POST TENURE REVIEW: A WORM'S EYE VIEW

Coralie Wells, University of Wisconsin

Post-Tenure Review will be examined from the point of view of a faculty member who has both undergone the process and administered it as Department Chair.

Specifically, the history and development of Post-Tenure Review in the University of Wisconsin will be reviewed. The implementation of Post Tenure Review will be examined from an organic/communal view. To this end relationships between Post-Tenure Review and communities external and internal to the university will be examined together with the often competing issues of accountability and faculty development. Post-Tenure Review will also be examined in the context of existing faculty and program review and reward mechanisms. Finally, specific procedures for the implementation of Post-Tenure Review with a life-span developmental perspective will be presented.

Post-tenure review has arrived on campus amidst much publicity, consternation and some thoughtful analysis. This paper will examine post-tenure review from the experience of a faculty member who has undergone the process and administered it as a Department Chair at a comprehensive university in the University of Wisconsin System. First, the history and development of post-tenure review in the University of Wisconsin System will be reviewed, followed by an examination of this process from an organic/communal view. To this end relationships between post-tenure review and communities external and internal to the university will be examined. Post-tenure review will also be examined in the context of existing faculty and program review and reward mechanisms. Finally, specific procedures for the implementation of post-tenure review with a life span developmental perspective will be presented.

History and Development of Post-tenure Review
in the University of Wisconsin System

The University of Wisconsin's Board of Regents issued a policy on tenured faculty review and development on May 8, 1992 with two purposes: 1) to assure that the talents of each faculty members are invested in careers that serve the best interests of the students, the institution, the academic discipline and the individual" and 2) " to assist tenured faculty in their continuing professional development" (Portch, Kaufman, & Ross, 1993; University of Wisconsin System, 1992, pp., 1-2). To implement the policy each institution in the UW System was asked to develop a plan for tenured faculty review through its faculty governance structure. The major guidelines for these plans included:

1. the provision for a review, every five years for each tenured faculty members performance, in accordance with the mission of the department, college and university;

2. effective criteria against which to measure progress and accomplishments of faculty during the review and a description of methods for conducting the evaluation;

3. delineation of responsibilities for conducting reviews;

4. means by which the merit process and faculty review and development will and used to facilitate, enhance and reward outstanding performance;

5. procedures defining means for remedying problems in cases where deficiencies are revealed

6. provision for a written record of each faculty review and

7. description of the accountability measures the institution will use to ensure full implementation of the plan. (Portch, Kaufman, & Ross, 1993; University of Wisconsin System, 1992).

The implementation period began immediately and was characterized by an emphasis on development through community..

William Tierney (1996;1997) has noted that post-tenure review should be conducted with a creative sense of social obligation, rather than an "us-them" response to legislative and bureaucratic mandates. Ross and Alexander (1996) have made the same point in specific reference to tenure review in the UW System, emphasizing contextual and programmatic elements of tenure review, by relating it to mission and program. The UW System regents policy contained all of these elements from its inception. First, the document was developed in the context of legislative and public concern about accountability and performance in the university system (Ross & Alexander, 1996). Purpose number one above addresses this issue with the notion of assuring that faculty careers and time "serve" first students, their institution and then lastly their academic discipline. The UW System Executive Summary (1992, p.1) further states that, "... a consistent written documentation of faculty reviews exists. This record will provide supporting evidence for the reviews and assure external constituents that there is appropriate accountability" University of Wisconsin System, 1992, p.3).

Further, UW System Guideline one above clearly addresses the issues of contextual and programmatic aspects of tenure review by relating it to program and mission. Ross and Alexander (1996) point out that at the implementation level UW-Parkside put this contextual perspective into practice by directly relating departmental program review to tenure review. This approach has also been used by us in the UWSP Psychology Department as an element of individual tenure review. Since departmental program review and tenure review both occur every three to five years it is relatively easy to incorporate an individual's goals, objectives and activities to those developed for the department during program review. Departmental review objectives are also always related to college, institutional and System mission so that an automatic organic link to the wider system community and its mission to the citizens of the state is easily made.

The UW System policy and its implementation also addressed internal constituency needs within the system. The initiation of the policy itself was very much a "top down" bureaucratic response to political pressure, although not as stormy and controversial as similar events in Texas and Minnesota (Magner, 1996; Edwards, 1997). However, the guidelines were processed through faculty governance at each of two doctoral campuses, 11 comphrensive universities, 13 freshmen and sophomore centers and a statewide extension unit. Within each of these units colleges and departments could adapt the guidelines to their unique circumstances. At our department at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, for example, we began with a college variation of the guidelines and adapted them to our own needs as did 13 other departments in our College of Letters and Science. Our department chose to use a collegial review process already operating for retention, tenure, promotion and merit. In this way we were able to integrate post-tenure review into our existing reward system. Further a unique feature our procedures involves candidate selection of the colleague committee. This approach has been labeled "collegial" by Johnson (1993), a term she uses to describe the more socially sensitive approaches she found in her survey of post-tenure review. Johnson found that this approach tends to draw colleagues together and enhances faculty development. As a reward mechanism we have found that one of the most positive outcomes from high performing faculty is the individual attention and recognition from colleagues in this process. For faculty who have problems, a review team selected by the person under review provides a support group for the many difficult and unpleasant consequences of poor performance. This selection procedure also keeps the poor performing, isolated individual in contact with the community of her/his unit. This critical role of colleagues in the review process is supported by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's (1997) survey which found that collegial respect was one of the most important sources of job satisfaction for faculty. Our departmental procedures were also linked to UWSP guidelines for peer review which address the questions of both accountability and faculty development.

Beginning in 1993, the UWSP Office of Academic Affairs produced guidelines and procedures for peer review of faculty (Thomas & Meyer, 1997) which provided precise and exact guidelines for data collection and explicit documentation in each area of faculty performance, teaching, scholarship and service. In addition a systematic plan for training was initiated for faculty training in peer review which continues today. Therefore when the UW System tenure review policy was begun we were in a position to provide accountable data to our external constituents. We also had clear guidelines and direction for faculty development concerns in the areas of retention. tenure, promotion and merit review. With the arrival of post-tenure review systematic statements of faculty members' goals and objectives for the five year review periods were added to the procedures. This addition gave a clear developmental component to the process. These objectives also form the basis of merit awards, thus tying the tenure review process to our existing reward structure. Further, post-tenure review may overlap with normal tenure, and promotion review. Thus all the components were in place for the department to set up its individual approach to the review process.

Specific Procedures for the Implementation of
Post-Tenure Review at the Department Level

The tenure review process begins with the faculty member to be reviewed selecting a review committee of at least two colleagues. The colleagues do direct observation of teaching, review student evaluations, class and portfolios materials, scholarship and service activities. In addition the faculty member meets with the committee and chair and sets up objectives for the next five years.. This meeting is perhaps the most important developmental component of the process. Here the faculty member relates her/his immediate career objectives to the department, college, university and system missions - usually in the context of the concrete plans and recommendations from the most recent department program review, by answering the question, "Where do you see your plans fitting into [specific recent department problems and issues]"? The faculty member usually spontaneously integrates his own reflections about where she/he is in his own career development. The meeting ends with requests from the colleagues and chairs to the faculty member concerning help and resources that the unit can provide to help the faculty member achieve his/her stated objectives. Immediate suggestions for resource help are given and then follow -up occurs for more complex needs.

If the review is satisfactory the results are reported to the College Dean. If the review is unsatisfactory or if significant problems have been identified, the committee and the faculty member develop a plan to address the problem areas. A progress review is then undertaken by the Chair in the next academic year. If the faculty member is not making satisfactory progress toward agreed upon goals at the time of this interim review, the chair informs the dean who then may become involved in the process. After a second review at the end of the following year, the dean in consultation with the dean determines if the situation warrants further action. In actual practice in our department we have found it useful to keep the colleague committee involved in cases of unsatisfactory review. In both satisfactory and unsatisfactory cases goals and objectives become part of the merit/reward process.

Further, we have emphasized individual planning in conjunction with long-term department and institutional planning but have found that faculty spontaneously bring into the process issues regarding their career patterns and adult development

Our colleagues in College of Professional Studies, however, have approached the issue of adult developmental career cycles in the post-tenure review process very directly with specified questions in the colleague interview process ( North, 1997), for example:

1. Highlight what you view as your accomplishments in the past 5 years in teaching, scholarship and service.

2. Were there any disappointments?

3. What do you like best about your job?

4. What do you like least?

5. If you view your career from start to completion, where do you see yourself now and in the next five years?

6. Given your career stage and the unit context, what would you like to accomplish in the next five years?

7. Are there ways that the unit or individuals in the unit or outside the unit can assist you?

8. Are there aspects of the past or future five years upon which you would like to comment?

The structure of the end point interview in the review process then supplements the documented performance review and provides the foundation for the individual faculty development in the context of the program mission, institutional reward structure and normal accountability procedures.

Post-tenure review in the UW System has the same difficulties, problems and controversy facing all universities dealing with this relatively new campus entity. Our experience does suggest, however that responsible accountability to our constituents and creative faculty development are not incompatible.

References

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1997). The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Author.

Edwards, R. (1997, May-June). Can post-tenure review help us save the tenure system? Academe, 16-31.

George, T. G. & Meyer, W. H. (1997). Teaching, scholarship, service: Descriptions, expectations, and peer evaluation for retention, tenure, and merit. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Johnson, G. E. (1993). Post-tenure review: Practical considerations. Journal for Higher Education Management, 8 (2), 19-29.

Manger, D. K.. (1996, December, 20)). U. of Texas, with an eye on the legislature, starts system of post-tenure reviews. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 43, (17), . 10.

North, J. Unpublished Manuscript, (1997). Complexity of rewards: Nurturing a culture where faculty experience intrinsic rewards. College of Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point.

Portch, S. R., Kaufman, N., & Ross, J. (1993, July-August). From frog to prince: From post-tenure review to faculty roles, development, and rewards. Change., 17.

Ross, J. & Alexander, G. (1996). Transformation in the academy: Post-tenure review as acatalyst. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison.

Tierney, W. G. & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community andsocialization in academe, NY: Albany state University of New York Press.

Tierney, W. G. (1997, May-June). Academic community and post-tenure review. Academe, 21-25.

University of Wisconsin System. (1992). Executive summary, tenured faculty review anddevelopment, guidelines amended and adopted by the Board of Regents, May 8, 1992. Madison: Author.