Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Logo
Apply to SIUE
Office of the Provost
Office of the Provost
Institutional Header

Faculty Performance Evaluation and Salary Increase Plan

Welfare Council #1-94/95
Approved by President Sanders, 10/30/96

1. The Assumptive Frame of the Plan

A. Evaluation of faculty performance and the subsequent determination of salary increases are important, sensitive, and potentially divisive processes. In recognition of this fact, this plan proceeds from the assumptions that any effective system of faculty performance evaluation and rewards must be:
1. open rather than closed (i.e., it must be public, while respecting sensitive personal information;

2. democratic rather than authoritarian (i.e., it must be participatory and equitable);

3. developmental, not only evaluative (i.e., it must go beyond thorough assessment of past performance and encourage improvement by identifying goals, avenues and resources for new work).

B. The majority of the faculty of a school or equivalent unit may request that the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs exempt the unit from the SIUE salary plan for faculty and allow it to use a salary increase distribution system commensurate with the mission and goals of that unit, as well as with the market value of faculty. The unit first must demonstrate, however, that its system will be based upon open, democratic, and developmental evaluation processes and that its salary distribution criteria and procedures are rigorous and demanding of faculty excellence.

2. Reward Strategies
A. Each school or equivalent unit shall define a policy and procedure to be used in the determination and distribution of salary increases. The awarding of salary increases shall be based upon an evaluation process, as specified in Section 3 (Performance Evaluation Process) of this plan, in which each faculty member's performance is reviewed in accord with procedures adopted by each school or equivalent unit. The review process must include an evaluation by an elected peer review committee. A statement of the performance expectations for its faculty members shall be approved by a majority vote of the faculty members of each school or equivalent unit. The policies, procedures, and performance expectations shall be reviewed and approved by the appropriate dean and the Provost for consistency with University policy.

B. Each school or equivalent unit shall receive for distribution a salary increase allocation proportionate to the total base salary of its faculty who are included in this salary plan.

C. Since there are differing levels of performance, there should be differing levels of reward. Each school or equivalent unit shall establish at least three categories for faculty performance, one of which shall be "below expectations."

D. Each school or equivalent unit shall determine the relative weights for each of the merit categories that it defines. It shall place individuals who meet the performance expectations of the school or equivalent unit into their respective categories by using the unit's established evaluation processes and criteria.

E. The allocation for salary increases for faculty shall be distributed in the following way:

1. those not meeting merit performance expectations and placed in the category "below expectations" shall receive no increase;

2. those whose merit performance meets college/school expectations shall receive approximately the allocated salary increase percentage;

3. those exceeding merit performance expectations shall be distributed an additional merit allocation as determined by the faculty of the college/school.

F. Reward strategies shall take full account of regular institutional assessments of salary equity and shall be integrated fully into any plan for salary equity adjustments.
3. Performance Evaluation Process
A. The process of evaluating faculty performance should center on dialogue between faculty members and their immediate supervisors. Unless a school or equivalent unit can demonstrate that another method is superior for improving performance, it shall establish a faculty performance appraisal system that incorporates:
1. face-to-face, goal-setting discussions between individual faculty members and their immediate supervisors. In addition to the criteria which follow, these discussions shall take into account criteria for salary increases, promotion, and tenure established by the school or equivalent unit.
2. written records of the outcomes of the discussions. As a minimum, the records must document: (a) the faculty member's goals in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service; (b) all commitments of personal and/or institutional resources to the attainment of those goals; and (c) specific criteria that will be used to assess both the faculty member's progress toward the goals and her or his final position in relation to the goals at the point when a performance appraisal is conducted for purposes of making salary distribution, promotion, and/or tenure decisions. All written records of goal-setting discussions shall be accessible to other members of the school or equivalent unit.
B. Each school or equivalent unit may establish its own cycle of goal-setting discussions and appraisals for tenured faculty members, but each tenured faculty member shall be engaged in a goal-setting discussion and receive a written appraisal of her or his performance at least once every three years. Faculty who are not tenured shall be engaged annually in a goal-setting discussion with their immediate supervisors and shall receive an annual written appraisal of their performance. As noted in Section 2 above, each school or equivalent unit shall establish procedures for allocating merit monies in a fair and equitable way.

C. Goal-setting discussions and written and oral performance appraisals shall take into account information from four sources:

1. the faculty member, who will provide a self-assessment of her or his performance to the immediate supervisor;

2. the faculty member's immediate supervisor, who will provide an assessment of the faculty member's performance in relation to the criteria established during goal-setting discussions.
3. The faculty member's peers in the department or equivalent unit, who will provide the faculty member and the immediate supervisor with assessments of the faculty member's teaching, scholarship, and service.
4. The faculty member's students, who will provide the faculty member and the supervisor with assessments of the faculty member's teaching skills and, if applicable, advisement practices.
D. The goal-setting discussions and performance evaluations for each individual faculty member shall take into account her or his specific situation, the components of which include (but are not limited to) the mission of the unit, the faculty member's particular strengths and competencies, and her or his contractual assignment and functional role in the unit.

E. The evaluation criteria that are developed in goal-setting discussions and are applied in written and oral performance appraisals shall be grounded in evidence that is as reliable and valid as possible. Whenever possible, specific quantitative and qualitative standards for different levels of performance shall be specified. The reliability and validity of narrative, testimonial, or other anecdotal forms of evidence shall be weighed carefully and justified fully before they are incorporated into goal-setting discussions or written and oral performance evaluations. The chairperson and other individuals who are responsible for evaluations are obligated to make their recommendations on the basis of the evidence provided and other performance data and material routinely available to the school or unit.