4.6 Post-Tenure Review
(Last Modified April 6, 2011) Report a broken link
The primary purpose of the post-tenure review process is to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to system institutions. Post-tenure review is one of several types of faculty performance reviews (e.g., annual, promotion, and tenure reviews) and is intended to provide a longer term perspective than is usually provided by an annual review. The review should be both retrospective and prospective, encouraging a careful look at possibilities for different emphases at different points of a faculty member’s career.
With the exception of tenured administrators whose majority of duties are administrative, all tenured faculty will be reviewed. Each faculty member must be assessed five years after the most recent promotion or personnel action, and reviews will continue at five-year intervals unless interrupted by a further review for promotion.
Specific written post-tenure criteria and procedures must be stated in writing and available in a faculty handbook on an institution’s website.
The review should focus on the faculty member’s accomplishments, research agenda (where applicable), teaching program, and service contributions, relating these to the stated expectations for performance developed by the institution. The results of post-tenure reviews must be linked to rewards and professional development. Faculty members who are performing at a high level should receive recognition for their achievements. Each institution will prescribe how the results of the review will be related to merit pay increases, and study and research leave opportunities.
When deficiencies are identified, the faculty member’s supervisor(s) and faculty member will work together to develop a formal plan for faculty development that includes clearly defined and specific goals or outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, a timetable, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy. If, after three years, the faculty member has not been successful with remedying the identified deficiencies, he or she may be subject to dismissal for cause (regular, independent dismissal processes will apply).