Annual Faculty Reviews

Department chairpersons conduct annual performance reviews (sometimes referred to as salary reviews) for all faculty in their departments at the start of the spring semester.  The chairperson should inform faculty in a timely fashion when the annual review will take place and give them a list of materials that they should submit. The annual review forms the basis of the chairperson’s salary recommendations, which are made to the dean in the early months of the year.

Chairpersons should solicit an annual report and an updated CV from each faculty member, giving the faculty member an opportunity to submit any information that would be useful in making salary recommendations to the Dean. In some departments, performance reviews are completed in consultation with the CRPT or a designated ad hoc committee. The CRPT or the ad hoc committee may assist the chairperson in the development of evaluation policies and procedures and provide a ranking of the performance of the faculty member, but the CRPT or ad hoc committee may not make salary recommendations. This is the sole responsibility of the chairperson. At the conclusion of the annual review process, the chairperson should convey any issues of concern to individual faculty members.

Areas of Evaluation

All three areas of the profession - teaching, research, and service - should be considered in annual reviews, with appropriate weights assigned to each area. These weights should be determined by departments or department chairpersons and will differ for individual faculty members depending on their teaching responsibilities and service obligations.


Chairpersons ordinarily review quantitative CIFs, peer visitation reports, and materials submitted by the instructor (syllabi, narrative CIFs, student work, etc.).


When evaluating research, it is important to devise strategies to take account of long-term, multi-year projects and to avoid encouraging faculty members to publish work annually simply in order to meet expectations. As in all areas, quality is more important than quantity, though without a certain quantity one cannot judge quality.


The review of service should normally include department, College, University, and professional service as well as, where appropriate, outreach to the community.

Weighing Each Area

The general practice for the College is to evaluate tenured faculty on a 40/40/20 basis: 40% for teaching, 40% for research, and 20% for service. However, a chairperson or the department may want to make different choices. Psychology currently sets its default formula at 30% teaching, 50% research, and 20% service but permits faculty members to adjust each category by up to 10%. For example, one faculty member might choose weights of 30% teaching, 40% research, and 30% service; another might opt for 20% teaching, 60% research, and 20% service. As long as a faculty member is teaching four courses annually, it is not advisable to let teaching count for less than 30%. For tenure-track faculty, the general practice in the College is to evaluate with the standard of 45% for teaching, 45% for research, and 10% for service. Service could go as low as 5%, but it should always be a factor.

It is important to take the specific circumstances of a faculty member into account when weighing responsibilities. For example, if a faculty member was on leave during the spring semester and then taught two courses in the fall, the weights for a tenured faculty member should be something like 20% for teaching, 70% for research, and 10% for service. Similarly, individuals who receive course reductions for administrative service should transfer the percentage of time for the course reduction to service, e.g., a DGS with a two-course reduction for a large program should have percentages that run something like this: 20% teaching, 40% research, and 40% service.

In the case of TPAC faculty whose primary obligation is teaching, the ratios will differ dramatically. Teaching should receive the greatest weight, up to 80% or more, with the remainder usually assigned to service or professional development. In the case of other TPAC faculty who have multiple obligations, the ratios must be worked out at the time of hire or in the preceding year’s annual evaluation.

Faculty on leave, for part or all of an academic year, should be judged without prejudice for being on leave. However, faculty members on leave who wish to be considered for a merit increase must submit the same materials requested of other faculty members. As noted above, service and teaching percentages should be appropriately adjusted.

Communicating the Review

While this is a significant challenge for chairpersons of the largest departments, it is an important task. The performance review allows the chairperson to recognize extraordinary performance and contributions to the work of the department as well as to identify areas of concern. It can be helpful to communicate feedback to faculty members after the budget and salary meeting so that topics or concerns raised in that meeting can be relayed back to the faculty member in a timely way.

Some departments have instituted a process for more formally reviewing tenured faculty (particularly associate professors) on a regular basis, e.g. every three years. The review addresses areas that need improvement if the candidate is to make acceptable progress toward promotion, as well as recognizing significant contributions. Beyond providing guidance to faculty members, such reviews also afford faculty members the opportunity to express concerns about their progress to date and to suggest ways in which the chairperson, colleagues, and the University can assist faculty members in achieving departmental goals and University standards. In the case of a faculty member who is performing below standards, a written evaluation should be given, articulating strategies for improvement and offering whatever assistance is needed.