Operating Procedures for Faculty Performance Reviews
These procedures support the standard on Performance Reviews for Tenured, Tenure-Track, Clinical/Professional and Research Faculty (S-4). Refer to the standard for contacts and definitions.
Effective date: November 1, 2026
Annual Review Process
Annual reviews cover performance during a given calendar year (may consider productivity over multiple prior years) and are typically conducted over the spring semester of the following year. Faculty members will submit their annual report via the campus specific system following annual guidance, including timelines and detailed instructions, provided by the Head.
The Head is responsible for providing written feedback to each faculty member within the system based on the college/school’s established criteria, documenting any concerns, and assigning an overall annual performance rating. Faculty members holding administrative appointments of more than 0.5 FTE will be reviewed by their administrative supervisor. See below for details.
Overall annual performance ratings are classified into one of the following categories:
- Exceeds Expectations
- Meets Expectations
- Below Expectations
- Does Not Meet Minimum Productivity Standards
In addition to, or in lieu of, faculty input for the annual review, Heads may choose to include the outcomes of the annual promotion reviews conducted by the associated Primary Committee as part of their assessment for the annual review process.
Each college/school is responsible for determining, and communicating to faculty, minimum productivity standards. The minimum standards must be approved by the Provost or VCAA, as applicable, and be reviewed for updates at least once every three years. Approved criteria must be made available to the faculty through a medium such as the college/school intranet site.
A faculty member who fails to submit an annual report in accordance with these procedures by the applicable deadline or otherwise fails to participate in good faith in the review process will be assigned an initial rating of “Does Not Meet Minimum Productivity Standards” (or “DNM”).
Before finalizing an overall annual performance rating of DNM, Heads will allow the faculty member to appeal their initial rating through a college-level review process. For example, on the West Lafayette campus, faculty will be informed of the initial rating during Stage 2 of the annual review process in Elements. The appeal process will run outside Elements, in parallel with Stage 3, and should be completed by Stage 4 when the final overall annual productivity rating is entered by the Head.
The Appeal Process
Initiation of Appeal: Faculty members who receive an initial overall annual performance rating of DNM may submit a written appeal of the rating to the Dean of the college/school within 15 business days of being notified of their rating. The appeal should contain a clear explanation as to the objection to the rating, address the written comments of the Head, and describe how the faculty member believes they have met minimum productivity standards for the review period (for example, by providing evidence that the evaluation contains substantive factual errors and/or fails to align with the college/school criteria for minimum productivity).
Peer Review Committee: The Peer Review Committee (PRC) is responsible for reviewing all applicable information, as outlined below, and voting whether to recommend upholding the initial rating of the Head.
- Committee Structure: Typically, the college’s Area Promotion Committee serves as the peer-review committee for an appeal of a DNM rating. With the approval of the Provost or VCAA, as applicable, a college/school may choose an alternate structure for this committee. Approved alternate structures must be made available to the faculty through a medium such as the college/school intranet site.
- Process: The PRC will be provided with the annual report from the faculty member, the Head’s written assessment, and the faculty member’s written appeal. The Peer Review Committee will discuss and vote on the appeal. The PRC may uphold the Head’s rating or grant the appeal. The PRC, or designee, will also submit to the dean a written summary of its review.
- Timeline: The dean of each college/school should publish an annual date in the spring semester for the Peer Review Committee to meet and discuss appeals.
Resolution: Taking the PRC’s review and vote into account, the dean may confirm or change the Head’s initial productivity rating for the year and will communicate the outcome of the appeal, in writing, to the faculty member and Head. The Head will record the final productivity rating for the faculty member.
A faculty member who receives a final overall annual performance rating of DNM will be subject to a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The PIP is developed by the Head in consultation with the faculty member and must be approved by the Dean or SVP for Indianapolis. The PIP should include, at minimum:
- An explanation for the overall DNM rating;
- Specific actions and measurable outcomes required to address identified deficiencies;
- Institutional commitments or resources to facilitate the outcomes; and
- A defined timeline for achieving these goals. The Head and faculty member will collaboratively monitor progress throughout the timeline to ensure accountability and appropriate institutional support. Failure to meet the requirements outlined in the PIP may lead to other appropriate remedial or disciplinary action.
Post-Tenure Review Process
Tenured faculty are subject to Post-Tenure Reviews (PTR) three years after earning tenure, and every three years thereafter. The PTR is typically conducted during the fall semester and covers performance during the previous three annual reviews. The Head is responsible for notifying all faculty members undergoing a PTR in the fall by the end of the previous spring semester about the upcoming review and the timeline by which a faculty member may provide optional input for the Head to consider as part of the PTR. Faculty members holding administrative appointments of more than 0.5 FTE will be reviewed by their administrative supervisor. See below for details.
Head’s Post-Tenure Review Assessment. The PTR is based primarily on the three most recent annual faculty performance reviews for the faculty member. As outlined above, each annual review should include the (1) annual report from the faculty member, (2) written evaluation from the Head (and Primary Committee, as applicable), and (3) overall annual performance rating for the evaluation period. Faculty have the option to provide additional information for the Head’s consideration as part of the PTR. These materials constitute the Post-Tenure Review Report (PTR Report). Based on review of the PTR Report, and the faculty member’s disciplinary record, if any, the Head will assign an initial post-tenure productivity rating.
Post-tenure productivity ratings are classified into one of the following two categories:
- Meets Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards: The record of productivity and performance clearly meets the minimum productivity standards. The faculty member has not received an overall performance rating of “Does Not Meet Minimum Productivity Standards” in any of the past three years or has satisfied all Performance Improvement Plan requirements.
- Does Not Meet Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards: The record of productivity and performance does not meet the minimum productivity standards. The faculty member has received an overall performance rating of “Does Not Meet Minimum Productivity Standards” one or more times in the past three years and has not satisfied all PIP requirements at the time of the post-tenure review.
When the Head’s initial rating is “Meets Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the PTR is concluded, and the faculty member is informed accordingly.
When the Head’s initial rating is “Does Not Meet Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the Head must include a written assessment of the faculty member’s overall productivity in addition to the rating. The Head will submit the PTR Report, the Head’s post-tenure productivity rating, and the Head’s written assessment to the Dean for further review.
Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee (PTRAC) Review. The Dean will convene a post-tenure review faculty committee (the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee or “PTRAC”). The role of the PTRAC is to conduct a peer review of the productivity of any faculty member whose initial PTR rating is “Does Not Meet Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards” in order to assist the Dean, in an advisory capacity, in further evaluating and assessing the faculty member’s post-tenure productivity. The PTRAC is typically composed of the college’s Area Promotions Committee. With the approval of the Provost or VCAA, as applicable, colleges may choose an alternate structure for this committee. Approved alternate structures must be made available to the faculty through a medium such as the college/school intranet site.
The PTRAC will review the PTR Report, the Head’s rating and the Head’s written assessment in order to develop a written summary of the PTRAC’s evaluation and a recommendation to the Dean as to whether the PTRAC supports the Head’s rating and assessment of the faculty member’s post-tenure productivity.
Dean’s Post-Tenure Review Assessment. The Dean will consider the PTR Report, the Head’s rating and written assessment, the faculty member’s disciplinary record (if any), and the written feedback from the PTRAC and, based on this information, will issue a post-tenure productivity rating.
When the Dean’s rating is “Meets minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the Post-Tenure Review is concluded, and the faculty member is notified accordingly.
When the Dean’s rating is “Does Not Meet Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the Dean will provide a written assessment of the faculty member’s overall productivity in addition to the productivity rating. Additionally, the Dean will provide the faculty member with written copies of the PTR Report, the Head’s rating and written assessment, written feedback from the PTRAC, and the Dean’s rating and written assessment. The faculty member may submit an optional response to this information within five business days of receipt.
Upon receipt of the faculty member’s optional response or, if no response is submitted, as soon as practicable following the deadline for the optional response, the Dean will submit the PTR Report, the Head’s rating and written assessment, feedback from the PTRAC, the Dean’s rating, the Dean’s written assessment, and the faculty member’s written response, if any, to the Provost or VCAA, as applicable.
VCAA and/or Chancellor Post-Tenure Review Assessment (Regional Campus faculty). The VCAA will review all information provided by the Dean and the faculty member’s disciplinary record, if any, and issue a post-tenure productivity rating. When the VCAA’s rating is “Meets Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the Post-Tenure Review is concluded, and the faculty member is notified accordingly. When the VCAA’s rating is “Does Not Meet Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the VCAA will forward their recommendation, a written summary of the rationale for their rating, and all information the VCAA reviewed to the Chancellor. The Chancellor will review all information provided by the VCAA and the faculty member’s disciplinary record, if any, and issue a post-tenure productivity rating. When the Chancellor’s rating is “Meets Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the Post-Tenure Review is concluded, and the faculty member is notified accordingly. When the Chancellor’s rating is “Does Not Meet Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the Chancellor will forward their recommendation, a written summary of the rationale for their rating, and all information the Chancellor reviewed to the Provost.
Provost and/or President Post-Tenure Review Assessment. The Provost, or designee, will review all information provided by the Dean or Chancellor, as applicable, and the faculty member’s disciplinary record, if any, and issue a post-tenure productivity rating. When the Provost’s rating is “Meets Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the Post-Tenure Review is concluded, and the faculty member is notified accordingly. When the Provost’s rating is “Does Not Meet Minimum Post-Tenure Productivity Standards,” the Provost will forward their recommendation, a written summary of the rationale for their rating, and all information the Provost reviewed to the President. The President, or designee, will review the Provost’s recommendation and supporting materials and issue a final post-tenure productivity rating. The President may confirm or change the Provost’s recommended post-tenure productivity rating. Each faculty member reviewed will be notified of their final post-tenure productivity rating, and the President’s rating is final.
Any faculty member who receives a final rating of “Does Not Meet Minimum Productivity Standards” will be placed on probation, and the Head will issue a performance improvement plan that is designed to address the productivity or other deficiencies identified in the post-tenure review. The Head may take other corrective or disciplinary action, as appropriate and consistent with Standard S-4.
Faculty Members with Administrative Duties
Faculty members holding administrative appointments of less than 0.5 FTE will follow the procedures outlined above for annual reviews and, for tenured faculty members, post-tenure reviews.
Annual reviews and, for tenured faculty members, post-tenure reviews for faculty members with a 0.5 FTE or higher administrative appointment will be conducted by their administrative supervisor. Minimum performance expectations for the administrative portion of the appointment will be determined by the supervisor. If the administrative appointment is less than 1.0 FTE, the supervisor will consult with faculty member’s Head before finalizing the annual or post-tenure review. Appeals of DNM ratings will be handled at a reporting level immediately above that of the supervisor.
History and Updates
November 1, 2026: Procedures issued in support of standard S-4.