Annual Performance Review Procedures (2025)

Annual Performance Review Procedures (2025)

Academic departments conduct three types of review each year: Annual Performance Reviews, Merit Reviews, and Annual Career Progress Reviews. This policy concerns Annual Performance Reviews, which are given to all faculty, as outlined in BOT-24 Post-Tenure Faculty Productivity and Annual Review and BOT-13 Faculty and Librarian Annual Reviews.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. What is an Annual Performance Review, and who is reviewed?
2. Who conducts the review?
3. What materials does an Annual Performance Review require?
4. What criteria does an Annual Performance Review utilize?
5. What are the results of an Annual Performance Review?
6. What is a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)?
7. How can the results of an Annual Performance Review be appealed?

1. What is an Annual Performance Review, and who is reviewed?
Annual Performance Reviews, as mandated by BOT-24 Post-Tenure Faculty Productivity and Annual Review, are designed to ensure the ongoing accountability and productivity of tenured faculty. The Bloomington campus requires the Annual Performance Review of all tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track faculty. These reviews enable academic units to evaluate faculty performance across teaching, research, and service. Annual Performance Reviews also provide the foundation for the Post-Tenure Review process for tenured faculty and the post-promotion review process for non-tenure-track faculty.

2. Who conducts the review?
Annual Performance Reviews are usually performed by the department chair (or unit head), advised by a committee whose members are elected in accordance with departmental governance.

3. What materials does an Annual Performance Review require?
The faculty member being reviewed will submit two items:

• A current CV
• The annual report for the year being reviewed, as submitted by the faculty member in Elements  

In reviewing the research, activities from the current year may be considered in light of activity from the preceding two years (i.e., a three-year productivity window), as is the case for merit reviews, but this consideration must be applied to all members of a department as determined by departmental governance.

4. What criteria does an Annual Performance Review utilize?
Each academic unit shall establish written procedures, approved by a vote of all eligible faculty, for conducting Annual Performance Reviews. The review process should promote transparency, consistency, and a commitment to supporting faculty development across teaching, research, and service.

These review procedures must include a set of discipline-specific criteria for evaluating faculty performance in research, teaching, and service.

• Criteria should correspond with disciplinary best practices, reflecting the unique standards, expectations, and contributions within each area of the academic unit.
• Criteria should be designed to measure one year’s productivity for each career track in the department but may include the suggested three-year performance window.
• Criteria for reviewing research must account for the nature of the process of research and creative activity (e.g., the time required to bring research to publication) and not just the products of that process (e.g. a publication) as measures of activity. Recognizing the research process as a valid indicator of scholarly activity ensures a more comprehensive and equitable evaluation of faculty contributions.
• Criteria for reviewing teaching must consider more than the numerical data of course evaluations. As noted in BOT-13, because research indicates that numerical summaries in student course evaluations can be biased, and because low participation rates may skew results, numerical ratings should not be used as the primary source of data for evaluating teaching
• Criteria must articulate a clear threshold for distinguishing between the ratings of Meets Expectations and Does Not Meet Expectations. This threshold should be developed with careful consideration of the serious consequences for a rating of Does Not Meet Expectations, particularly when this rating is part of a faculty member’s Post-Tenure Review process (see BOT-24).

5. What are the results of an Annual Performance Review?
In each category of their review, the faculty member will receive one of four possible performance ratings : Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Does Not Meet Expectations, or Unsatisfactory. The faculty member will also receive one of these four ratings as the rating of their overall performance for the year being reviewed.

• If a faculty member consistently (i.e., three years in a row) does not meet expectations in one or more areas of evaluation, best practices suggest that this should be reflected in the overall ranking of Does Not Meet Expectations as determined by departmental governance.
• If a faculty member receives an overall performance rating of Does Not Meet Expectations or Unsatisfactory, the Dean, chair, and faculty member being reviewed will develop a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The faculty member will be given 12 months from the date of the approval of their PIP to demonstrate improvement. 

The department chair or unit head will submit the faculty member’s performance ratings in Elements. The department chair or unit head will also write a standardized Annual Performance Review Letter to the faculty member, indicating their category ratings and overall performance rating. The department chair or unit head shall base their assessment on the findings of the unit’s annual review committee, if applicable. The Annual Performance Review Letter will be included as part of the faculty member’s Elements records.

6.What is aPerformance Improvement Plan (PIP)?
BOT-24 requires The College to establish “procedures to create performance improvement plans (PIPs) for tenured faculty members who receive an overall annual review rating of Does not Meet Expectations or Unsatisfactory.”  

1. Timeline

If a faculty member receives an overall rating of Does not Meet Expectations or Unsatisfactory, then the faculty member and their chair or unit head will meet to determine how the faculty member’s overall rating can be raised to Meets Expectations in the next 12 months. The chair is advised to consult with senior departmental faculty with knowledge of the scholarly standards of the faculty member’s specific areas of work.

This meeting must take place within 10 business days of the faculty member receiving their Annual Performance Review Letter. If this meeting is not possible within 10 business days, then the reason for the delay must be documented. The faculty member may bring a trusted advisor to the meeting, as well as their own proposed PIP to help shape the discussion.

Within 10 business days of this meeting, the department chair or unit head will prepare for the dean a written summary of the discussion and its outcome. The faculty member may also submit to the dean a supplemental response to their meeting with the chair or unit head.

Together, the dean, the department chair or unit head, and the faculty member will develop a final Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to address the areas for improvement that were identified in the faculty member’s Annual Performance Review. The PIP should reflect specific measures for achieving a rating of Meets Expectations, according to College procedures on Annual Reviews.

The finalized PIP will be presented to the faculty member, in writing, no later than 10 business days after the dean receives the chair’s summary and any supplemental response from the faculty member.

PIP documents must consider the constraints of the academic calendar, the 40-hour work week, the 10-month contract, and any structural impediments to successful completion, such as the lack of graduate students in the department or the collapse of the grant funding model. The provisions of the PIP must also reflect the limits on time available to rectify performance imposed by the review process. If other resources are not available, the department and/or College shall provide adequate resources to ensure that the faculty member can accomplish the goals described in the PIP. 

2. Review of PIP

If a faculty member finds the PIP unrealistic or otherwise unworkable, the faculty member may form an ad-hoc committee to present an alternative proposal for how they might achieve a rating of Meets Expectations in their next Annual Performance Review. The Executive Dean’s office shall arbitrate any disagreement between the chair and the faculty member.

The faculty member will meet with the department chair at least twice a semester to discuss their progress. A written record of these meetings must be kept in a manner deemed appropriate by the chair or unit head. At the end of each semester, the department chair will prepare a written report that assesses progress, give the faculty member the opportunity to add a supplemental statement within ten business days, and provide this information about the faculty member’s progress to the dean. 

The report should be provided to the faculty member, who may add a supplemental statement.

The faculty member may bring a trusted advisor to this meeting. The faculty member may request an ad-hoc committee of senior faculty to review the progress according to the PIP and write an advisory statement. 

3. Outcome of a PIP

Twelve months after the faculty member receives the approved PIP, the dean will notify the faculty member and the department chair, in writing, whether the requirements of the PIP have been met.

As stated in BOT-24, a faculty member’s fulfillment of their PIP “can be used as evidence in the five-year post-tenure productivity review for the ‘meets productivity’ expectation.” In other words, if a PIP has been successfully implemented, then the rating of Unsatisfactory or Does not Meet Expectations will be removed from the faculty member’s record and cannot be used toward a negative decision in a five-year review.

Faculty members who wish to appeal the decision regarding the fulfillment of their PIP should follow the provisions of BOT-24 and submit their appeal to the Bloomington Faculty Board of Review.

7. How can the results of an Annual Performance Review be appealed?

UNDER REVIEW (will provide updated version in advance of any appeals)

Faculty members who believe that their rights under this policy have been denied have the right to appeal under BL-ACA-D22 and ACA-17. If the faculty member requests further appeal after the conclusion of the College-level appeal process, as outlined below, then per BOT-24 the faculty member shall submit their appeal to the Bloomington Faculty Board of Review.

Departmental Appeal Process for Annual Performance Review Ratings.
If a faculty member would like to appeal any rating that is assigned in the review process, they should produce a statement that outlines the nature of the appeal: violations of university policy, violations of college policies, violations of departmental review procedures or a bias or misinterpretation of the departmental review criteria.

1. The chair will respond in writing to specific points in the faculty member’s appeal within 10 days of receiving the appeal and revise the rating or indicate the reason for not revising the rating.
2. The faculty member may choose to continue the appeal. The department chair should convene an ad hoc committee of three faculty to review (only) specific claims cited in the appeal and produce a report for the department chair and the faculty member within two weeks of being notified. This action should either revise the rating or indicate the reason for not revising the rating.
3. If the faculty member is not satisfied with the process, they may request a full review as described below.

College Appeal Process for Annual Performance Review Ratings.
Given the serious consequences of ratings of DoesNot Meet Expectations or Unsatisfactory in post-tenure reviews, the faculty member may request a rigorous appeal process. If a faculty member receives an Unsatisfactory rating from the chair’s Letter and the rating is confirmed by the Executive Dean, then the faculty member is entitled to a review at the College level (see section 8 for information about rights and procedures to appeal at the campus and university levels).

1. Determination of Reviewer.
   If a faculty member is deemed unsatisfactory, then the Executive Dean shall inform the Faculty Member and the Faculty Member's principal administrator and offer the option of review by the principal administrator or by the Executive Dean’s Advisory Committee on Faculty Reviews (hereafter, CFR). Either the Faculty Member or the principal administrator may request that the review be conducted by the CFR.
   1. If the faculty member holds an appointment in more than one department, then the department chair who oversaw the Annual Review process shall be designated the department chair of the department.
   2. Before initiating a review, the faculty member must be provided with a copy of the Departmental and Executive Dean’s Annual Review Report and shall have the opportunity to provide a verbal or written response. This process should occur before the Executive Dean’s report is forwarded to the Chief Academic Officer or recorded in the faculty member’s permanent file.
   3. The Committee on Faculty Reviews (CFR) shall be composed of experienced faculty members with representation from each of the divisions of the core College. CFR members shall be selected and appointment by the EAD, in consultation with the College Policy Committee (CPC). 
      1. Fifteen members of the CFR will represent the three disciplinary divisions of The College, with five members representing A&H, five representing S&H, and five representing N&M.
      2. Three additional representatives from each internal school that chooses to participate in this committee process shall be chosen by the CPC, and in consultation with the policy committee or analogue faculty governance body of each participating internal school.
      3. CFR members shall be appointed for a two-year term with the possibility of renewal.
      4. CFR members shall have a duty of confidentiality and of treating all parties to an appeal with respect and impartiality.
      5. CFR members shall recuse themselves in cases of conflict of interest as defined by university policy, and the Faculty Member may ask that a CFR recuse themselves for cause.
      6. The CFR shall elect a chair from among its members who will be responsible for rotating reviewer assignments as outlined in Sections 2 and 3.
2. Review process.
   The CFR shall conduct a review of relevant departmental criteria, ensuring that they reflect  the clarity and ease of interpretation required by BOT-24. The CFR shall also conduct a review of the departmental review process, and the faculty member’s review packet, and the chair’s review letter and shall seek to confer with the faculty member toward an informal resolution of the appeal. The faculty member may involve a representative during any part of the review process. Before initiating a formal review, the CFR shall conduct a preliminary assessment of the relevant departmental criteria to ensure that it reflects the clarity and interpretability required by BOT-24.
   1. The CFR will draw from its members a review panel consisting of three committee members, each from different disciplinary divisions and/or internal schools, in consultation with the faculty member and their principal administrator. One empaneled reviewer must be from the same disciplinary division or internal school as the faculty member, but not from their home department.
   2. The CFR may view all documents and reports of previous stages of annual reviews  (defined in the current procedures as consistent with BOT-24), and notes on the discussions between the chair and the faculty member (Review Letter) in the annual review file.
   3. The CFR shall determine whether there had been an adequate process of  Departmental and Executive Dean Level Review consistent with BOT-24 and free from bias in substantive criteria, review process, or interpretation of faculty member accomplishments.
   4. The CFR will consider whether all mitigating influences on faculty member productivity including maternity and paternity leaves, health and bereavement leaves, leaves of absence without pay, and other leaves consistent with IU Policy on leaves and absences.
      1. If mitigating circumstances alter either the faculty member’s eligibility for an annual review or have not been considered in the previous department and Executive Dean’s review process, then the faculty member will meet the chair and Executive Dean to revise the review timeline. A finding that the decision supports the initial review outcome must be communicated to the faculty member in writing.
      2. The faculty member and the reviewer may reach an informal resolution at any time during this review process. If an informal resolution is reached, then no sanction shall be imposed. A notation that the complaint was resolved informally shall be recorded, including a summary of the resolution that has been reached. The Review shall then be closed, and information to this effect shall be forwarded to the faculty member, Executive Dean of the College. Informal resolutions shall become part of the faculty member's personnel file, and  considered in subsequent promotion, annual reviews, or five-year reviews.
   5. The CFR review process should be carried out at a reasonable speed, and whenever possible to enable the faculty member to define a PIP in agreement with the Chair and reviewed by the EAD to fulfill the obligations of an informal agreement, should conclude within three months of the initial complaint being forwarded to the CFR.

• https://policies.iu.edu/policies/bot-24-post-tenure-faculty/index.html
• https://policies.iu.edu/policies/bot-13-faculty-librarian-annual-reviews/index.html

Concluding an Appeal.
If the reviewer determines at any point that no further review is warranted, then the reviewer shall inform the faculty member, the ED and EAD, and, if the CFR is the reviewer, the faculty member’s principal administrator.

Redress of an Unfair Unsatisfactory Process.
If the investigation concludes that the Unsatisfactory rating has resulted from bias in the procedure (non-compliance with BOT-24 and BOT-13 regulations and College Procedures on Annual Reviews, or requirements at the departmental or College levels) or if the reading of the faculty members’ productivity across research, teaching, and service, has been unfair or overlooked important contributions, then the Reviewer should present the case to the CFR Review Committee for a rating score consistent with guidelines. Depending on that rating, the faculty member may then engage the PIP process.

If the CFR’s investigation upholds an Unsatisfactory Rating and concludes that the Review was consistent with all guidelines and regulations and constitutes a fair reading of the faculty’s Review Materials, then the Reviewer may recommend any appropriate action to the ED and EAD, taking into consideration the faculty member’s sustained contribution to scholarship, departmental governance, the teaching mission of the university. Faculty members should be party to discussions of the Departmental, College, and University, that affect job responsibilities, changes in job title or rank, and employment.