Skip to main content

Procedures for Annual Merit Evaluation of Faculty

PPD-1303

  1. Department chairs, in consultation with center directors when appropriate, shall conduct annual merit evaluations of their respective faculty consistent with procedures in this document and the William & Mary Faculty Handbook.
  2. By the end of January of each year the Dean and Director will request that all faculty members submit to their department chair, and center director if appropriate, an updated curriculum vitae (CV), the previous year’s planning letter, a brief narrative describing activities and accomplishments of the faculty member for the current year, and an annual planning letter for the subsequent year. The planning letter shall allocate effort in four evaluation areas: research (including professional service), advisory service, education, and governance (in percentages that total 100%) and briefly describe anticipated activities and accomplishments in each of the four areas. The area of service has two components, one for professional service and another for advisory service.  There is a general expectation that all tenured and tenure-eligible faculty participate in all four evaluation areas.  Allocation of effort for faculty will be consistent with their profile.  Terms of the planning letter will be negotiated between the chair and faculty member in consultation with and approval by the Associate Dean for Research and Advisory Services and the Associate Dean of Academic Studies.
It is important that the chair foster long-term faculty development for senior faculty and mentoring of junior faculty during the annual evaluation process to ensure alignment with the Procedures and Criteria for Appointment, Evaluation, Retention, Promotion and Award of Tenure (PPD-1308).  It is the responsibility and authority of the department chair to formally approve the profile in the annual planning letter to be used for subsequent annual evaluation.  The annual evaluation is to be based on the goals, objectives, and allocation of effort in the planning letter, and how accomplishments compare to other members in the department. Situations may arise in the course of a year where the agreed upon effort, goals and objectives may be modified to meet altered responsibilities or new opportunities.  Any substantial changes should result in a new negotiated agreement between the faculty member, chair, and the appropriate Associate Dean, and should become part of the evaluation documentation along with the original planning letter.
  1. The chair, in consultation with the center director when appropriate, shall evaluate both the quality and quantity of the faculty member’s activities in each area of endeavor using guidelines in the Criteria for Annual Evaluation of Faculty. The faculty member shall be afforded the opportunity to discuss his or her evaluation material with the chair prior to receiving scores for each evaluation area (see PPD-1304).
  2. The chair shall award one of the following evaluation outcomes, with associated score, to each area of activity for each faculty member: Does Not Meet Expectations (1.0); Meets Expectations Low (1.5); Meets Expectations (2.0); Meets Expectations High (2.5); Exceeds Expectations (3.0). A cumulative score shall be determined by summing the product of each activity’s (research, advisory service, education, and governance) score (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0) multiplied by the respective percentage allocation in the faculty member’s planning letter. The final sum, rounded to the nearest decimal, is the faculty member’s annual merit evaluation score.

For example, if a faculty member’s planning letter allocated 60% to research, 15% to advisory service, 20% to education, and 5% to governance, and the chair’s evaluation of the faculty member’s performance in these categories was Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations, Exceeds Expectations, and Meets Expectations, respectively, the annual merit evaluation score rounded to one decimal would be 2.4 (0.60x2 + 0.15x3 + 0.20x3 + 0.05x2 = 1.20 + 0.45 + 0.60 + 0.10 = 2.35).

  1. The maximum cumulative score for an annual evaluation would be 3.0 for “Exceeds Expectations” in all four categories. Receiving a “Meets Expectations” in all four categories would result in a cumulative score of 2.0. Not meeting expectations in all categories would result in the minimum evaluation score of 1.0. Any evaluation score between 1.0 and 3.0 is possible.  Barring extenuating circumstances, a post-tenure review will be triggered when a faculty member receives an unsatisfactory overall performance over three consecutive years (see PPD-1308).  An unsatisfactory overall performance occurs when a faculty member has an annual merit evaluation score of 1.5 or less over three consecutive years.  The department chair will be responsible for informing both the faculty member and the FS&TR committee when a post-tenure review has been triggered.
  2. The chair (and center director if appropriate) may meet with each faculty member more than once during the evaluation process to discuss performance relative to the planning letter. When the chair has completed his or her evaluations of all departmental faculty, he or she will meet with each faculty member to explain the basis for the scores received in each evaluation area. At that meeting the chair shall provide each faculty member the distribution of scores for the entire department. Each faculty member shall be afforded an opportunity of seeing his or her written evaluation at least two weeks prior to the delivery of the evaluation to the Dean and Director.
  3. Each faculty member has the right to challenge his or her evaluation. The faculty member shall present it in writing to his or her department chair with sufficient time for the chair to respond and still meet the Dean and Director’s deadline for submission of the annual evaluation. If agreement cannot be reached between the faculty member and chair, the faculty member’s challenge, the response of the chair to the challenge, and the chair’s evaluation shall be forwarded to the Dean and Director for resolution.
  4. It is understood that from time to time an individual faculty member may have extenuating circumstances that affect his or her performance. The department chair and the Dean and Director will consider the implications of these circumstances with regard to annual performance as is appropriate.

Approved by VIMS/School of Marine Science Faculty – December 2006
Minor editorial changes - July 2011.
Minor editorial changes – November 2016

last page update: March 11, 2024 by LCS