FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CHM Chair Collaboration Meeting January 7, 2004 Presented by: Terry Curry, Professor and Director

2 THE MSU POLICY n Tenure system faculty evaluated annually n Clearly formulated, written performance criteria provided at time of appointment to clarify expectations n Faculty shall be informed of factors used, evaluation of their performance on the factors, and the relationship between their performance and decisions on merit adjustments and RPT where appropriate n Annual assessments shall be reflected in RPT recommendations

3 CURRY ASSUMPTIONS – REVIEWS AND MERIT PAY 1. Faculty are our most important resource. 2. Faculty independence and self- direction must be balanced with the mission of the unit and University. 3. Faculty should participate in setting and clarifying expectations. 4. Faculty deserve feedback.

4 CURRY’S ASSUMPTIONS -- Continued 5. Faculty should participate in the process of evaluation and development. 6. Faculty career development is an ongoing event even though writing the review is an annual process. 7. Expectations may change over the faculty career. The annual review is part of a larger picture of growth and development.

5 CURRY’S ASSUMPTIONS -- Continued 8. “Merit” pay decisions require an effective performance appraisal. 9. Equity is the issue in compensation, internal and external, not just amount. 10. Merit pay discussions should be separated from discussions about performance and development.

6 THE IDEAL PROCESS 1. An individually tailored career development plan based upon mission, objectives, workload 2. Yearly update of the plan as basis for review 3. The plan would be updated as required so that parties view it as a fair basis for the annual review 4. Faculty self-appraisal and input 5. Pay decisions would be transparent

7 THE IDEAL PROCESS – Continued 6. NO SURPRISES in any part of the performance review process – mission, workload guidelines, expectations, the review 7. Faculty should know the relationship between performance and pay decisions and how their pay decision was determined

8 LEGAL ISSUES 1. Legal issues are likely to arise in one of three contexts: –an adverse personnel decision, –a disciplinary action, or –a defamation action

9 2. The Written Performance Review Should Support That: n The faculty member received clear communications concerning expectations n The expectations were reasonable, fair and consistent with University guidelines n The unit’s process was fair and consistent with its (and MSU) policies n The faculty member was treated consistently

10 LEGAL ISSUES -- Continued 3. Written performance reviews are accessible under Bullard-Plawecki and FOIA. 4. In writing reviews: –The truth, supported by evidence, is the best defense. –Be objective where possible rather than subjective in your choice of words. Include support.

11 LEGAL ISSUES -- Continued 5. Especially with merit increases, follow Provost and College instructions, as well as unit bylaws. 6. Pay attention to the unwritten practices that may have become unit policy.

12 WRITING FACULTY PERFORMANCE REVIEWS 1. Be prepared 2. Take your time writing it 3. Pre-schedule an appointment 4. Provide a draft copy before the meeting 5. Conduct in private 6. Focus on performance 7. Be specific 8. Ask questions 9. Serve as coach 10. Close positively, with a plan 11. Use objective language

13 DISCUSSING PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS 1. Explain the “area in need of improvement” 2. Review the consequences 3. Offer your help 4. Ask for then suggest specific ideas 5. Summarize action items and set dates 6. Express confidence and support 7. Be constructive 8. Document the discussion

14 CRITERIA FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK n Specific, not general n Tentative, not absolute n Informing rather than ordering n Behavior descriptions n Descriptions of your own feelings n Your perceptions of others’ actions n Directed toward behavior n Asked for rather imposed n Checked to insure clear communication