned review.
  2. The faculty member will prepare a dossier in accordance with the OSU Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, with the exception that outside review letters will not be required, and will not ordinarily be requested. If a faculty member or unit head requests outside review, up to five reviewers will be selected, following the process used in promotion and tenure procedures.
  3. A unit review committee of faculty peers, appointed by the unit head, will review the dossier. The peer committee also may include faculty outside the unit; this option might be especially appropriate for faculty whose work has a significant interdisciplinary component that involves other OSU units. The peer committee's evaluation will be provided to the faculty member, who may attach comments, explanations or rebuttal, prior to being forwarded to the unit head.
  4. The unit head, after reviewing the dossier and peer committee's evaluation and recommendation, will prepare a written evaluation of the faculty member's performance in each of the assigned areas of responsibility, as well as an overall performance rating. The overall performance will be expressed as Extraordinary Performance, Strong and Positive Performance, or Unsatisfactory Performance.
  5. The final dossier and evaluations will be kept in the faculty member's personnel file, and a copy will be submitted to the Dean.

Outcomes

An overall performance rating for the five-year review period will be determined using the following three levels: Extraordinary Performance, Strong and Positive Performance, or Unsatisfactory Performance. It is expected that only five-year performance records that stand out from the rank group and which are conspicuously marked by distinction will be considered "Extraordinary." This rating would require high levels of sustained performance per faculty member's position description. Similarly, faculty performance that shows a sustained record of deficient performance per faculty member's job description will be considered "Unsatisfactory."

"Extraordinary" Performance: The department and/or college will publicly acknowledge faculty whose performance is deemed Extraordinary and will consider the post-tenure review outcome in awarding merit raises at the next available opportunity for such raises. In addition, faculty receiving a rating of Extraordinary will receive a one-time monetary supplement of $3,000.

"Strong and Positive" Performance: The department and/or college will consider the post-tenure review outcome in awarding merit and fully satisfactory performance raises at the next available opportunity.

"Unsatisfactory" Performance: Should the peer committee and the unit head agree that the results of a five-year review indicate that a faculty member's record is unsatisfactory, the unit head in consultation with the peer committee and the faculty member under review, will draft a professional development plant. This plan will include definite steps to be taken to remedy the specific deficiencies and to provide realistic support for accomplishing the goals of the development plan. The plan shall be approved by the responsible dean(s). A timetable of no longer than three years will be provided to accomplish the goals of the plan, with annual monitoring by the unit head and peer review committee to measure progress.

Discipline or dismissal for cause, are not part of the post-tenure review. The consequences of continued unsatisfactory performance are outlined in The Faculty Handbook. The unit head and the dean bear the responsibility for documenting a case of continued unsatisfactory performance and/or failure to achieve the goals of the development plan resulting from a post-tenure review.

Established 11/12/01


| Agendas | Bylaws | Committees/Councils | Faculty Forum Papers | Handbook | Meetings/Locations | Membership | Minutes |