Faculty Promotion & Tenure Guidelines
GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AND REVIEWS
MAYS BUSINESS SCHOOL
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
(Changes approved by faculty on September, 2017)
- Purposes of this Document
- Dimensions and Indicators of Performance
- Faculty Ranks and Performance Expectations
- Annual Review Process
- Third Year Review Process
- Promotion and Tenure Expectations and Time Frames (Tenure-Accruing/Tenured Faculty)
- Promotion and Tenure Process (Tenure-Accruing/Tenured Faculty)
- Promotion and Tenure Expectations and Time Frames (Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty)
- Promotion and Tenure Process (Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty)
- Endowed Position Appointment and Review Process
- Post Tenure Review Process
- Faculty Workload Guidelines
- ABD Faculty Appointment Process
- Transition to Retirement
- Appendix 1: Promotion Dossier
- Appendix 2: Hiring faculty with tenure-on-arrival and/or at advanced rank
- Appendix 3: Appointment of Non-tenure-accruing faculty
Purposes of this Document
This document provides guidelines for faculty appointments, annual reviews, promotion, tenure, post-tenure reviews, faculty workload guidelines, and other pertinent elements of the professional employment relationship in Mays Business School. These guidelines follow from and support the vision and mission of Mays Business School. In the event of inadvertent discrepancies between this document and Texas A&M University or Texas A&M University System policies, rules, and procedures, the university or system statements take precedence. In this sense, we seek consistency between Mays’ Guidelines and those of the University as specified within University Rule 12.01.99.M2 (“University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure, and Promotion”).
The vision, mission, and goals of Texas A&M University and of Mays Business School are not static. It is neither desirable nor feasible to specify a rigid set of evaluation guidelines. However, it is necessary, desirable, and feasible to establish a general set of guidelines and criteria for different faculty positions that are congruent with the vision, mission, goals, and core values of Texas A&M University and of Mays Business School.
In addition to detailing performance expectations and indicators of desired performances, this document serves as the basis for discussions between faculty members and their department heads regarding the setting of individual annual and long-term goals that best align with the vision, mission, and goals of Texas A&M University and those of Mays Business School. Typically, the formal communication regarding a faculty member’s progress is the direct responsibility of the department head and includes written documentation that becomes a part of the faculty member’s personnel file.
Dimensions and Indicators of Performance
The three major dimensions of faculty performance are:
(1) Creating and disseminating impactful knowledge via research and publication,
(2) Instruction/teaching, and
(3) Service to the institution, the profession, and external constituencies.
The accumulation of activities alone does not constitute desirable performance; indeed, Mays places high value on accomplishments that are of “high quality.” Mays Business School recognizes and defines four levels of performance in research, teaching, and service:
- Excellent performance: a high level of performance that meets and exceeds norms and expectations and that is reflected by substantive indicators of excellence, as described in the next section;
- Satisfactory performance: performance that meets norms and expectations and that is reflected by substantive indicators of “satisfactory performance,” as described in the next section;
- Needs improvement performance: performance that falls below norms and expectations of satisfactory performance as reflected by substantive indicators of “needs improvement” performance, as described in the next section;
- Unsatisfactory performance: performance that falls below norms and expectations of excellent, satisfactory, and needs improvement performance as reflected by substantive indicators of “unsatisfactory” performance, as described in the next section.
Mays Business School recognizes multiple indicators of various levels of performance and that performance indicators may vary over time for individuals at different career stages. In all instances, a rating (e.g., “excellent” or “satisfactory”) is determined by measuring a faculty member’s performance against multiple indicators associated with a particular performance category.
Fifty percent for research, 40 percent for teaching, and 10 percent for service are typical allocations of time among the three performance areas for tenure-track and tenured faculty members. However, as explained later in this document and as noted above, the allocation of a faculty member’s time to the three areas may change across the course of a career. Such changes are products of discussions between the faculty member and her/his department head. Under no circumstance though can the time allocation drop to a weight of zero in any given performance area without the approval of the Dean who will evaluate such requests in accordance with university promotion and tenure guidelines (this point is noted in the subsequent paragraph as well). Regardless of the percentages of a faculty member’s allocation of time among the three performance areas, the desired outcome is that all faculty members will perform at a level of “satisfactory” or “excellent” in all three areas. Changes to a tenure-track or a tenured faculty member’s allocation of time as well as the performance expectations associated with the changes are to be determined through consultation between the faculty member and the department head. For annual performance review purposes, a reduction in a faculty member’s involvement with one performance area (e.g., research) will mean that s/he will have fewer contributions with respect to the indicators of excellence and/or satisfactory performance for that particular performance area. However, reduced effort in a performance area should still result in at least “satisfactory” performance in that area and should avoid performance that falls into either the “needs improvement” category or the “unsatisfactory” category. Similarly, for annual performance review purposes, an increase in the percentage of time a faculty member allocates to a performance area (e.g., research) should result in more substantive contributions/outcomes and/or quality relative to the indicators of “satisfactory” and/or “excellent” research performance.
Alternate work assignments (such as administrative/leadership responsibilities) may replace one or more performance areas in certain situations. Those holding the relevant administrative position review and approve, as appropriate, potential changes in terms of an alternate work assignment. For example, department heads and center directors seeking to reduce their performance expectations to a weight of zero in a category for a specified period are to consider this matter in consultation with the Dean and the Executive Associate Dean. Associate deans seeking to reduce their performance expectations to a weight of zero in a category for a specified period are to consider this matter in consultation with the Dean. In all instances, the performance of a faculty member going to a weight of zero in a performance category for an agreed-upon period is evaluated in light of the performance expectations associated with the agreed-upon assigned duties (this would include administrative assignments) of their position.
The sections that follow provide indicators of performance in each of the four categories—“excellent,” “satisfactory,” “needs improvement,” and “unsatisfactory.” Some indicators do not fall exclusively into a single area. For instance, successfully working with PhD students has both research and teaching connotations while participation in executive development programs has both teaching and service connotations. Although classified into single areas, it is appropriate to recognize the relationship of dual-focused activities with other areas.
Dimensions and Indicators of Performance
Research and Publication
Indicators of “excellent” performance in research and publication include the following:
- Publication in the leading refereed journals of appropriate disciplines.
- Publication of acclaimed scholarly book(s).
- Publication of acclaimed practitioner book(s).
- Frequent citation of publications.
- Editorship of a major journal(s).
- Editorship of highly regarded scholarly book.
- Associate editorship or section editorship of a major journal(s).
- Receipt of major fellowship, research, or publication award(s).
- Membership on editorial board of a major journal(s).
- Receipt of significant external peer-reviewed funding for research.
- Membership on review panel(s) for national or international research organization(s).
- Invitation to present a showcase or keynote paper or to deliver an address at an important international and/or national conference(s)
- Invitation to present research at peer and/or aspirant schools.
- Chair of PhD student committees that lead to top-tier journal publications and/or placements at peer and/or aspirant schools
- Other clear and demonstrable contributions to PhD student development
- Frequent evaluations of promotion & tenure cases for peer and/or aspirant schools
- Frequent media citations of published work
- Consistent contributions to interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary, internationalization and diversity efforts and/or research projects.
Indicators of “satisfactory” performance in research and publication include the following:
- Publication in respected refereed journals in appropriate disciplines
- Publication in non-refereed journals that are widely recognized
- Publication of a respected scholarly book(s)
- Publication of a respected practitioner book(s)
- Publication by research sponsor of technical reports or monographs
- Citation of publications
- Frequent presentation of papers at national or international conferences and professional meetings of appropriate disciplines
- Publication of a chapter(s) in a scholarly book(s)
- Chair and/or membership on PhD student committees
- Ad hoc reviewer for major refereed journals and/or national and international associations
- Refereed publications in proceedings of conferences and professional meetings
- Editorship of a respected, refereed journal(s)
- Associate editorship or section editorship of a respected, refereed journal(s)
- Membership on an editorial board of a respected, refereed journal(s)
- Well-documented contribution(s) (i.e., mentorship) to others’ research
- Significant self-development activities such as a faculty development leave
- Evaluation of promotion and tenure cases at respected (peer and aspirant) universities
- Media citations of published work
- Involvement in interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary, internationalization and diversity efforts and/or research projects.
Indicators of “needs improvement” performance in research and publication include the following:
- Publication in refereed journals that are not widely-respected but are recognized by the Social Sciences Citation Index and/or the Science Citation Index in appropriate disciplines
- Publication of a scholarly book or a book chapter with minimal peer recognition
- Publication of a practitioner book with minimal recognition by practitioners
- Limited citation of publications
- Few research presentations at national and international conferences and meetings
- Research presentations at regional conferences and meetings only
- Minimal involvement with a department’s PhD program
- Ad hoc reviewer for journals and regional meetings
- Minimal research collaborations with colleagues within and outside Mays Business School
- Minimal participation in departmental research seminars.
Indicators of “unsatisfactory” performance in research and publication include the following:
- Publication in non-refereed journals without widespread recognition
- Publications in refereed journals that are not recognized by the Social Sciences Citation Index nor by the Science Citation Index
- Failure to maintain currency with the discipline’s knowledge
- Lack of publications in any type of journal over a three-year or longer period
- No presentations at any type of academic conferences over a three-year or longer period
- Very few citations of published works
- Infrequent or inconsistent involvement with research seminars presented by internal or external scholars
- Infrequent or inconsistent involvement with ad hoc reviewing for any type of journal or academic conference over a three-year or longer period
- Failure to support a department’s research mission.
Mays Business School encourages its faculty to demonstrate research leadership and as opportunities become available, to collaborate with others in the process of doing so. Occasional single-authored works and/or a balance of authoring order on publications in disciplines where the order of authorship conveys information regarding relative contribution are examples of demonstrating this type of leadership.
Indicators of “excellent” performance in instruction/teaching include the following:
- Selection for peer-reviewed university, Mays Business School, or professional society outstanding instruction/teaching awards (such as the Association of Former Students award)
- Evidence of courses taught at a rigorous and challenging level, with recognized excellence
- Highly noteworthy teaching performance over a significant period as evidenced by outstanding student ratings, interviews with students and student leaders, or outstanding peer evaluations (including peer reviews of classroom instruction). Such evaluations need to be considered in relation to course expectations (documented through course syllabi), grading practices in relation to comparable course levels/sections and/or other factors
- Development of innovative pedagogical methodologies and materials, including high-quality online (distance learning) courses
- High-quality contributions to high-priority instructional programs
- Publication of widely adopted or acclaimed instructional materials (e.g., textbooks, instructional software programs, cases, readings, simulations)
- Major contributions to the development of new instructional programs
- Publications with a teaching/instruction focus in refereed journals
- Receiving significant peer-reviewed external funding for instruction/teaching
- Development and/or coordination of successful new executive development programs.
Indicators of “satisfactory” performance in instruction/teaching include the following:
- Selection for student awards for outstanding instruction/teaching
- Development of a new course(s) or major revisions of existing courses
- Evidence of high quality with respect to class preparation and in terms of student interaction(s)
- Supervision of independent student projects
- Effective coordination of multi-section courses
- Significant contributions to student development through advising and mentoring, including service as a departmental undergraduate or graduate advisor
- Participation in the Mays Business School/University Honors Program and/or programs for mentoring the professional development of students
- Presentations in executive development programs
- Effective coaching of students for competitions and preparation of students for study abroad programs.
Indicators of “needs improvement” performance in instruction/teaching include the following:
- Demonstration of a minimal commitment to use effective classroom pedagogies
- Little evidence of efforts to strongly facilitate student learning inside the classroom
- Student evaluations that are significantly below departmental expectations
- Student feedback expressing concern over an occasional lack of adequate classroom preparation
- Evidence suggesting that materials taught in classes are not appropriately updated on a consistent basis
- Declines in student demand for assigned classes
- Infrequent participation in faculty discussions regarding pedagogical enhancements.
Indicators of “unsatisfactory” performance in instruction/teaching include the following:
- Student evaluations that are significantly below the departmental average
- Consistent inputs to the department head (from students and/or peers) that the faculty member is ineffective in the classroom
- Failure to establish and/or meet office hours
- Consistent use of outdated materials in the classroom
- Student feedback indicating that the faculty member is consistently unprepared for class
- Failure to provide timely feedback to students on graded assignments
- Failure to maintain currency with discipline-specific teaching-related practices and knowledge
- Failure to demonstrate a concern about poor and/or declining classroom performances
- Being repeatedly late for class, dismissing class early, canceling classes without valid reasons, or otherwise failing to use class time effectively
- Frequent documented violations of classroom policies (Mays Business School and university).
Indicators of “excellent” performance in service including the following:
- Officer in a national/international professional organization
- Program chair or a similar position for a national/international meeting
- Administrative leadership role within Mays Business School and/or the university
- Officer in the Faculty Senate
- Chair of a major university committee or task force
- Demonstrated leadership in significant departmental, Mays Business School, university, or system administrative or service roles
- Service on a major governmental commission task force or board
- Attraction of significant external financial support.
Indicators of “satisfactory” performance in service include the following:
- Committee chair of a national/international professional organization
- Officer in a regional or state professional organization
- Program chair or a similar position for a regional and/or state professional organizational meeting
- Service as an active member of the Faculty Senate
- Service on university, Mays Business School, and departmental committees and task forces
- Contribution to external development efforts
- Advisor to a student organization
- Engagement with administrative roles within the department
- Speeches and/or consulting for major practitioner groups
- Service as a consultant to business organizations and/or governmental agencies
- Evidence of professional service to the local community and/or to the public at large that is commensurate with the faculty member’s responsibilities to Mays Business School
- Significant self-development activities that lead to enhanced service effectiveness.
Indicators of “needs improvement” performance in service include the following:
- Lack of reasonably active participation in Mays Business School and university-wide committees and task forces
- Infrequent participation with national and regional academic associations
- Infrequent demonstration of informal leadership roles with the department, Mays Business School, and the university
- Infrequent acceptances of opportunities to mentor students and/or junior faculty
- Infrequent participation with school-wide events (e.g., faculty/staff meetings, events to honor faculty and staff colleagues)
- Irregular involvement with faculty recruiting processes.
Indicators of “unsatisfactory” performance in service include the following:
- No active participation in Mays Business School and university-wide committees and task forces
- No involvement with national or regional academic associations
- Failure to appropriately participate in departmental activities such as faculty meetings and faculty/staff events
- Consistent declines of opportunities to be involved with student activities and/or organizations
- Consistent failure to participate with school-wide events including faculty/staff meetings
- Failure to be appropriately involved with faculty recruiting processes
- Conduct detrimental to the department or Mays Business School’s reputation and/or work climate.
Consistent with the university’s goals, Mays Business School values faculty contributions to diversity, internationalization/globalization, interdisciplinary collaboration, and multidisciplinary collaboration as they relate to advancing Mays’ vision and mission. Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary contributions are valued equally with disciplinary contributions. The Mays Business School Dean and the Executive Associate Dean will collaborate with department heads to ensure that the contributions in these areas are appropriately recognized and valued during the annual performance review process. The evaluation of faculty contributions to diversity, internationalization/globalization, interdisciplinary collaboration, and multidisciplinary collaboration should include:
(1) A revision to the annual performance review document that allows and encourages faculty to provide their contributions in these areas as they affect research, teaching, and service
(2) An assessment of the quality of the contributions for the purposes of performance evaluations and merit increases. It is not the mere participation in these endeavors that matter; rather, it is the quality of faculty accomplishments as they influence outstanding research, teaching, and service in Mays that is crucial
(3) The expectation that the contributions in these areas may receive credit only when they enhance Mays Business School’s vision and mission
(4) Performance levels and indicators of “excellent” and “satisfactory” in terms of performance as described in this document.
No faculty member may receive an overall satisfactory rating if s/he has not complied with all mandatory training programs.
Faculty Ranks and Employment Expectations
In general, there are two categories of Mays faculty positions: tenure-accruing/tenured and non-tenure-accruing.
Tenure-Accruing/Tenured Faculty Positions
At a minimum, an assistant professor’s performances should be satisfactory in instruction/teaching and excellent in terms of research and publication. The focus of service contributions, while normally limited, is on departmental and Mays academic needs. Further, assistant professors should display evidence of progress toward meeting the established criteria for promotion to associate professor with tenure.
At a minimum, an associate professor’s performance should be satisfactory in the three performance dimensions. In addition, excellent performance e in either the research and publication or the instruction/teaching performance dimension is required. Typically, associate professors should seek excellence in terms of research and publication. Although the three performance dimensions are part of the promotion process, research and publication commonly carries the largest weight in the promotion decision. Associate professors, relative to assistant professors, should exhibit increased contributions in terms of service that result in a satisfactory or an excellent rating in terms of service.
Professors should demonstrate leadership in the pursuit of excellence and gain national and international prominence because of their contributions. Professors may lead by (1) contributing to the body of knowledge through excellence in their research; (2) developing junior faculty; (3) excelling in one or more of the areas of excellence in instruction/teaching, which includes student development; (4) demonstrating excellence in their service activities. While there may be significant diversity in the nature of the contributions by professors, there is continued expectation of examples of excellence in one or more performance areas.
The rank of Distinguished Professor is not a Mays but a university rank. This rank represents the highest level of accomplishment for faculty. To be eligible for consideration for promotion to Distinguished Professor, the individual will have made one and possibly more major contributions that have redirected the flow of research or scholarship in the relevant field. Thus, quality and impact are critical criteria for evaluation. Peer statements suggesting that an individual is among the top 5% of active researchers in their area of research or scholarship on an international basis are part of the evaluation process. The university’s Provost leads the evaluation process of those nominated for a Distinguished Professor position.
Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty Positions
This is an entry-level position for part- and full-time instructors who typically have the following profile:
- A graduate degree and/or commensurate experience
- Contributions to Mays are expected to relate primarily to instruction (broadly defined)
- May also be expected to contribute in other areas as relevant
Individuals holding this rank will have annual contracts (or less). For those serving as a lecturer but not as an assistant lecturer and who have held a faculty appointment for the equivalent of 5 or more academic years of full-time service within a 7-year period, a one-year notice is required if she or he is not to be reappointed. An exceptional record is necessary for promotion. (See Appendix 3 for additional information.)
This is a position for individuals who typically have served a minimum of five years at the rank of lecturer and whose performance warrants promotion. They typically have the following profile and qualifications:
- A graduate degree and/or commensurate experience
- A record of exemplary teaching that consistently demonstrates excellent and satisfactory performance
- Additional contributions to the educational mission of Mays beyond classroom instruction
Individuals holding this rank will have annual contracts and receive one-year advance notification of non-reappointment.
Clinical Assistant Professor
This is an entry-level position for full time non-tenure track faculty who will typically have the following profile:
- A terminal degree in the area of specialization (i.e., PhD in a business discipline, JD for legal instruction, etc.)
- Contributions to Mays are expected to relate primarily to instruction (broadly defined); may also be expected to contribute in other areas as relevant (such as advising and/or working with student organizations)
Individuals holding this rank will have contracts ranging in duration from one to three years. At an appropriate time, promotion is only for those with exceptional records. Clinical assistant professors have the same employment protection as lecturers.
Clinical Associate Professor
This is a position for individuals who typically have served a minimum of five years at the rank of clinical assistant professor and are judged to be worthy of promotion. It may also be appropriate for individuals who have achieved the rank of associate professor at another institution. Clinical Associate Professors typically have the following profile and qualifications:
- A record of exemplary teaching effectiveness and excellence
- Additional contributions to the educational mission of Mays beyond classroom instruction
- Additional contributions to other areas as relevant
Individuals holding this rank will have contracts ranging in duration from one to three years. If not reappointed, they receive one-year advance notification beyond the terminal date of their most current contract. At an appropriate time, promotion is only for those with exceptional records.
This is a position for individuals who typically have served a minimum of five years at the rank of clinical associate professor and are judged to be worthy of promotion. It may also be appropriate for individuals who have achieved the rank of professor at another institution. Clinical Professors typically have the following profile and qualifications:
- A record of exemplary teaching as demonstrated by being assessed as satisfactory and most commonly as excellent in most instances
- Additional contributions to the educational mission of Mays beyond classroom instruction
- Additional contributions to other areas as relevant
Individuals holding this rank will have contracts ranging in duration from one to three years. If not reappointed, they receive one-year advance notification beyond the terminal date of their most current contract.
The position of executive professor is for individuals with distinguished careers in the private sector and/or government service. Individuals holding this rank have contracts ranging in duration from one semester to one year.
Periodically, it may be desirable and/or necessary to employ faculty temporarily on a visiting basis. In these instances, the appropriate title will be their current title preceded by the word “visiting.”
Annual Review Process
University Rule 12.01.99.M2 (University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure, and Promotion) guides completion of annual performance reviews.
Consistent with university policies, performance reviews occur annually for all faculty. To coincide with the university’s deadlines for such activities, this annual review typically occurs in the spring of each year. There are occasions, however, when assessing an individual’s overall record, occurs at another time. Third-year reviews and promotion and/or tenure reviews, which take place in the fall, are the most obvious situations when this occurs. When reviewed in this manner, comprising an individual’s annual review process by referencing the earlier review is appropriate.
The purposes of the annual performance review include the following:
- Creating a sound and logical basis for merit compensation recommendations
- Providing evaluative feedback regarding how well the individual is currently performing relative to the norms and expectations for the individual’s faculty position
- Providing developmental feedback regarding areas where the faculty member’s contributions may be enhanced and/or improved in the future
- Providing feedback regarding progress toward promotion and/or tenure as relevant.
Each year the department head requests information from each faculty member in his/her department pertaining to faculty performance activities and indicators for the preceding year. All tenure-track/tenured faculty will use a common reporting mechanism developed and approved by the Dean, Executive Associate Dean, and department heads. Department heads have the discretion to request additional information for their own internal use. Department heads also have the discretion to use the same mechanism to request information from faculty in non-tenure-accruing positions or to use an alternative method to request their performance-related information.
All tenured faculty in a department will evaluate and provide feedback on the performance of untenured assistant professors. The emphasis of this evaluation will be the progress an individual is making to regarding promotion to associate professor with tenure. All professors will evaluate and provide feedback on the performance of associate professors particularly with respect to their progress toward earning a promotion to full professor.
In each department or college, departmental or college-level faculty establish stated criteria for rating the performance of faculty in an annual review. Department heads, the Dean, and the Dean of Faculties approve the criteria. Prior to their use in an academic year, faculty receive written copies of the criteria. At a minimum, rating categories for annual reviews shall be “satisfactory,” “needs improvement,” and “unsatisfactory.” Departmental or college-wide standards inform the definition of each category of standards. Typically, one or more additional meritorious categories part of the annual review process.
Being evaluated as unsatisfactory in any single category—research, teaching, or service or in any other assigned responsibility (e.g., administration)–or as “needs improvement” in any two categories yields an “unsatisfactory” rating. An annual review resulting in an overall “unsatisfactory” rating shall state the basis for the rating in accordance with the specified performance indicators. The Dean receives a copy of each report including an “unsatisfactory” rating for faculty members holding a tenure-track or a tenured position.
The report to the Dean of each “unsatisfactory” performance rating/review shall be accompanied by a written plan that has been developed by the faculty member and the department head for the purpose of specifying actions that are to be taken to bring about near-term improvements. If deemed necessary, due to an “unsatisfactory” annual evaluation, the department head may request a Periodic Peer Review (this review is discussed later in this document) of the faculty member.
If a faculty member receives a “needs improvement” rating in any single category, s/he must work immediately with her or his department head to develop an improvement plan. For teaching, this plan should take 1 year or less to complete successfully. In other areas (e.g., research), this plan may take up to 3 years to complete successfully. The rating of “needs improvement” may remain in place as long as the faculty members meets pre-determined milestones in the improvement plan. Failing to satisfy pre-determined milestones results in changing the “needs improvement” rating to the “unsatisfactory” rating.
For tenured faculty with budgeted joint appointments, department heads or program directors of the appropriate units will collaborate to develop annual reports (see 12.01.99.M2).
The review of faculty in non-tenure-accruing faculty positions is the sole responsibility of the department head. The head reviews measures of faculty performance relevant to the contractual expectations of each individual faculty. After completing her/his assessment of performance, the department head discusses the assessment with the faculty member. A performance feedback letter is prepared; both the faculty member and the department head sign it prior to the letter’s placement in the individual’s personnel file.
Assistant professors have annual contracts until they earn promotion to associate professor with tenure. This employment contract takes precedence over the specifics regarding time as they appear in an individual’s probationary agreements and other contextual communication. If it becomes clear at any time during the probationary period that a person is unlikely to meet the expectations for promotion with tenure, further reappointment for the individual beyond the time for which the university is already committed does not occur.
During the merit-salary review period each department head will submit salary recommendations to the Office of the Dean. The Dean retains the right to ask for supporting documentation including a copy of (1) the performance materials the faculty member submitted to the department head, the department head’s written review, and a copy of the individual’s current Curriculum Vitae.
Third Year Review Process
In addition to the normal annual review, at the end of a tenure-accruing assistant professor’s third year on the Mays Business School faculty he/she will receive a more detailed and comprehensive review. This review will focus on:
- The individual’s instructional performance during the first three years of employment
- The individual’s research and publication performance during the first three years of employment
- The individual’s service performance during the first three years of employment
- An explicit statement of whether the individual is on, above, or below trajectory for a positive tenure decision at the appropriate time
- An explicit statement of what area(s) of performance, if any, is/are of concern
This review occurs during the fall semester following the completion of the individual’s third year on the faculty; it follows the same basic timetable as the promotion and tenure process for that academic year. The individual faculty member is responsible for assembling a dossier of teaching, research, and service contributions for review. To the extent possible, this dossier should mirror those required for promotion consideration (with the exception of outside letters).
First, the tenured department faculty and the department head review the individual’s dossier. Separate feedback memoranda will be prepared by a representative of the tenured department faculty and by the department head. These memoranda should directly address the five points identified above.
The department head is responsible for meeting with the individual to review and discuss both feedback memoranda; the department head includes the memoranda in the individual’s dossier after their discussion and transmits the dossier to the Mays promotion and tenure (P&T) committee. . The P&T committee conducts its own review, provides written feedback to the faculty member, and adds its letter to the faculty member’s dossier.
The Office of the Dean then receives the dossier and the results of the P&T committee’s deliberations in written form. The Dean and Executive Associate Dean then meet with each individual. During this meeting, they provide their own feedback to the individual and answer questions/address concerns or issues raised by the individual. The Dean and the Executive Associate Dean prepare a summary memorandum of this meeting and include that memorandum in the individual’s dossier. The individual then receives the dossier and the department head and the Dean’s office retain a copy of the full dossier.
Promotion and Tenure Expectations and Time Frames (Tenure-Accruing/Tenured Faculty)
Assistant Professors Being Considered for Promotion to Associate Professor (with tenure)
At a minimum, assistant professors are to be satisfactory in instruction/teaching and to establish a pattern of excellence in research and publication. Departmental and college academic needs are the focus of an assistant professor’s service limited service contributions. Evaluation of a request for promotion to associate professor with tenure includes an assessment of the three performance dimensions, with research and publication carrying the heaviest weight. The requirements for promotion to an associate professor position with tenure in Mays meet and exceed the university’s minimum requirements. The minimum requirements for Mays include the following:
- An overall exemplary level of accomplishment as measured against the contributions of others in the field.
- Professional conduct conducive to a collegial work environment and standards of professional integrity that will advance the interests of Mays Business School and Texas A&M University.
- Pattern over time of some indication of satisfactory performance in service.
- Pattern over time of satisfactory performance in instruction/teaching.
- Pattern over time of an excellent and satisfactory performance in research and publication.
- High potential for continued excellence in research and publication and hopefully in terms of instruction/teaching and service as well.
Typically, decisions regarding promotion to an associate professor position and the granting of tenure occur simultaneously. An explanation of the probationary period for an assistant professor appears in the initial offer of employment. The maximum probationary period for tenure is seven years, with up to three years credit given for tenure track experience at another university.
The university’s Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure indicates that: “Under extenuating circumstances, the probationary period may be extended with the written concurrence of the faculty member involved, the Department Head, Dean, and the Dean of Faculties.” However, such an extension is rarely possible in the year of mandatory consideration for tenure.
The university guidelines specify the special and unique circumstances for considering an extension of the probationary period.
In general, assistant professors should expect to complete their full probationary period at their entry rank. (The actual review and decision process, of course, begins the preceding year.) An individual who compiles an unusually strong and distinguished record of achievement may request early consideration. A request for early promotion is simultaneously a request for early granting of tenure, and vice versa. An individual contemplating asking for early consideration should consult with her/his department head, senior members of the departmental faculty, the Executive Associate Dean and the Dean before making a formal request for consideration.
Consideration of an Associate Professor for Promotion to Professor
At a minimum, associate professors should consistently provide satisfactory performance in terms of research and publication, instruction/teaching, and service. Additionally, associate professors seeking promotion to Professor should demonstrate excellence in research and publication (see note below regarding instruction and teaching). Relative to assistant professors, associate professors seeking promotion should exhibit increased contributions in terms of service. An assessment of the three performance dimensions is foundational to the promotion decision; commonly, research and publication carry the heaviest weight in the decision. The minimum requirements for Mays Business School include the following:
- An exemplary level of accomplishment as measured against the contributions of others in his or her field.
- Continuing accomplishment and pattern over time of an excellent performance in terms of research and publication.
- Continuing accomplishment and pattern over time of satisfactory or excellent performance in instruction and teaching.
- Continuing accomplishment and pattern over time of satisfactory or excellent performance in service.
Promotion to professor is a product of cumulative contributions, with special attention given to accomplishments since promotion to the rank of associate professor. Typically, but not always, associate professors require 5 years of service in rank to compile a record sufficient to warrant consideration for promotion to the rank of professor. An individual who compiles an unusually strong and distinguished record of achievement may request consideration of promotion before completing 5 years in rank as an associate professor. An individual contemplating this request should consult with her/his department head, senior members of the departmental faculty, and the Office of the Dean before making a formal request for consideration.
Note: In truly exceptional cases, promotion to professor may occur for an individual because of her or his outstanding instruction and teaching and/or service. An individual seeking promotion relative to these criteria, rather than because of research excellence, must clearly stipulate in the promotion packet she or he develops for review by all relevant parties that promotion is being sought on the basis of either/or instruction and teaching excellence and service. In these cases, thorough and rigorous documentation will be required to justify consideration of an exception to the normal research standards. Further, such an individual should expect to spend substantially more time at the rank of associate professor before requesting consideration for promotion to the rank of professor. It is also important to recognize that any such case must be truly exceptional in nature. For instance, achieving positive student ratings over a period of several years, and in the absence of numerous other indicators, is insufficient evidence that an exceptional case exists for promotion to a professor position because of instruction and teaching and/or service excellence. Multiple “excellent” performance indicators, as presented earlier in these guidelines, that are associated with instruction and teaching and service must be satisfied for a candidate’s candidacy for promotion to professor on a criterion or criteria other than research excellence.
Promotion and Tenure Review Process (Tenure-Accruing/Tenured Faculty)
Initiating the Process
Department heads initiate the process for individuals desiring consideration for promotion to associate professor or professor by soliciting self-nominations. In the case of the mandatory year of consideration for an untenured faculty, no nomination is necessary. A request for early promotion to associate professor indicates a simultaneously request for early tenure. After discussing the promotion and tenure process and clarifying expectations with the department head, an individual wishing to have their case heard prepares a dossier according to Mays and university requirements. Individuals in their mandatory year for consideration must also prepare a dossier. Current dossier standards appear in Appendix 1. However, the university frequently changes its requirements for dossiers; individuals are responsible for insuring that they follow the most current university guidelines.
Role of the Candidate
As noted, the candidate has the primary responsibility to draft/prepare the basic information/data for the dossier in accordance with Mays and university requirements. As one part of the dossier, the candidate is to supply in concise form (a maximum of three pages, single spaced) a statement of his or her goals, philosophies, strategies, and emphases in carrying out his or her professional responsibilities in research, teaching, and service and other accomplishments that are relevant to the position.
Role of Departmental Faculty
Departmental faculty review is the first internal step in the process of evaluating candidates for promotion and/or tenure. The departmental tenure and promotion committee(s) is subject to the following parameters:
- For faculty pursuing promotion to an associate professor position with tenure all tenured associate professors and professors in a department comprise the departmental tenure and promotion committee.
- All faculty members at the rank of professor and the rank of university distinguished professor in a department comprise the departmental tenure and promotion committee for candidates for promotion to professor in that department.
- Confidentiality is the foundation for conducting deliberations.
- Committee recommendations are advisory in nature.
- Voting members of the College Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee may participate in the deliberations but may not vote on promotion and tenure cases at the departmental level.
The departmental review process includes a faculty peer review of classroom teaching and instructional materials. For assistant professors, this review takes place during the third year at that rank as part of the third year review. If any concerns surface during the third-year review, another review occurs during the fourth year. For associate professors, the review may occur early in the year of consideration.
A senior faculty member serves as secretary of the review process. The secretary is responsible for recording in writing the departmental tenure and promotion committee’s recommendation. A secret ballot reflects the committee’s recommendation. All members of the departmental P&T committee know the identity of the secretary serving as the letter writer. When writing a letter, the secretary takes appropriate steps to ensure that she/he accurately conveys the richness of discussion, including positive and negative points. Following submission to the department head, the department head adds the written document featuring the recommendation to the individual’s dossier.
Role of Department Head
The department head is responsible for obtaining outside letters and responding to candidates’ questions as they develop their dossiers. To understand the richness of discussion and the outcomes from the deliberations, the department head may attend the departmental tenure and promotion committee unless otherwise requested in writing by a majority of the voting members of the departmental P&T committee to abstain from doing so. The head may serve as a facilitator and coordinator during the deliberations; alternatively, a faculty member may serve in this role. If the head attends, he or she is encouraged to serve as an information resource both proactively and reactively. For example, if individuals present inaccurate statements, the head shares information to assist in clarifying or presenting the facts. However, the head does not attempt to influence the thinking or voting of the faculty. For instance, the head avoids championing or advocating for a positive or negative outcome. The head (and Executive Associate Dean and Dean, if a member of the relevant department) have no vote at the departmental level.
After receiving the departmental faculty recommendation, the department head prepares a letter to present and explain her/his personal and independent recommendation regarding the candidate to the Dean. If the department head’s recommendation differs from the departmental committee’s recommendation, he/she must explain in his/her recommendation the reasons for the difference.
After adding the recommendations from the departmental promotion and tenure committee and the department head to the dossier, the Dean receives the full dossier. The Dean presents the full dossier to the Mays P&T committee.
Role of the Promotion and Tenure Review Advisory Committee (P&T)
The Mays (college-wide) P&T committee has seven voting members—one elected (full) professor from each academic department, two at-large members appointed by the Dean, and one ex officio (non-voting) member appointed by the Dean as well. The ex officio member serves as the committee’s chair. Tenured (full) professors, with the exception of Mays and university administrators (department head and above), are eligible for election/appointment to the P&T committee. All tenured faculty members holding academic rank within a particular department are eligible to vote for that department’s representative. Typically, P&T committee members serve three-year staggered terms. The P&T committee reviews all promotion and tenure cases and transmits, in writing, its recommendations and votes to the Dean.
Role of the P&T Chair
The chair of the P&T committee serves as an ex officio (non-voting) member. Appointed by the Dean, the chair normally serves a three-year term. The chair facilitates, moderates, and coordinates the process. Active participation by the chair in the substantive discussions about the promotion and tenure decision for each candidate does not occur. However, based on the views of the voting members, including any minority perspectives, the chair drafts the memos of recommendation for submission to the Dean. All voting committee members sign each memo of recommendation to the Dean.
Role of the Executive Associate Dean
The Executive Associate Dean (EAD) ensures that the P&T committee members receive the dossiers for all promotion and tenure candidates. The EAD also ensures that the Mays P&T committee completes its review process within the required amount of time as stipulated by the Provost’s office. The EAD also ensures that timely elections (by faculty vote) to the promotion and tenure committee occur.
The EAD and/or Dean are available, at the discretion of the department, to attend the departmental review process in order to capture the richness of the discussion regarding each promotion and tenure candidate. This participation may consist of attendance throughout the peer review process or a briefing by the departmental faculty involved in the review process at the conclusion of the departmental evaluations.
Role of the Dean
After the P&T committee completes its deliberations, the Dean receives the candidate’s dossier, which at this point includes the following:
- All materials originally created and/or obtained for inclusion in the dossier.
- Written reports and recommendations prepared by the P&T committee (with its vote).
- Written reports and recommendations prepared by departmental committee (with its vote).
- Written recommendation of the department head.
The Dean prepares his/her own independent summary assessment of a candidate. If the Dean’s assessment differs from the department head’s assessment and recommendation, he or she will inform the department head of the reasons for those differences; in turn, the department head will inform the departmental tenure and promotion committee of the Dean’s decision and the reasons for it. The departmental review committee then has an opportunity to ensure that all appropriate materials are a part of the candidate’s dossier, including relevant arguments supporting the candidate’s case. Identifying germane new evidence or new and different arguments might lead to submission submit of a newly organized case for reconsideration at the school level.
If the Dean recommends against tenure and/or promotion and that recommendation differs from the department head’s recommendation, the Dean informs the department head and the candidate of the reasons for the recommendation. The faculty member then has an opportunity to offer a stronger case for tenure and/or promotion. The Dean and the P&T committee review this case prior to forwarding a final recommendation to the Executive Vice President and Provost through the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties.
On a year-by-year basis, the university timetable determines the specific dates for promotion and tenure recommendations. The approximate timetable is as follows:
- June—Nominations due
- June-September—Preparation of file, receipt of external reviews
- September-October (first week)—Departmental reviews
- October (end of first week)—Departmental recommendations to the Dean
- October-November (first week)—Mays P&T committee makes assessments
- November (second week)—Mays P&T committee submits recommendations to the Dean
- December (second week)—Dean submits recommendations to the Provost by sending complete files to the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties
- January—Dean meets and reviews recommendations with the Provost and the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties
- February—Provost forwards recommendations to the President. President forwards recommendations to the board of regents through the Chancellor of the Texas A&M University System
- March—Board of regents reviews recommendations and makes final decisions
- September 1—Tenure and promotion decisions become effective
To meet this timetable departments complete their review processes and the faculty dossiers by the first week of October. Obtaining external letters often requires considerable time and effort; accordingly, requesting these letters in June or before is appropriate.
Promotion Expectations and Time Frames (Non-Tenure-Accruing Faculty)
Consideration of a Lecturer for Promotion to Senior Lecturer
At a minimum, lecturers are to be effective in instruction/teaching and make service contributions related departmental and college academic needs. Assessment of both performance dimensions, with teaching performance carrying the heaviest weight, is the source of a decision to promote an individual to a senior lecturer position. The minimum requirements for promotion to senior lecturer in Mays Business School include the following:
- Pattern over time of excellence in teaching.
- Pattern over time of satisfactory performance in service.
- Potential for continued excellence in teaching and a satisfactory performance in service.
Typically, lecturers serve at least 5 years in rank before seeking promotion. An individual who compiles an unusually strong and exceptional record of accomplishment may request early consideration. Normally, only full-time lecturers are eligible for promotion consideration.
Clinical Assistant Professor Being Considered for Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor
At a minimum, clinical assistant professors should provide satisfactory performance(s) in teaching and either service or research on a consistent basis. Because all clinical faculty have a minimum service obligation, anyone interested in pursuing research should discuss their research agenda with their department head to determine their appropriate service assignments. In addition, a strong case for promotion requires excellence in either teaching or service. The minimum requirements for promotion to clinical associate professor in Mays Business School include the following:
- Pattern over time of excellence in instruction/teaching.
- Pattern over time of satisfactory performance in service and /or research.
- Potential for continued excellence in teaching and satisfactory performance(s) in service and/or research.
Typically, clinical assistant professors serve at least 5 years in rank before seeking promotion. An individual who compiles an unusually strong and exceptional record of accomplishment may request early consideration. Normally, only full-time clinical faculty are eligible for promotion consideration.
Consideration of a Clinical Associate Professor for Promotion to Clinical Professor
At a minimum, clinical associate professors should consistently deliver satisfactory performance(s) on both teaching and service dimensions. Because all clinical faculty have a minimum service obligation, anyone interested in pursuing research should discuss their research agenda with their department head to determine their appropriate service assignments. In addition, a strong case for promotion requires excellence in either teaching or service. The minimum requirements for promotion to clinical professor in Mays Business School include the following:
- Pattern over time of excellence in teaching.
- Pattern over time of satisfactory performance in service and/or research.
- Potential for continued excellence in instruction/teaching and satisfactory performance in service and/or research.
Typically, clinical associate professors serve at least 5 years in rank before seeking promotion. An individual who compiles an unusually strong and exceptional record of accomplishment may request early consideration. Normally, only full-time clinical faculty are eligible for promotion consideration.
Promotion Review Process (Non -Tenure-Accruing Faculty)
Initiating the Process
By soliciting self-nominations, department heads initiate the process for individuals wishing consideration for promotion to senior lecturer, associate clinical professor, or clinical professor. After discussing the process and clarifying expectations with the department head, an individual wishing to be a candidate for promotion prepares a dossier according to Mays and university requirements (see Appendix 1 for the university’s standards for preparing a dossier). When preparing their dossier, non-tenure-accruing faculty seeking promotion focus only on sections in Appendix 1 related to instruction/teaching and service (and research, if applicable). Individuals seeking promotion bear responsibility for ensuring that they follow the most current university guidelines.
Role of the Candidate
As noted, the candidate bears the primary responsibility to draft/prepare the basic information/data for her/his dossier in accordance with Mays and university requirements. As one part of the dossier, the candidate supplies, in concise form (a maximum of two pages, single spaced), a statement of his or her goals, philosophies, strategies, and emphases in carrying out his or her professional responsibilities in teaching, service and other accomplishments relevant to the position.
Role of Departmental Faculty
Departmental faculty review is the first step in the process of evaluating non-tenure-accruing faculty for promotion. The following parameters guide the departmental review committee’s deliberations:
- All tenured associate professors and professors in a department comprise the departmental promotion review committee for faculty under consideration for promotion to senior lecturer, clinical associate professor, and clinical professor.
- The department head appoints at least one non-tenure-accruing faculty from her/his department, of ranks higher than the candidate (should such faculty exist), as voting members of the review committee.
- Absolute confidentiality accompanies the review committee’s deliberations.
- Committee recommendations are advisory in nature.
Committee members select a senior faculty member as the group’s secretary. The secretary is responsible for recording the departmental committee’s recommendation in writing and to communicating the vote to the department head. This recommendation results from a secret vote taken by the committee. The secretary takes appropriate steps to ensure that she/he accurately conveys the richness of discussion, including positive and negative points. Those authoring the evaluation reports attach their names to the documents. After adding the committee’s recommendation to the candidate’s dossier, the department receives a copy of the dossier.
To review promotion cases of non-tenure-accruing faculty locating in a non-departmental unit, the Executive Associate Dean appoints an ad-hoc committee that serves as the departmental review committee. The ad-hoc committee consists of five full-time faculty, with representation from at least two non-tenure-accruing faculty of ranks higher than the candidate.
Role of Department or Unit Head
After receiving the departmental review committee’s recommendation, the department head develops and submits her/his independent recommendation to the Dean. After adding the departmental committee’s recommendation and the department head’s recommendation to the candidate’s dossier, the Dean’s office receives the dossier and submits it to the Mays P&T committee for review. If the department head’s recommendation differs from that of the departmental committee, he/she explains the reasons for the differences in his/her recommendation.
Role of the College Promotion and Tenure Review Advisory Committee (P&T)
The P&T committee reviews all non-tenure-accruing promotion cases and transmits in writing its recommendations and votes to the Dean. The P&T chair facilitates, moderates, and coordinates the review process. Based on the voting committee members’ views (as well as any minority perspectives) and votes, the chair drafts the letter of recommendation and submits them to the Dean. All voting committee members sign the recommendation letters.
Role of the Dean
The P&T committee completes its review and submits the full dossier for each candidate to the Dean. At this point, the dossier includes the following:
- All materials created and/or obtained for inclusion in the dossier.
- A written report and recommendations (with votes) from the departmental P&T committee.
- A document in writing from the department specifying her/his recommendation.
- A written report and recommendations (with votes) from the Mays P&T committee.
The Dean prepares an independent assessment of the candidate’s promotion case. If the Dean recommends against promotion, he or she informs the department or unit head and the candidate of the reasons for the recommendation. The candidate then has an opportunity to offer a stronger case for promotion. The Dean and the P&T committee review the revised case before sending a final recommendation to the Executive Vice President and Provost through the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties.
On an annual basis, the university’s timetable determines the specific dates for promotion and tenure recommendations. An approximate timetable appears in an earlier section of this document under the process for tenure-accruing and tenured faculty.
Faculty Notification during Promotion and Tenure Process
A faculty member learns of the recommendation for or against tenure and/or promotion at each level of review. In the event of a negative tenure and/or promotion decision, the faculty member is entitled to a written statement of the reasons that contributed to that decision. If requested by the faculty member, a statement of reasons will be provided by the department head (or dean) after the board of regents has ruled on the university’s tenure and/or promotion recommendation.
The official decision by the board of regents regarding the granting of tenure and/or promotion of a faculty member will be conveyed in writing to the faculty member as soon as possible after the board of regents has officially acted on the president’s tenure and/or promotion recommendation.
At any point in the process, a candidate may elect to withdraw his/her name from further consideration by submitting a written request. If an assistant professor facing mandatory review wishes to withdraw, she or he may do so; however, a resignation letter accompanies such a request. By policy, a faculty member receives notice of recommendations for or against tenure and/or promotion at each level of review. The university specifies rather formal and (in some cases) complex channels for communicating with faculty candidates. In Mays Business School, either the department head or the Dean may communicate with the candidate, as each deems appropriate.
Rights of Non-Tenured Faculty
Good case (see section 6.3 in University Rule 12.01.99.M2—University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure, and Promotion) informs a decision to dismiss a non-tenured faculty member (tenure track or non-tenure track) prior to the expiration of an appointment. Clause 8.2 (see 12.01.99.M2) details the procedures associated with a dismissal decision for “good cause.”
A decision to not renew the tenure-track appointment of a non-tenured faculty member or a decision to not grant tenure to a non-tenured faculty member results from “adequate consideration” (see section 4.5.2 of University Rule 12.01.99.M2) of an individual’s professional performance. A non-renewal decision may not reflect illegal discrimination and may not violate an individual’s academic freedom.
If a faculty member believes that a dismissal or non-reappointment decision (for tenure-track faculty only) violated his/her civil rights and/or the mandates of “adequate consideration,” s/he discusses the matter with her/his department head and if necessary, the Dean. If concerns remain after these efforts, the faculty member may prepare a written notice of appeal (see sections 8.2.4 and 9.3 of University Rule 12.01.99.M2 for guidance). After receiving written notice of an appeal, the university’s President promptly communicates with the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties to initiate an investigation of the alleged violation. University Rule 08.01.01.M1 guides this activity.
A faculty member holding a non-tenure track position experiencing non-renewal of her/his appointment may present a grievance in person to the Dean or to the Dean through the Executive Associate Dean. Such a grievance is filed if the individual believes that the non-reappointment decision violated her/his academic freedom or civil rights and/or if s/he believes the decision was not based on “adequate consideration” of her/his performance. The Dean or if empowered by the Dean the Executive Associate Dean considers the grievance and renders a decision, which is final.
Endowed Position Appointment and Review Process
Mays supports highly productive research scholars through endowed chairs and professorships. The stated priorities and restrictions associated with each endowed position informs selection decisions and budgetary decisions and processes.
Descriptions of Endowed Positions
An appointment to an endowed chair is one of the highest honors for a Mays researcher/faculty member. The highest level of performance, and national and international recognition of that performance, are inherent guidelines for appointment of a chair holder. Individuals appointed to endowed chairs satisfy the institutional expectation of unquestionable excellence in at least one of the three professional performance dimensions (research, teaching, and service) as well as any specific criteria associated with a particular endowed position. Gift agreements with donors may specify the criteria for a position; however, in the absence of such specification research and publication is the primary decision criterion. The appointment to an endowed chair may recognize a current member of the faculty or it may be associated with recruitment of a new faculty member. In all appointments, excellence is a product of several years of outstanding performance based on national and international standards.
Individuals appointed to an endowed professorship receive a high honor in recognition of their consistent performance and their ability to continue demonstrating high productivity, primarily as a researcher. In addition to strong performances in the research, teaching, and service, an individual appointed to a professorship also satisfies any unique criteria associated with a particular endowed position. Again, research generally takes precedence when selecting individuals to appoint to an endowed professorship. The appointment to an endowed professorship may recognize a current member of the faculty or may be associated with recruitment of a new faculty member.
Selection and Appointment
With the Dean’s concurrence, the Executive Associate Dean (EAD) initiates the selection process. Typically, the EAD identifies prospective candidates by consulting with the department heads. Occasionally, and at the Dean’s direction, the EAD solicits self-nominations from the faculty. Working with a department head and representing the Dean, the EAD assembles a nomination package for chair and/or professorship candidates. This package includes documents that highlight a candidate’s research productivity and potential for future research productivity. The Research Council considers nominees and provides recommendations to the EAD who in turn provides those recommendations to the Dean who has final approval
Following the selection of a candidate for appointment to an endowed position (either a chair or a professorship) the Dean prepares a letter to request appointment approval by the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties. Recommendations of the Mays Research Council and reasons for the Dean’s recommendation accompany the request for appointment approval by the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties.
Initial appointments follow all applicable University policies. Appointment letters reference Mays’ Periodic Peer Review policy and describe the reappointment process and the management of endowment related funds. By mutual consent and with the approval of the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties, special appointment conditions may exit. Special appointment conditions are discouraged and cannot conflict with any university policy.
Evaluation and Reappointment
Every five years (or more often if a review cycle of fewer years is established at the time of initial appointment or a reappointment), the Mays’ Research Council evaluates the performance of an endowed position holder. This evaluation satisfies the Post-Tenure Review requirements for an endowed position holder. Reappointment is highly likely when an individual maintains high performance standards in his or her work and continues to contribute positively to Mays’ and the universities visions and missions, particularly as they related to research productivity. To facilitate the review process, individuals prepare a summary of how their position supported their work during the term of their appointment and the anticipated benefits of reappointment. The department head receives an individual’s summary.
After evaluating the reappointment candidate’s materials, the department head prepares a letter to recommend one of three options: (1) reappointment, (2) non-reappointment, or (3) a more detailed review process. The Research Council then receives the candidate’s materials and the department head’s letter. After deliberating, the Research Council votes and provides the results of its voting (and its recommendation) to the Executive Associate Dean. . The EAD and Dean discuss all materials and recommendations. As appropriate, the Dean may request additional documentation during these deliberations. The Dean makes all reappointment decisions with those decisions conveyed to candidates by their department head.
The original gift agreement and applicable university policies determine the allocation of income generated by chair, professorship, and faculty fellowship endowments. A portion of the annual income generated by the position endowments is available for discretionary use by the chair/professorship holder. Subject to the availability of funds, discretionary funds may support activities of endowed faculty positions such as the following:
- Endowed chairs: Two months of summer salary not otherwise funded from other sources per year plus an annual spending account of $12,500. If an individual wishes to carry forward unused spending account funds into subsequent periods, he/she may request permission from the Executive Associate Dean to do so. Thoughtful and justifiable reasons for carrying funds forward (e.g., if the individual plans to apply for a faculty development leave in the near future and anticipates unusually heavy travel expenses during that period) are considered. There are no circumstances though under which unused spending account funds are eligible for salary support. Annually, unused balances influence allocations to an individual’s spending account.
- Professorship holders: One month of summer salary not otherwise funded from other sources per year plus an annual spending account of $7,500. The same considerations as described above apply to unused balances.
If individual endowment accounts fail to generate earnings sufficient to provide this level of annual support, department heads may choose to provide supplemental funding from other sources, such as EMBA transfers. If department heads want to provide this supplement but lack sufficient funds to do so, they may request supplemental funding from the Office of the Dean.
Periodic Peer Review
Texas Education Code section 51.942 requires that tenured faculty at State of Texas institutions of higher education be subject to a comprehensive performance evaluation process conducted no more often than once every year but no less often than once every six years after the date the faculty member was granted tenure or received an academic promotion at the institution. The evaluation considers the professional responsibilities of the faculty member in instruction/teaching, research, scholarship, or creative work, service, and other assigned responsibilities and must include peer review of the faculty member.
The purposes of the periodic peer review are to
- Assess whether an individual is making a contribution consistent with that expected of a tenured faculty member
- Provide guidance for continuing and meaningful faculty development
- Assist faculty to enhance professional skills and goals
- Refocus academic and professional efforts, when appropriate.
Using the indicators of “excellent,” “satisfactory,” “needs improvement,” and “unsatisfactory” performance, all full professors in a given department constitute the committee in charge of conducting the Periodic Peer Review of each tenured associate professor. Materials submitted for the Periodic Peer Review process are the same as those submitted for an annual performance review. The committee of full professors evaluates the annual performance of an associate professor who is in his/her sixth year following the granting of tenure or following the most recent Periodic Peer Review. This committee also evaluates the performance of a tenured associate professor to determine if her/his performance over the past six years meets the expectations of a tenured member of the department’s faculty. Earning “satisfactory” and “excellent” performance ratings in all performance areas over the relevant six-year period results in a “satisfactory” Periodic Peer Review. In reaching its determination, the committee in charge of the Periodic Peer Review should take into account any performance evaluations completed by the department head during the previous six years, particularly those that fall into the categories of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory.”
Using the indicators of “excellent,” “satisfactory,” “needs improvement,” and “unsatisfactory” performance, the following guidelines describe the formation of the committee in charge of evaluating full professors for the purpose of the Periodic Peer Review:
- For associate and full professors who are holders of an endowed position (a chair or a professorship), the Periodic Peer Review committee is the Research Council of Mays Business School. The Periodic Peer Review will take place concurrently with the review conducted by the Council for the purpose of appointment (or reappointment) to the endowed position.
- For associate and full professors not holding an endowed chair or professorship, the remaining full professors from a given department form the Periodic Peer Review committee. This committee formation process applies when the faculty member’s department head is not a member of the committee and when at least three faculty members are eligible to serve. If less than three faculty members are eligible to serve, the Dean of Mays Business School appoints full professors from other departments to serve on the Periodic Peer Review committee to ensure that a minimum of three full professors form the Periodic Peer Review committee.
The Periodic Peer Review process relies on and uses materials submitted for annual performance reviews. The committee of full professors, as described above, will evaluate each professor’s performance to determine if that performance meets the expectations of a tenured member of the department’s faculty. Earning “satisfactory” and “excellent” performance ratings in all performance areas over the relevant six-year period results in a satisfactory Periodic Peer Review. In reaching its determination, the committee in charge of the Periodic Peer Review should take into account any performance evaluations completed by the Department Head during the previous six years, particularly those that fall into the categories of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory.” In addition, an individual experiencing a Periodic Peer Review should prepare a one-page document in order to describe the allocations of her/his time among research, instruction/teaching, and service and the accomplishments achieved during the relevant six-year period with respect to these three performance dimensions. All Periodic Review Committee members receive a copy of this document.
For a tenured associate professor and for a tenured professor, a finding of “unsatisfactory” performance in any performance area during a Periodic Peer Review process shall state the basis for that finding in accordance with the criteria featured in Mays Business School’s “Guidelines for Faculty Appointments and Reviews.” An “unsatisfactory” Periodic Peer Review will trigger the initiation of a Professional Development Review (see below).
For a tenured associate professor and for a tenured professor, a finding of “needs improvement” in any two of the three performance areas during a Periodic Peer Review process shall state the basis for that finding in accordance with the criteria featured in Mays Business School’s “Guidelines for Faculty Appointments and Reviews.” A finding of “needs improvement” in any two of the three performance areas will trigger the initiation of a Professional Development Review.
For a tenured associate professor and for a tenured professor, a finding of “needs improvement” in a single category during a Periodic Peer Review requires a specific, written explanation of the identified deficiencies. This explanation informs the immediate development of a near-term improvement plan. The faculty member and the department head collaborate to develop the improvement plan.
For a tenured associate professor and for a tenured professor with budgeted joint appointments, the post-tenure review guidelines of the department or program where the faculty holds the majority of the appointment (ad loc) determines the conduct of the Period Peer Review, unless the faculty member requests a review by both units. If reviewed only by the primary department, the department head will share the report with the department head of the secondary department.
By no later than May 31st of a year, each department head will provide to the Mays Business School Dean and the Dean of the Faculties a list of those faculty who underwent Periodic Peer Review during the current academic year, the outcome of the review, and the year when each tenured faculty last underwent a Periodic Peer Review.
Professional Development Review
A Professional Development Review takes place for a tenured faculty member under one of three conditions: (1) when a faculty member receives three consecutive overall “unsatisfactory” annual reviews, (2) when a faculty member receives an “unsatisfactory” Periodic Peer Review evaluation, or (3) when a faculty member receives two “needs improvement” performance ratings during a Period Peer Review. The department head will inform the faculty member that s/he is subject to a Professional Development Review and of the nature and procedures of the review. Exemption from a Professional Development Review for a faculty member is possible upon recommendation of the department head and approval of the Dean when substantive mitigating circumstances (e.g., serious illness) exist. At any stage during the Professional Development Review process, a faculty member seek the aid of private legal counsel or another representative.
The purposes of a Professional Development Review are to: (1) identify and officially acknowledge substantial or chronic deficits in performance; (2) develop a specific professional development plan by which to remedy deficiencies; and (3) monitor progress toward achievement of the professional development plan.
An ad hoc review committee (hereafter referred to as the review committee) conducts the Professional Development Review, unless the faculty member requests that the department head conduct the review. The Dean appoints the three-member ad hoc faculty review committee, in consultation with the department head and faculty member for whom a review is to take place. When appropriate, the committee membership may include faculty from other departments, colleges, or universities.
The faculty member requiring a review prepares a review dossier by providing all documents, materials, and statements he or she deems relevant and necessary for the review within one month of notification that a Professional Development Review is to occur. All materials submitted by the faculty member are to be included in the dossier. Although review dossiers will differ, at a minimum, each dossier includes an individual’s current Curriculum Vitae, a teaching portfolio, and a statement detailing current research, scholarship, or creative work.
The department head will add to the dossier any further materials he or she deems necessary or relevant. The faculty member has the right to review and respond in writing to any materials added by the department head with the written response included in the dossier. In addition, the faculty member has the right to add any materials at any time during the Professional Development Review process.
The Professional Development Review occurs in a timely fashion (normally less than three months after the faculty member under review submits the initial dossier). The Professional Development Review results in one of three possible outcomes: (1) No deficiencies identified. The committee informs the faculty member, department head, and Dean in writing about this outcome. The committee’s report suspends the outcome described in the prior annual review. (2) The committee found some deficiencies, but concluded that they are not substantial or chronic. The review committee specifically elaborates the deficiencies in writing and provides a copy of that document to the faculty member, the department head, and the Dean. (3) The committee found substantial or chronic deficiencies when completing its work. The review committee specifically elaborates the deficiencies in writing and provides a copy of that document to the faculty member, department head, and Dean. The faculty member, review committee, and department head then work together to develop a Professional Development Plan that is acceptable to the Dean.
The Professional Development Plan
The Professional Development Plan indicates the remedies for specific deficiencies in a faculty member’s performance (as measured against stated departmental or college-wide criteria developed under the provision of this procedure). The Professional Development Plan will grow out of a collaboration among the faculty member, the review committee, the department head and the Dean. It should reflect the mutual aspirations of the faculty member, the department, and Mays Business School. A faculty member assists with the development of a Professional Development Plan. A faculty member is obligated to assist in the development of a meaningful and effective plan and to make a good faith effort to implement the adopted Professional Development Plan.
Individual circumstances dictate the development of individual Professional Development Plans. In all instances though, a plan must include the following items: (1) identify specific deficiencies requiring attention; (2) define specific goals or outcomes necessary to remedy the deficiencies; (3) outline the activities to undertake to achieve the necessary outcomes; (4) set timelines for accomplishing the activities and achieving intermediate and ultimate outcomes; (5) indicate the criteria for assessment in annual reviews of progress in the plan; and (6) identify institutional resources needed to support the plan.
The faculty member and department head meet annually to review the faculty member’s progress toward remedying deficiencies. The review committee and the Dean receive annual progress reports from department heads. Further evaluation of the faculty member’s performance within the regular faculty performance evaluation process (e.g., annual performance reviews) may draw upon the faculty member’s progress in achieving the goals set out in the Professional Development Plan.
Completion of the Professional Development Plan
When the objectives of the plan have been met or the agreed timeline exceeded, or in any case, no later than three years after the start of the Professional Development Plan, the department head shall make a final report to the faculty member and Dean. The successful completion of the Professional Development Plan is the positive outcome to which all faculty and administrators involved in the process must be committed. The re-engagement of faculty talents and energies reflects a success for the entire university community.
If after consulting with the review committee the department head and Dean agree that the faculty member has not satisfied the goals of the Professional Development Plan and that the deficiencies in the completion of the plan separately constitute good cause for dismissal under applicable tenure policies, dismissal proceedings may begin under applicable policies governing tenure, academic freedom, and academic responsibility.
If at any point during the process a faculty member believes that unfair use of this rule’s provisions occurs, s/he may file a grievance under the provisions of University Rule 12.01.99.M4, Faculty Grievance Procedures Not Concerning Questions of Tenure, Dismissal, or Constitutional Rights.
If the faculty member wishes to challenge the composition of the Professional Development Review committee due to a specific conflict of interest with one or more of the proposed committee members, s/he can appeal to the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties. After consultation with the faculty member, Department Head, and the Dean, the decision of the Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost on the committee composition is final.
If the faculty member wishes to challenge the Professional Development Review committee’s finding of substantial or chronic deficiencies, the faculty member may appeal the finding to the Dean, whose decision on such an appeal is final.
If the faculty member, Department Head, and review committee fail to agree on a Professional Development Plan that is acceptable to the Dean, the plan will be determined through mediation directed by the Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost.
Voluntary Post-Tenure Review
A tenured faculty member desirous of a voluntary Post-Tenure Review may seek the counsel of peers, through a Periodic Peer Review or a Professional Development Review, by making a request to the Department Head.
Faculty Workload Guidelines
In general, the norm is for Mays faculty members to engage with classroom activities during the academic year. This section addresses teaching loads.
The following policies and guidelines inform assignment of teaching loads for Mays Business School tenured and tenure-track faculty without administrative appointments.
Three Courses per Year
A three course per year load (with the department head, Executive Associate Dean and Dean’s approval) applies in the following instances:
- Untenured faculty for whom a reduced load is a market necessity and who have active on-going research programs
- MBA core faculty who also demonstrate active and on-going excellence in research
- Faculty who hold the rank of Distinguished Professor
- Other faculty who have maintained and continue to maintain an exceptional research record resulting in very high levels of national and international visibility; such a record includes multiple and strong indicators of research excellence over an extended time period
Four Courses per Year
An annual load of four courses is modal for faculty members demonstrating on-going excellence in research in combination with on-going effectiveness in teaching.
Five Courses per Year
An annual load of five courses is modal for faculty members demonstrating on-going effectiveness in research and teaching.
Six Courses per Year
For faculty without an on-going research program and without research productivity that meet the standards of research effectiveness for the most recent three years, an annual load of six courses is the norm.
In light of special teaching situations (such as individuals teaching large sections, on-line courses, and/or other especially time-demanding classes) and/or special service situations (such as chairing a major university committee and/or serving on an inordinately large number of committees), adjustments to these workloads are possible. Any such adjustment applies as long as the special circumstances exist.
Without adverse effect on academic programs, a faculty member may request an unbalanced teaching load in order to block time for other professional activities. For instance, an individual with a three-course load may request that s/he teach the three courses in either a fall or a spring semester, allowing an individual to concentrate on research productivity during the non-teaching semester.
If approved, under no circumstance can a person or her or his unit view the semester in which the faculty member lacks a teaching assignment as a ‘leave’ in any sense of the word. During a non-teaching semester, a faculty member maintains an active presence in the department and continues fulfilling his/her service commitments. If a faculty member expects to be away from campus for any meaningful amount of time during a non-teaching semester, s/he completes an Alternative Work Location form. Such a request requires department and Dean-level approval. Approved AWL requests occur when absence from the campus yields benefits for Mays and when such absence permits continuing fulfillment of an individual’s assigned duties.
In addition to performance in the areas of research and teaching, department heads take into account other considerations such as the nature and scope of service contributions of a faculty member to the profession and/or the institution when determining teaching loads. In exceptional cases, an individual may receive a course reduction based on significant service contributions. Teaching loads of less than three courses or more than six courses per year require approval of the Dean or the Executive Associate Dean.
Faculty with research and/or other alternative sources of funding who wish to “buy out” of one or more courses during the academic year can do so with the department head’s approval. If the source of funds is a competitively awarded research grant, the rate for buying out of a course is 33.3% of the individual’s semester salary (4.5 months) per course. If the source of funds is an endowment account (such as a chair or a professorship), the rate is 50% of the individual’s semester salary (4.5 months) per course.
ABD Faculty Appointment Process
When offered a tenure-track position as an assistant professor on the faculty of Mays Business School, there is a clear expectation that an individual will complete the requirements for the terminal degree prior to September 1 of the year the appointment commences. If the individual completes the substantive requirements (i.e., successfully defended the dissertation) but not the administrative requirements (i.e., submission of final dissertation manuscript in order to actually receive the degree), for purposes of these guidelines, we consider the degree to be completed. However, we require a letter from the dissertation advisor or comparable individual certifying this to be the case. Finally, in any event, we also require formal certification from the degree-granting institution when an individual receives the actual degree. The individual’s department retains copies of all of these documents.
Failing to complete the degree (as defined above) by September 1 of the year the appointment commences, results in the following options for an individual:
- The individual may remain in residence at his/her current institution and complete the degree. We will hold the individual’s position until January 15 of the following year. Assuming completion of all degree by January 15, the individual may then join our faculty under the terms of the original offer, including summer support. We strongly encourage individuals to select this option.
- When an individual elects to join our faculty on the date originally specified, the rank is visiting assistant professor, which is a non-tenure-accruing position. There is a one-year limit on this type of appointment for individuals originally offered tenure-track positions. During this year, the individual has a minimum teaching load of six hours per semester.
- Completing the requirements for the terminal degree before December 31 of that calendar year results in an individual’s reappointment to tenure-track status at the rank of assistant professor in January of the next calendar year. Completing the requirements after December 31 but before August 31 of the next calendar year, results in an individual’s reappointment on September 1. In either case, tenure accrual begins on September 1 of the second year of employment.
As long as an individual has not successfully completed the requirements for the degree, as described above, she/he will not be eligible to receive summer salary for research. Failure to complete the requirement for the terminal degree during the one-year maximum appointment period as a visiting assistant professor results in a terminal contract for the individual’s second year of employment. During that second year, the individual’s title is lecturer; employment-related resources (i.e., travel funds, computer, etc.) are commensurate with those provided to other lecturers in the same department. The Dean approves any exceptions to these guidelines in advance.
Transition to Retirement Program
The Mays Business School Transition to Retirement Program (TRP) offers eligible faculty members the opportunity to make a staged transition from full-time faculty status to retirement. The TRP allows faculty members to retain tenure and benefits while decreasing responsibilities and commitments according to a predetermined schedule. The application form is at the end of this document.
1.1 A full-time faculty member is eligible to apply for the TRP if at the time of proposed entry into the program the individual:
- holds tenure at Texas A&M University,
- has completed at least 10 years of full-time employment at Texas A&M University,
- has earned a performance evaluation of satisfactory or better in the categories of teaching, research, and service during the most recent academic year,
- is administratively located in Mays Business School, and
- receives 100% of her/his pay from Mays Business School.
1.2 Faculty members serving as department heads or in other administrative positions in the School or
University are ineligible for the TRP.
1.3 In unusual circumstances, the Dean may make an exception to the eligibility requirements in 1.1 and 1.2.
2 Phased Transition Period
2.1 By participating in the TRP, eligible faculty members elect to reduce their percentage of effort for a defined phased transition period (normally up to a maximum of three years).
2.2 Participating faculty members will retain their tenure and title during the phased transition period.
2.3 At the end of the phased transition period, participating faculty members will relinquish tenure and separate from employment, typically by retiring.
2.4 The agreement to relinquish tenure and separate employment at the date mutually agreed upon occurs before the phased transition period begins and is irrevocable (subject to section 3 below).
3 Modifying the Phased Transition Period
During the phased transition period, a participating faculty member may petition for an extension or other modification. A participating faculty member may also choose to resign before the end of the predetermined phased transition period. No approval to resign is required. However, an individual intending to resign prior to the end of the predetermined phased transition period should announce his/her intentions at least one semester in advance. Announcing a resignation decision a semester in advance provides time for a department to adjust as necessary.
4 Percentage Effort and Workload
4.1 During the phased transition period, a participating faculty member accepts an appointment at 75% effort (.75 FTE) or less. Workload and compensation during the phased transition period is determined in advance as part of the written agreement.
4.2 Workload and compensation may be constant over the course of the transition period or it may vary by a predetermined amount during the period of the transition. For example, an individual may propose to be at 75% FTE in the first year, 50% FTE in the second year, and 25% FTE in the third year.
4.3 Workload and compensation may be constant within a given year or workload and compensation may be unbalanced. For example, if a participating faculty member has a 50% appointment the appointment may be 50% over the full 9-month academic year or it may occur at a rate of 100% effort for 4.5 months and 0% for 4.5 months.
4.4 In all cases, however, the distribution of courses taught during an individual’s participation in the TRP must not have a negative impact on Mays academic programs.
5 Compensation and Benefits
5.1 Participating faculty members will be compensated according to their percentage of effort during the phased separation period (e.g., at 50% of their regular 9-month base salary if effort is 50% for the full 9-month period).
5.2 Participation in the TRP program has implications for both benefit coverage and benefit costs. Faculty members considering participation in the TRP should consult the Texas A&M Benefits Office for guidance on benefits both during the TRP and after separation.
6 Other Considerations
6.1 If during the phased, TRP an individual teaches in a Mays-sponsored program for extra compensation (e.g. CED, EMBA, PMBA, etc.) the compensation for that teaching will be at the normal full-time rate.
6.2 If at the time of entry into the TRP, a faculty member holds an endowed position the individual will received the percentage support from the endowed position each academic year that corresponds to the percentage effort of the individual’s workload and compensation for that same academic year. For example, current Mays guidelines stipulate that, subject to the availability of funds, the holder of an endowed chair will receive two months of summer salary and a spending account of $12,500. If this individual is in the TRP and has a workload and compensation rate of 50% then the individual will receive, subject to the availability of funds, one month of summer support (or two months at 50%) and a spending account of $6,250.
6.3 If a faculty member holds an endowed position at the time of entry into the TRP program, Mays Business School reserves the right to change the individual’s appointment to an alternative but equivalent endowed position (such as a Mays Chair or Mays Professorship) and provide equivalent support as stipulated in 6.2.
7 Process for Requesting Transition to Retirement
7.1 Eligible faculty members interested in participating should submit an application to the Dean through their department head. The required TRP application form is included at the end of this document.
7.2 Applications must specify:
- the proposed date of entry into the TRP,
- the proposed duration of the TRP, and
- the proposed workload and responsibilities during the phased TRP.
7.3 For eligible faculty members with joint appointments, or other significant responsibilities outside their department, all relevant unit heads must approve the proposal.
7.4 After approval of a phased TRP proposal, the Dean’s office prepares and signs a formal Separation Agreement (the Agreement).
8 Administrative Provisions
8.1 The School may formally amend the TRP or terminate it if changes in funding, system policy or regulation, University rules, or other unforeseen circumstances, make it necessary.
8.2 Changes to the TRP made in accordance with 8.1 will not retroactively affect agreements approved through the process described in section 7.
Related System and University Guidelines
Mays Business School Transition to Retirement Program Proposal
Name ______________________________________ Title____________________________
Proposed Start Date of Phased Transition Period _____________________________________
Proposed Date of Retirement from TAMU ___________________________________________
Proposed workload and duties during phased transition period (describe teaching load, research expectations, and service):
I am applying for the Mays Business School Transition to Retirement.
Signature of Faculty Member Date
The faculty member meets the eligibility criteria of the Mays Business School Transition to Retirement Program. The proposed workload and duties meet the needs of the department and/or program.
______________________________ _____________________________ _____________
Department Head Signature Printed Name Date
______________________________ _____________________________ _____________
Department Head/Director Signature Printed Name Date
(co-signed if applicant is jointly appointed)
Appendix 1: Promotion Dossier
[Section Note: This section is a university document. This document, called “Promotion and Tenure Packages,” informs materials presented below.]
Candidates for promotion and/or promotion with tenure assume the lead role in preparing a suitable dossier for review. At various stages in the review process, those responsible for individual stages of the process add appropriate materials. The university routinely alters its format and content expectations for dossiers on an annual basis. Developing an electronic process is an important goal associated with these changes. Hence, the dossier description that follows is relatively general in nature. Awareness of annual university requirements rests with individual candidates and reviewers (relative to their respective roles).
The sections of the dossier (separated by tabs) correspond to the dossier cover sheet distributed annually by the Dean of Faculties. Guidelines on the content after each tab follows.
Tab 1: Candidate’s Statement on Teaching, Research, and Service
The candidate provides, in concise form (a maximum of three pages, single spaced), a statement on his or her goals, philosophies, strategies and emphases in carrying out his/her professional responsibilities in teaching, research, service and other relevant activities, if any. This statement provides a context for review of the file at each level; however, the statement is not for the candidate to make an argument for promotion or tenure.
The candidate’s acknowledgment of the contents of the promotion and tenure dossier as submitted to the departmental review committee (not including outside letters) appears under Tab 1.
Tab 2: Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae
A candidate’s curriculum vitae should be concise and current when submitted for consideration. A signed statement from the candidate indicating the curriculum vitae’s accuracy and currency accompanies the curriculum vitae.
Refereed publications (or other types of creative works) appear separately from publications (or other creative works) that were not refereed, and the lists accurately captioned accordingly. Complete documentation for each citation, including date of publication and inclusive page numbers, appears on the CV. If the department head’s recommendation differs from the departmental committee’s recommendation, he/she must explain in his/her recommendation the reasons for the difference.
Also presented separately are “in press” manuscripts (that is, those accepted but not published). Please include the acceptance letter(s) in this section. Items merely submitted for publication consideration are to appear in a separately captioned list. Where relevant as evidence of research performance, a candidate should note the amount of funded research as well as the role of the candidate in the projects (for example, principal investigator, co-principal investigator, etc.). Where relevant, the candidate should note the average percent of time she/he received support from non-teaching (research or other) funds over the previous five years.
Tab 3: Departmental Evaluation of Teaching
A departmental peer review committee typically prepares this document with the author noted. Subsequent reviewers should be able to find documented evidence for statements made in the report. To support evaluation of instruction/ teaching, the following materials and items appear in the report as applicable:
- Peer evaluation of course syllabi, assignments, examinations, and grading methods to determine levels of scope, rigor and quality of the candidate’s course offerings.
- Comments from peers regarding a candidate’s student ratings. Also prepared are summaries of the student evaluations, a longitudinal perspective regarding a candidate’s teaching performance, and an analysis of numerical data within the context of departmental standards and norms. This document contains a listing by academic year of the courses taught. In brief, a complete chronological summary of student ratings of an individual’s teaching over a five-year period (as applicable) appears in tabular form. However, the basis of evaluations of an individual’s teaching performance includes more than student ratings.
- Peer evaluation of development of new courses or substantial revision of existing courses.
- Peer evaluation of special efforts made by the candidate to improve his/her teaching or to develop new teaching materials.
- Peer evaluation of publications with a teaching focus in refereed journals, including journals dedicated to education in the faculty member’s discipline.
- Documentation and evaluation of participation in honors programs and development of honors courses.
- List of awards or recognition for distinguished teaching, with explanation if necessary.
- List of external invited presentations on teaching innovations.
- List of competitive, refereed, externally funded grants for projects with a strong teaching focus.
- Evaluations by former students or exiting students, if gathered in an unbiased way.
- Evaluation of publication of instructional materials, including textbooks.
- Other evidence of teaching quality as deemed important by the department and evaluated by peers.
- Peer evaluation of the candidate’s performance in classroom teaching situations. This evaluation includes mention of the methods and frequency of observation as well as criteria for assessment of performance. If a department engages in periodic classroom visitation from the beginning of a candidate’s service to develop his/her teaching ability, these evaluations are natural additions to the dossier. Faculty engaged in the review of classroom instruction should be familiar with the process of effective observation of instruction. The Center for Teaching Excellence is a resource for information on the effective observation of classroom instruction.
Materials for the candidate to prepare and submit include:
- Summary of teaching assignments over last five years.
- Summary of teaching evaluations over last five years.
- Summary of graduate student committees and chairperson roles over last five years.
- Materials documenting instructional innovation.
- Teaching awards.
- Any other materials relevant to the examples presented in the section on indicators of excellence and effectiveness in instruction/teaching.
Tab 4: Departmental Evaluation of Research
The indicators of effectiveness and excellence in research serve as the basis for the departmental committee, Mays promotion and tenure committee, department head, and Dean. External reviewers’ letters are extremely important when evaluating an individual’s research productivity. Assertions of “quality” of publications and research require evidence. Specification of the extent of peer review in the competitive process is part of the analysis of grant activity as a performance criterion. For the review process, the candidate prepares and submits materials such as the following:
- List of publications with complete citations (including data of publications and inclusive page numbers) organized as:
- Refereed journal articles.
- Books or chapters of books.
- Proceedings and presentations.
- Other, including non-refereed journals.
- Work in progress
- Manuscripts accepted for publication but not published appear as “in press” entries. Please include acceptance letters in this section.
- Submitted but unaccepted items/manuscripts appear in a separately captioned list.
- Summary of reviewing and/or editorial activities.
- List of research grant(s) and contract(s) funded and report(s) to sponsor(s).
- Other materials relevant to the examples presented in the sections on indicators of excellence and effectiveness in research and publication.
- Reprints (copies) of three of the most significant publications. Per instructions from the associate provost and dean of faculties, supportive materials such as copies of articles are not to be included in the dossiers forwarded to the executive vice president and provost through the associate provost and dean of faculties. The college retains these items in case the Provost requests them during her/his review.
- List of publications with complete citations (including data of publications and inclusive page numbers) organized as:
Tab 5: Departmental Evaluation of Quality of Service
Peer evaluation of the quality of service to the department, college, university, or other relevant constituencies is part of the review process. This section of the report may also include service beyond the campus, such as service to professional societies, research organizations, governmental agencies, the local community, and the public at large.
Tab 6: Departmental Evaluation of Other Activities
This section includes the departmental evaluation of the quality of other activities, if any, that are relevant to the visions and missions of the university, college, and department. No information appears in this section if it any available information lacks relevance relative to the candidate’s performance.
Tab 7: Outside Reviewers and Reviews
This section includes a statement describing outside reviewers’ qualifications as well as the outside reviewers’ letters. In developing letters requesting external evaluations, department heads identify questions/issues for reviewers to address. Additionally, letters for external reviewers include the following statement:
Your letter will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by Texas law. However, under Texas law the person made the subject of your letter may obtain a copy of the document upon request.
In selecting reviewers, the candidate provides the department head with the names of at least three external reviewers from recognized peer and/or aspirant institutions. The department head solicits at least two letters from the candidate’s list and a minimum of two letters from individuals at peer and/or aspirant institutions, but not suggested by the candidate. The department assumes responsibility for ensuring that appropriate and respected scholars provide external letters. Using fairness and objectivity, a department head selects at least four from these two lists. In cases where the stature of a program lacks clarity, the reason for soliciting a particular reference appears in the dossier under Tab 7: Outside Reviewers and Reviews.
Department heads take care in selecting external letter writers to ensure that:
- They are persons whose objectivity is unquestionable – that is, no co-authors, longtime personal friends, former students, or former mentors (unless more than the minimum three letters are presented);
- They hold at least the rank for which an individual is a candidate;
- Consistent with Mays guidelines, at least two external reviewers are from the candidate’s list and at least two other external reviewers are absent the candidate’s list;
- The candidate did not identify any of the external letter writers as unacceptable. .
The departmental committee, the department head, and the Dean address negative comments appearing in outside letters as well as positive comments where the ultimate recommendation is negative. This simply means that issues raised in the course of the review receive attention. All the evidence informs the forming of conclusions and the reaching of a decision.
Dossiers include a minimum of three letters from external reviewers who are responding to a request to evaluate the candidate’s research accomplishments. If asked, external letter writers can address other performance dimensions. If the external reviewer has specific knowledge about a particular performance dimension, s/he may include comments about the candidate’s performance relative to that and/or other dimensions.
To facilitate an assessment of their credentials, information about the external reviewers appears in an individual’s promotion and tenure package. They should be leading scholars in their disciplines and especially knowledgeable about the candidate’s research areas of expertise. A short paragraph on each reviewer provides an adequate amount of information.
Tab 8: Departmental Committee Report and Recommendation
This section includes the complete departmental report and recommendation. According to instructions from the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties, this section may refer to reports in tabs 3, 4, 5, and 6 for statements of evaluation and provide only a summery here, including discussions of the external letters and the committee’s recommendation.
Tab 9: Recommendation of Department Head
This section includes the department head’s independent assessment of the candidate. The department head includes in this section a discussion of the peer review committee’s evaluations and recommendations as well as the external letters and any further evaluation the head wishes to make.
Tab 10: College-Level Committee Report and Recommendation
This section includes the complete report and recommendation of the College Promotion and Tenure Review Advisory Committee.
Tab 11: Recommendation of Dean
This section includes the Dean’s independent recommendation.
Tab 12: Other Materials and Documentation
This section includes include other materials and documentation deemed pertinent to the case, but not appropriately placed elsewhere. These might include, for example, letters from students or peers that were not part of a structured evaluation process. However, the college retains supportive materials, such as the teaching portfolio and copies of books or articles that are not included in the dossier sent to the Office of the Dean of Faculties.
Appendix 2: Hiring faculty with tenure-on-arrival and/or at advanced rank
Hiring external faculty candidates with tenure-on-arrival and/or at advanced rank mirrors as closely as possible the process used for the granting of tenure and/or promotions for current Mays faculty. Specifically, the department head of the potential hiring department assumes responsibility for creating a dossier that includes the following:
- External review letters directed at the candidate’s qualifications for the proposed rank and tenure status, with the following:
- The candidate submits names of potential reviewers.
- The department head, with appropriate input from departmental faculty, develops an independent list of potential reviewers.
- The department head solicits letters from potential reviewers from each list.
- A minimum of three letters is required, although four is strongly preferred.
- A minimum of two letters from external reviewers
chosen independently by the department rather than by the candidate is a requirement.
- The dossier identifies letters written by individuals the candidate nominated and letters written by others In addition, the dossier includes information describing the credentials and
qualifications of each letter writer. (It is possible that a reviewer
will be on both the candidate’s list and the department head’s list.
This is permissible so long as those developing the lists worked independently.
However, most letters should be from reviewers from one list or the
other, but not both.)
- A current vita
- A representative sample of the candidate’s most important published work, with an upper limit of five articles
- Citation counts (with appropriate contextual information provided by the department head as to discipline norms and so forth)
- Individuals recommended for tenure on arrival who do not currently hold a tenured position and/or individuals whose appointment is a promotion from a currently held position should include a document featuring their statements regarding research, teaching, and service. Such individuals should also provide any remaining information that is relevant to internal promotion and tenure decisions.
- External review letters directed at the candidate’s qualifications for the proposed rank and tenure status, with the following:
When the dossier is complete, the P&T committee meets to review and discuss the candidate. It then formulates its recommendation and submits that recommendation to the Dean. The chair of the P&T committee also informs the department head of its recommendation.
- A department is free to make its own hiring recommendation decisions prior to completing the dossier. Moreover, with the consent of the Office of the Dean, candidates may receive an offer prior to the Mays P&T committee making its recommendation. In such cases, however, offer letters indicate that the offer at rank and/or with tenure on arrival is contingent on review by the Mays P&T committee and other defined entities within the university and system.
- Given the lead times often required to obtain external letters and compile dossiers, department heads keep all relevant parties informed as to their intentions regarding hiring with tenure on arrival and/or at advanced rank. For example, it may be useful to discuss anticipated hiring recommendations with the chair of the P&T committee in advance.
- If a candidate is to be recommended for appointment to an endowed position (in addition to tenure and advanced rank), the Research Council also reviews the dossier and makes recommendations to the Dean regarding the candidate’s qualifications for the endowed position. Under normal circumstances, the Research Council completes its review after the P&T committee review finishes its review. In some cases, however, these reviews may occur simultaneously.
Appendix 3: Appointment of non-tenure-accruing faculty
Appointments to non-tenure track positions vary based on the needs and expectations of Mays Business School and the individual. At a minimum, each offer and renewal letter clearly indicates that the appointment is: (1) specific as to time (i.e., for the period from-to); (2) specific as to percent time (e.g., 100 percent for full time); (3) specific as to essential duties; and (4) specific as to compensation.
Per System Policy 12.01.99.M2, the following standard dictates the giving of a written notice of non-reappointment to a Lecturer:
- A lecturer who has held any faculty appointment for the equivalent of five or more academic years of full-time service within a seven-year period receives a one-year notice if the academic department does not intend to renew the appointment.
A major programmatic revision or a budgetary cutback are the only reason to request an exemption to this provision. Such a request, with appropriate documentation, must be submitted by the Dean through the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties, the Provost, and then to the President for approval.
Per System Policy 12.01.99.M2, the following standard dictates the giving of a written notice of non-reappointment to a senior lecturer:
- A faculty member promoted to or hired at the rank of senior lecturer receives a one-year notice if the academic department does not intend to renew the appointment.
A major programmatic revision or a budgetary cutback are the only reasons to request an exemption to this provision. Such a request with appropriate documentation must be submitted by the Dean through the Associate Provost and Dean of Faculties, the Provost and then to the President for approval.