1. Up or Out: Issues in Negative Promotion Decisions
Linda M. Boxer, Vice Dean
Cheryl Gore-Felton, OAA Associate Dean
Jim Brooks, OAA Associate Dean

2. Outline of Topics
UTL Examples for Consideration for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure
#1 Low scholarly productivity
#2 Very poor teaching and mentoring
(Note that these are fictional examples)
NTL-R Promotion Criteria
Overview of Appeal Process

3. UTL Example #1 p1
At reappointment, 1 senior author manuscript in low-tier specialty journal and 1 first author publication with postdoc advisor
Very few invited talks
Just obtained R01

4. UTL Example #1 p2
Referee letters moderately positive but from previous mentors and a collaborator at Stanford

5. UTL Example #1 p3 Some classroom teaching
1 grad student in lab and 4 postdocs
Letters from trainees are fine

6. UTL Example #1 p4
How should this faculty member be counseled?

7. UTL Example #1 p5
Counseling memo should clearly state that scholarly productivity is low, and trajectory toward promotion is not good
Plan for meetings with chair/chief and mentor quarterly to assess progress
Consider sabbatical to focus on research (after reappointment can borrow up to 3 months)
Help with invitations to speak on research results
Continue classroom teaching, mentoring trainees

8. UTL Example #1 p6
Annual counseling memos continued to document the need for more scholarly productivity, invited presentations, and formal classroom teaching

9. UTL Example #1 p7 End of the 6th year (time to launch review):
2 additional senior author publications in specialty journals
2 additional manuscripts with former postdoc advisor in higher impact journals
Candidate is preparing a manuscript to submit to a high impact journal

10. UTL Example #1 p8 Trainees: 1 current grad student, 3 postdocs
Grants: R01, project PI on P01 (senior faculty member is overall PI of P01)

11. UTL Example #1 p9 Letters from referees:
Several are brief and mostly positive but do not discuss accomplishments or rank with peers
Four did not write stating that they did not know the candidate
Other letters are lukewarm to very negative with poor ranking compared to peers

12. UTL Example #1 p10
What is the likelihood of successful promotion to Associate Professor with tenure?

13. UTL Promotion Criteria-Research
Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure will be reserved for an individual who has achieved true distinction in research and who is not only recognized among the best in his/her cohort in a broadly defined field but also likely to become one of the very best in the field

14. UTL Promotion Criteria-Teaching
The candidate should be capable of sustaining a first-rate teaching program
There should be evidence that the candidate will successfully continue to fill the programmatic need for which the appointment is made and make meritorious contributions to his/her discipline and to the School

15. UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues
Productivity is very low, and it will be difficult for referees to say that the candidate is one of the best scholars at his/her level of professional development in a broad field
Too late to assess impact of manuscript being prepared now (requires time after publication to determine impact on field)

16. UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues cont’d
True distinction in scholarship requires innovative, cutting-edge research on important questions in the field that breaks new ground, changes the way the field is viewed, broadens our understanding of the field or opens up new methods or new areas of investigation

17. UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues cont’d
Scholarship should have the fundamental impact on the field that is expected from the best scholars in the field

18. UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues-Recognition in Field
Very few invited talks, publications in low-tier journals
Receipt of national peer-reviewed grants is a measure of recognition in the field, but may speak more to promise than actual accomplishment

19. UTL Example #1: Discussion of Issues-Scholarly Independence
Investigative independence is expected since it can be a useful marker of substantive scholarly contributions
Difficult to demonstrate when most important publications are with previous postdoc mentor

20. UTL Example #1
What was the outcome of the promotion review?

21. UTL Example #1 Questions
Questions or discussion?

22. UTL Example #2-p1
At reappointment, 3 senior author publications in excellent journals and several collaborative publications
Increase in the number of invited talks each year
Has R01 and DOD grants

23. UTL Example #2-p2
Classroom teaching with average evaluations, no issues
Trainees: 3 grad students (all current), 4 postdocs (2 current, 2 former)

24. UTL Example #2-p3 Referee letters very positive
Difficult to obtain trainee letters (remember that all current and former trainees are solicited)
2 grad students wrote very brief letters
1 current postdoc wrote (only in lab for ~6 months)

25. UTL Example #2-p4
1 former postdoc wrote a very negative letter (left the lab after 1 year, described strained interactions with the faculty member who because angry and belittled the postdoc and other lab members)

26. UTL Example #2-p5
How should this faculty member be counseled?

27. UTL Example #2-p6
Counseling memo stated that scholarship is on a good trajectory, continue to publish impactful papers, give invited talks, plan grant submissions as another measure of standing in the field
Classroom teaching ok but work to improve interactions with students in classes

28. UTL Example #2-p7
Research mentor: need to improve interaction style with trainees, maintain professionalism, communicate expectations clearly and give appropriate feedback and assistance
Be available for consultation on their work
Regular meeting with mentor to discuss trainees; annual feedback will be obtained

29. UTL Example #2-p8
Annual counseling emphasized the need for continued scholarship and national recognition, professionalism with trainees, open and positive mentoring style

30. UTL Example #2-p9 End of the 6th year (time to launch review)
6 additional senior author publications (2 in very high impact journals)
Has another R01
Multiple invited national and international talks

31. UTL Example #2-p10 Trainees:
No current grad students (one former student left after 2 years and transferred to another lab, one left with masters degree)
Lack of grad students could be reflective of negative view of lab among graduate students
4 current postdocs, 3 postdocs left the lab earlier than anticipated

32. UTL Example #2-p11
Referee letters are positive to very positive; compare candidate favorably with peers
Trainees (all current and former solicited):
Brief letters from 1 former grad student and 2 current postdocs who each note that the atmosphere in the lab can be tense, note concerns about angry outbursts from faculty member

33. UTL Example #2-p12 Trainees cont’d:
1 current postdoc did not reply and 1 requested a confidential conversation
3 former postdocs requested confidential conversation and 1 did not reply
2 former grad students requested confidential conversations

34. UTL Example #2-p13 Themes from confidential conversations:
Treated with a lack of respect, outbursts of anger
Expected to work long hours in lab 7 days/wk
Instructed that they should not talk to anyone outside of the lab
Were not allowed to go to meetings to present research results

35. UTL Example #2-p14 Themes from confidential conversations:
Lack of clear advice and frequent changing of research topics
Multiple disputes over authorship
Fear of retaliation if concerns were voiced
Often did not respond to requests for assistance or to meet
Several made decisions to move out of research

36. UTL Example #2-p15
What is the likelihood of successful promotion to Associate Professor with tenure?

37. Teaching and Professionalism Criteria
The candidate should be capable of sustaining a first-rate teaching program
Factors considered in assessing teaching performance include (but are not limited to) the following: knowledge of the material; clarity of exposition; style of interaction with students; availability; professionalism; institutional compliance and ethics

38. Teaching Criteria cont’d
Effective communication skills; helpfulness in learning; ability to stimulate further education; ability to work effectively as part of the teaching team

39. Respectful Workplace
Provide a work environment that is conducive to teaching and learning and research
Respect each person’s worth and dignity
Faculty members, in particular, are expected to treat all members of the Stanford Community with civility, respect and courtesy, and with an awareness of the potential impact of their behavior on staff, students, and other faculty members

40. UTL Example #2: Discussion of Issues
Teaching and mentoring:
Issues with style of interaction with trainees
Lack of availability
Lack of helpfulness in learning and ability to stimulate further learning
Difficulty with communication
Lack of professionalism
Does not treat trainees with civility, respect and courtesy

41. UTL Example #2
What was the outcome of the promotion review?

42. UTL Example #2 Questions
Questions or discussion?

43. Other Issues for UTL
Decent publications and funding but almost no invited talks; referee letters all say they never heard of the candidate
Basic scientist in a clinical department—same standards as basic scientist in a basic department; often see no formal course teaching, and this kind of teaching is expected for the UTL
Large number of referees do not write

44. Other Issues for UTL cont’d
Many publications in high impact journals but very collaborative with almost no first or last author publications
Research and teaching are fine but candidate is a clinician with poor clinical evaluations
Referees don’t know the comparison peers
Failure to obtain referee letters from truly independent experts
Peers and referees are not leaders in the field at institutions comparable to Stanford (or peers don’t have tenure)

45. UTL Questions
Questions or discussion on UTL promotion?

46. NTL-R Promotion The bar for promotion is just as high as in the UTL
The candidate must be one of the very best scholars at his or her level of professional development in the relevant field and likely to become one of the very best in the field
The research field may be narrower than for the UTL

47. NTL-R Promotion Criteria
Investigative independence is expected since it can be a useful marker of substantive scholarly contributions
Peer-reviewed articles are required, and it is expected that contributions will be made through senior authorship or through substantive contributions

48. NTL-R Promotion Criteria (cont’d)
The quality of scholarship will generally be reflected in peer-reviewed grants and contracts, which are an important indicator of success in the field
Grants are also the source of funding that is a prerequisite for appointment in the Research Line

49. NTL-R Promotion Criteria-Scholarship
Factors to consider:
Scholarly activity and productivity; impact, innovation and creativity
Recognition in the field
True distinction in research
Ability to work effectively as part of a research team, if relevant

50. NTL-R Promotion Criteria-Teaching
There is no formal teaching obligation
But NTL-R faculty often teach actively in their research labs, and they may teach courses
Expectations:
A positive style of interaction with students
Availability and professionalism
Effective communication skills
Helpfulness in learning

51. NTL-R Promotion Criteria-Respectful Workplace
Faculty members are expected to treat all members of the Stanford community with civility, respect, and courtesy with an awareness of the potential impact of their behavior on staff, students and other faculty
There is a shared commitment to respect each person’s worth and dignity

52. NTL-R Issues
Many publications in high impact journals but very collaborative with almost no first or last author publications
Research and teaching are fine but candidate is a clinician with poor clinical evaluations
Referees don’t know the comparison peers
Failure to obtain referee letters from truly independent experts
Peers and referees are not leaders in the field at institutions comparable to Stanford

53. NTL-R Issues cont’d Many referees do not write Very few invited talks
Referees do not know the candidate
No or very little grant funding (a requirement for NTL-R)
Issues with professionalism or poor mentorship skills

54. NTL-R
Questions on NTL-R?

55. Best Advice for Successful Promotion
At least annually: full counseling and assessment of performance in all missions
Honest feedback for need to improve with plan to assist with improvement
If you’re not sure if there is an issue or what to advise, please talk to us at OAA

56. Definition of an Appeal
An appeal is a written request for review of a decision made by a person (or group) acting in an official University capacity
The purpose of the appeal process is to determine whether appropriate procedures were followed in making certain academic decisions
It is not to reevaluate the merit of the decisions themselves

57. Standard for Decision
The standard for deciding the appeal is limited to determining whether there were procedural errors (such as the failure to bring proper facts and criteria to bear on a decision or the introduction of improper facts and criteria or the existence of other procedural defects) that substantially affected the outcome of the decision

58. Timeline
The appellant should file their written appeal to the Provost within 60 days of being notified of the decision
The appellant may request a redacted version of the long form from OAA
The appeal process is lengthy and typically takes 8 months to >1 year

59. The Appeal Process
The Provost may grant the appeal, remand the matter back to the School or Department, or refer it directly to the Advisory Board
Before making one of these choices, the Provost may also appoint a Fact-Finder to investigate the matter and report back to the Provost

60. Typical Appeal Process
The Provost will usually appoint a Fact-Finder who will meet with people involved in the decision process
Upon receipt of the Fact-Finder’s report, the Provost will usually refer it to the Ad Board
The Ad Board will make a recommendation to the Provost

61. Typical Appeal Process (cont’d)
The Provost will make a decision to grant or deny the appeal or on occasion may refer the matter back to the School
The Provost informs the appellant of the decision
Within 30 days after receipt of the Provost’s decision, the appellant may request further review by the President

62. Typical Appeal Process (cont’d-2)
The President may decline the request, consider the appeal, or make inquiries as the President deems appropriate
After examination of the matter, the President’s decision will be conveyed to the appellant and is final

63. Numbers of Appeals
The Provost’s office receives 6-10 appeals per year, most commonly on decisions on reappointment or promotion
In addition, the Provost’s office handles between inquiries per year, including faculty disputes/discipline

64. Common Reasons for Appeals
Bias or gender discrimination claims; Fact-Finder will look for patterns of treatment
Involvement of faculty in the review process who had conflicts with the candidate
Information not considered
Departure from the usual Department or School procedures

65. Invalid Reasons for an Appeal
Inadequate mentoring or counseling
We don’t want this to be the situation for any faculty member, but it is up to the faculty member to be informed on the criteria for promotion and to plan his/her activities to meet the criteria
Inappropriate referee and/or peer set
Candidate does not know who the referees and peers are

66. Invalid Reasons for an Appeal (cont’d)
Challenge to the merit of the decision
If the decision is one that a reasonable person would have made, it is very unlikely to be overturned
The Provost will not substitute his/her judgment on the merit of the decision for that of the committees that made the decision