Policy Office > Academic and Research Affairs Policies > Performance Reviews for Tenured, Tenure-Track, Clinical/Professional and Research Faculty (S-4)

Performance Reviews for Tenured, Tenure-Track, Clinical/Professional and Research Faculty (S-4)

Standard: S-4
Responsible Executive: Provost
Responsible Office: Office of the Provost
Date Issued: April 1, 2017
Date Last Revised: November 1, 2026

Table of Contents

Contacts
Individuals and Entities Affected
Statement of Standard
Responsibilities
Definitions (defined terms are capitalized throughout the document)
Related Documents, Forms and Tools
History and Updates
Appendix

Contacts

Policy Clarification

Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs
765-494-5425 | facultyaffairs@purdue.edu

Campus Specific Questions

Fort Wayne: Office of Academic Affairs
260-481-6113 | academicaffairs@pfw.edu

Northwest: Office of Academic Affairs
219-989-2446 | vcaa@pnw.edu

West Lafayette: Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs
765-494-5425 | facultyaffairs@purdue.edu 

Individuals and Entities Affected

  • Deans
  • Heads (see definition)
  • Tenured faculty members
  • Tenure-track faculty members
  • Clinical/professional faculty members
  • Research faculty members
  • All faculty involved in the process of reviewing tenured, tenure-track, clinical/professional and research faculty

Statement of Standard

As an institution committed to excellence, it is necessary that Purdue University maintain a regular performance review process to assure, support and sustain the highest possible degree of excellence among our faculty. The performance review process is comprised of annual reviews and post-tenure reviews (as applicable). The objective of the review process is to identify individual strengths, weaknesses and opportunities in the mission areas of discovery, learning and engagement and to facilitate communication between Heads and faculty. The performance review is an opportunity for faculty to update Heads on activities and goals and for Heads to discuss larger unit needs with faculty. The process is also expected to identify rising leaders and potential barriers to success and to provide mentoring opportunities. 

Performance reviews will be conducted in accordance with this standard for the following types of faculty members:

  1. Tenured and Tenure-track faculty as defined in the policy on Academic Tenure and Promotion (I.B.2), as amended or superseded.
  2. Clinical/professional faculty members as defined in the policy on Clinical/Professional Faculty Appointment and Promotion (VI.F.10), as amended or superseded.
  3. Research faculty members as defined in the policy on Research Faculty Appointment and Promotion (VI.F.8), as amended or superseded.

Annual Review Requirements

An effective annual performance review provides a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of a faculty member’s professional activities and responsibilities across all assigned roles. The process goes beyond a simple summary of accomplishments to offer meaningful review and constructive feedback. A high-quality review typically includes an evaluation of teaching, research, service and any other assigned duties, with consideration of the faculty member’s effort allocation. It may involve comparisons to normative expectations within the department, school or college; an assessment of progress toward annual or multi-year goals and aspirations; and identification of opportunities for professional growth and development. The review should highlight strengths, address areas for improvement, and outline specific recommendations for the upcoming year to support continued success.

The dean of the college/school, or Senior Vice Provost for Indianapolis (SVP for Indianapolis), as appropriate, will develop performance review criteria for all faculty within their college/school that defines performance and productivity expectations that, at minimum:

  1. Reflect the specific productivity expectations of the discipline.
  2. Allow flexibility to accommodate varying responsibilities, effort allocations, and staffing needs of the institution.
  3. Include consideration of the following for the preceding year:
    1. Has the individual exposed students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks that may be within and applicable to the given academic discipline?
    2. Has the individual refrained from subjecting students to views and opinions concerning matters not related to the discipline or assigned course of instruction?
  4. Measure the faculty member’s annual productivity by evaluating, at a minimum:
    1. The faculty member’s teaching workload;
    2. The total number of students the faculty member teaches at the undergraduate and graduate levels;
    3. Time spent on instructional assignments and on overseeing graduate students; and
    4. The research and creative scholarship productivity of the faculty member.
  5. Establish a discipline-specific minimum level of productivity. Failure to meet this standard will result in an annual performance evaluation rating of “Does Not Meet Minimum Productivity Requirements.”

The performance review criteria must be approved by the Provost or Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, as applicable, and be reviewed for updates at least once every three years. Approved performance review criteria must be made available to the faculty through a medium such as the college/school intranet site.

As part of the annual evaluation process, faculty members will submit an annual report that addresses a broad range of accomplishments and professional activities, based on the faculty member’s assigned roles and responsibilities, and annual or multi-year goals. The dean or SVP for Indianapolis will develop specific guidelines for the content of the annual faculty report.

Post-Tenure Review Requirements

Tenured faculty are required to complete a post-tenure review within three years of being granted tenure and every three years thereafter. The post-tenure review process is based on the three most recent annual faculty performance reviews and the faculty member’s disciplinary record. Refer to the Operating Procedures for a complete description of the process.

Unsatisfactory Performance

A rating of “Does Not Meet Minimum Productivity Standards” on an annual review or post-tenure review is deemed unsatisfactory performance and will result in the faculty member receiving a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Failure to meet the expectations and requirements of the PIP will result in a revised PIP and the faculty member being placed on probation. 

Faculty members with unsatisfactory performance on an annual review or post-tenure review may also be subject to corrective or disciplinary actions, including but not limited to ineligibility for merit increases, modification of assigned roles and responsibilities, changes to allocated University resources, modification of full-time equivalent (FTE) appointment, transition from fiscal-year (FY) to academic-year (AY) appointment, and/or required professional development or training.

Responsibilities

President

  • Participate in the post-tenure review process as outlined in the Operating Procedures.

Provost

  • Administer this standard and its associated Operating Procedures.
  • Approve the annual performance review criteria for each college/school on the West Lafayette Campus.
  • Participate in the post-tenure review process as outlined in the Operating Procedures.
  • Provide relevant information on tenured faculty reviews to the Board of Trustees for compliance with state laws.

Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs

  • Approve the annual performance review criteria for each college/school on their campus.
  • Participate in the post-tenure review process as outlined in the Operating Procedures.

Deans and Senior Vice Provost for Indianapolis

  • Collaborate with Heads to develop annual performance review criteria and submit them for approval by the Provost or Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
  • Review, update and approve Performance Improvement Plans developed within their units.
  • Participate in the annual performance review and post-tenure review processes as outlined in the Operating Procedures.

Heads

  • Assume responsibility for the professional development of faculty.
  • Assure compliance with this standard and its associated Operating Procedures.
  • Participate in the annual performance review and post-tenure review processes as outlined in the Operating Procedures.

Faculty Members

  • Participate in the annual performance review process and, if applicable, the post-tenure review process, as outlined in the Operating Procedures.
  • If issued a Performance Improvement Plan, participate in its development and take actionable steps to meet its requirements.

Definitions

All defined terms are capitalized throughout the document. Additional defined terms may be found in the central Policy Glossary or in the policies referenced in the Related Documents, Forms and Tools section below.

Head
The head or chair of an academic department, school or division, including Assistant Vice Provost for Indianapolis Faculty Affairs.

Operating Procedures
The Operating Procedures for Faculty Performance Reviews that support this standard.

This standard is issued in support of the following policies, as amended or superseded:

Additional related policies and procedures:

Indiana Code: applicable citations IC 21-39.5-2 and IC 21-38-3.5

History and Updates

November 1, 2026: Amended the list of expectations that are required to be included in annual performance reviews. Separated post-tenure reviews into own section. Added section on unsatisfactory performance. Updated responsibilities and added definitions for Head and Operating Procedures. The Board of Trustees approved the revised standard at its October 8-9, 2026, meeting.

June 30, 2025: Productivity requirements for tenure/tenure track faculty added, along with consequences for unsatisfactory performance. Included reporting responsibility for the Provost.

December 2, 2024: Included reference to Senior Vice Provost for Indianapolis throughout. Updated section on Review Requirements to include specific criteria and additional approval of the process.

April 1, 2017: This is the first standard to address this issue.

Appendix

There are no appendices to this standard.