Presentation to Kansas State Conference: 2017 Setting and Achieving Appropriate Expectations for Faculty Performance Dr. J. Emmett Winn Associate Provost Dr. L. Allen Furr Faculty Fellow for Transformational Leadership

Session Expected Outcomes Identify and discern best practices for setting and meeting expectations for faculty performance. Understand the importance of the faculty expectations and review process from appointment through post-tenure revue. Understand the role of accepting and sharing responsibility for the process.

Session Format Presentation of Key Ideas Please interrupt me with questions, comments, best practices, etc. Interactive Scenarios and Q & A.

Performance Evaluation Expectations Unit must provide an objective basis for evaluation. Unit should clarify what are acceptable results (outcomes). Improved satisfaction via effective communication. Unit leader/mentor/faculty must help new faculty understand requirements and unit norms/culture. The process should encourage trust.

Performance Evaluation Stages Writing, evaluating, and revising formal guidelines (i.e. Promotion &Tenure Guidelines) Letters of appointment Regular discussion (year round) Annual reviews Third year reviews (pre-tenure reviews) Promotion and Tenure process Post-Tenure Review

Performance Expectations Performance expectations are not just based on quantifiable results. Performance expectations also include actions and behaviors that are considered appropriate norms for the unit culture. In this sense, a norm is a group-held belief about how members should behave in a given context.

Performance Expectations = Results + Actions and Behaviors (UC, Berkley) Results are often measured through the use of standards and objectives. Actions and behaviors are “the methods and means used” and are often governed by norms.

Results Results = outcomes (courses taught, research/outreach funding received, articles published, etc. ). Should appear in the unit’s Promotion &Tenure guidelines. Can be explained in the appointment letter. Should be assessed during annual reviews (but not only then). Should be a focus of the third year review and P&T processes. As part of the annual reviews, they effect P&T reviews.

Actions and Behaviors Actions and Behaviors: “the methods and means used.” Very often, I hear complaints that center on actions and behaviors rather than results. Since unit norms may not be explicit, it is important to address expectations of actions and behaviors especially in areas where quantifiable results are less common or less valued. It is important to address actions and behaviors in expectations especially in areas where quantifiable results are less common or less important. Too often I hear junior faculty say things like, “I don’t understand why I received a low score. I met the requirements (results), but my chair doesn’t like me.” I find that it is not about dislike—it is about the junior faculty member not understanding the department’s implicit norms concerning actions and behaviors.

Mutual Benefit Performance expectations: Serve as a foundation for communicating about performance throughout the year. Serve as the basis for evaluating faculty performance. Provide benefits to the individual faculty and the unit when clear expectations are set about the results that must be achieved as well as the methods/approaches needed to achieve them.

Best Practices Establish clear unit expectations (P&T Guidelines) Communicate the expectations in terms of results AND actions & behaviors (regular discussions, letter of appointments, and annual reviews) Maintain consistency in the process Provide clear feedback for progress Not just an annual event

Tips for Writing Good Evaluations What is the Message? How to avoid ambiguity and be specific. Are my evaluations summative or formative?

Shared Responsibility The chair needs to: Be consistent. Be objective. Communicate regularly. Provide feedback. Together the two can clarify expectations by questioning, discussing, and challenging goals and assumptions The faculty member needs to: Understand the guidelines. Provide measurable outcomes. Adhere to actions and behavior norms. Communicate regularly. Follow-up on feedback.

Shared Responsibility + The success of this process can be greatly increased (and more problems avoided) when the deans/associate deans interact with the heads/chairs/directors on the annual reviews. There are at least two good mechanisms for this: The dean/associate dean works with the unit leader and department in all stages of the process (slide 4) The dean/associate dean reviews aggregated results data on the unit with the unit leader and provides feedback to improve the processes locally.

Interactive time Scenarios Here

Mistakes that have been made. Interactive Time Scenarios and Mistakes that have been made.