Pre-Tenure Reviews and Progress Towards Promotion to Professor Reviews

Pre-Tenure Reviews

The Faculty Handbook (Section 3.4.2) includes a requirement for tenure-track faculty to undergo two reviews of their progress towards promotion and tenure, usually in their second and fourth, or third and fifth, years. The Handbook states that “the pre-tenure reviews should analyze the faculty member’s progress toward promotion and tenure and offer guidance regarding future activities and plans”.

Progress Towards Promotion to Professor Reviews

The Faculty Handbook (Section 3.4.5.3) also includes a requirement for tenured faculty to undergo one review of their progress towards promotion to professor within a 3 to 5 year window after promotion and tenure (or after tenure is awarded at the current rank of associate professor). The Handbook states that “the review should be developmental and focus on the faculty member’s progress toward promotion to professor. The developmental guidance should focus on recommended future activities and plans that will position the faculty member for promotion.”

To clarify expectations for promotion and tenure and promotion to professor, academic leaders within departments, programs, schools and colleges (e.g., chairs, heads, directors, deans) should ensure that expectations documents for tenure-track faculty are easily accessible and are communicated early and often so that faculty members know what the expectations are for teaching, research and service.

Suggested Guidelines for the Review Process:

1. Preparation of Review Materials
   • Documents for review may take the form of a P&T dossier or may have another format indicated by the departmental review committee. According to the Faculty Handbook, “at a minimum, departmental/school promotion and tenure committees must review the faculty member’s relevant annual activity reports, peer evaluations of teaching, and authored materials.” The Faculty Handbook recommends use of the promotion and tenure dossier for the review. However, there may be reasons to not use a dossier format (see below).
   • Advantages of dossier format: Because dossiers must be submitted for tenure and promotion at Virginia Tech, it may be helpful to start building them during the review process. Some colleges require the use of dossiers for progress reviews.
   • Advantages of dossier format: Because dossier guidelines may change slightly year to year, when faculty members prepare their final dossier, they are responsible for assuring that their dossiers align with the current guidelines.
2. Committee Review
   
   • Before starting the review, make sure that all committee members have access to the expectations document in addition to the materials that the faculty member has provided.
   • Review faculty teaching, research, service and any other relevant activities presented in the materials with respect to the performance indicators outlined in the expectations document.
     • Evaluate if the faculty member is meeting or exceeding expectations in teaching, scholarship and service. Highlight examples and performance indicators.
     • Are there areas where the faculty member’s performance is below department expectations?  Highlight examples and performance indicators.
3. Preparation of the Review Letter
   • The Faculty Handbook states that that all reviews must be in writing. In preparing the letter, consider framing the feedback in a way that is honest, accurate, respectful and constructive will be the most helpful for the faculty member (Stone and Heen, 2014).
   • Consider structuring the sections of the letter to follow the expectations document.
     • What are the expectations for each category (e.g., teaching, research, service)?
       
     • What evidence/performance indicators has the faculty member provided to meet these expectations?
       
   • Describe areas of strength, with examples
   • Describe areas needing improvement, with examples
   • Offer guidance regarding future activities and plans that will help the faculty member best position themselves for promotion.
   • Suggestions on language and length:
     • Use specific language that reflects the faculty member’s progress. For example, if a faculty member is performing below the expected level of teaching, research or service, the language should state that clearly. Please note that some terms such as “satisfactory” can mean different things to different people, so it is important to define such terms, so that the message is clear.
     • Keep the letter to a few pages with clearly organized sections; this will help the faculty member comprehend the main points. Details of spelling/grammar or formatting can be put into an Appendix.
   • All committee members should have an opportunity to provide feedback on the letter.
   • Note that some associate deans are willing to review draft letters and provide feedback. Check with your college.
   • In addition to sending to the faculty member, the review letter should be shared with the head/chair/director and if appropriate, the faculty member’s mentor.
   • The faculty member should receive the letter at least a few days in advance of the meeting (see below) so they have time to review it carefully and prepare questions, if needed.
4. Meeting with the Faculty Member
   • The Faculty Handbook states that the promotion and tenure committee (chair) and the department head/chair, and/or school directors meet with the faculty member to discuss the review.
   • The meeting should focus on the review and not introduce other tangential topics into the discussion.
   • Providing verbal feedback that is honest, accurate, respectful and constructive will be the most helpful for the faculty member.
   • The meeting should allow time for the faculty member to ask questions.
   • Per the Faculty Handbook, the letter should be signed by the faculty member to acknowledge receipt and should be kept in the personnel file.
   • The mentor may want to follow up with the faculty member to discuss next steps, if needed.