REG 05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: Fall 1998. Last Revised: October 15, 2024.

Additional References:
Performance Development Plans
Promotion and Tenure Departmental Standards and Procedures
Departmental Post Tenure Review Rules
N.C. General Statute § 126-24

Contact Info: Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Excellence (919-513-7741)

1. Introduction

This regulation establishes procedures for the cumulative, holistic, and comprehensive periodic review of the performance of all tenured faculty. The procedures further safeguard that post-tenure review is not a re-evaluation of tenure and that it is conducted in a manner that protects academic freedom and the quality of education. This regulation is consistent with the requirements of UNC Policy 400.3.3 – Performance Review of Tenured Faculty and UNC Policy 400.3.3.1[R] – Regulation on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty.

1.1 The following terms will be used as part of post-tenure reviews of tenured faculty:

1.1.1 Exceeds Expectations: The faculty member consistently and considerably surpasses established goals in the faculty member’s annual and long-term work plans.

1.1.2 Meets Expectations: The faculty member consistently achieves and may occasionally surpass established goals in the faculty member’s annual and long-term work plans.

1.1.3 Does Not Meet Expectations: The faculty member does not consistently achieve established goals in the faculty member’s annual and long-term work plans.

1.1.4 Faculty Success Plan (Performance Development Plan): A formative strategy that includes specific steps designed to lead to a faculty member’s improved performance in achieving established goals in the faculty member’s annual and long-term work plans. This plan shall include a specified timeline in which improvement is expected to occur and a clear statement of consequences should improvement not occur within the designated timeline. At NC State, the Faculty Success Plans created as part of post-tenure review will be called Performance Development Plans.

2. Frequency

2.1 Every tenured faculty member shall be reviewed through the post tenure review process every five (5) years after tenure conferral except in those situations described below (sections 2.2-2.5).

2.2 Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the Dean for faculty members who have submitted a letter of intent to retire, resign or apply for the Phased Retirement Program to be effective within two (2) years from July 1 of the academic year of their review.

2.3 Faculty in administrative positions covered by a regulation requiring a regularly scheduled review of administrative performance (e.g., five-year reviews of College Deans, Associate Deans, Department Heads, and Vice Provosts) are not subject to this regulation. When a tenured faculty member leaves an administrative position to assume a primary appointment as a tenured faculty member, they then become subject to this regulation. Their initial post tenure review will occur in no less than five (5) years from assuming the primary appointment as a tenured faculty member. .

Other faculty with significant administrative responsibilities for whom a five-year review is required and regularly conducted (e.g. Center and Institute Directors per NC State REG 10.10.04 Centers and Institutes) may request from the Dean that the administrative review replace the post-tenure review for the period of the administrative appointment.

2.4 An extension of up to one (1) year may be granted with the approval of the Dean when compelling circumstances place an undue burden on the faculty member and/or department to complete the review during the fifth year. Examples of compelling circumstances include, but are not limited to:

2.4.1 A personal serious health condition; care for a child, spouse, domestic partner, or parent with a serious health condition; birth or care for a newborn; care for an adopted or foster child; care for a family member injured while on active duty for the Armed Services, care for family member(s) when the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is on covered active duty or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty ; and

2.4.2 Major disruption of key services and support beyond the reasonable control of the faculty member.

2.4.3 Consideration for promotion in year post-tenure review is scheduled.

2.4.4 Any extension of the post tenure review process must be submitted prior to the commencement of the review. The Department Head shall document the approved extension and include the documentation in the faculty member’s personnel file.

2.5 A positive vote for promotion by a simple majority vote of the DVF and a positive recommendation for promotion by the Department Head and the Dean shall be considered a judgment of meets expectations for post tenure review. A negative vote for promotion does not qualify as a post tenure review and does not change the faculty member’s post tenure review schedule.

2.6 A post-tenure review assessment of meets expectations or exceeds expectations does not determine the likelihood that a faculty member will or will not be approved for promotion to Professor, since promotion review is a separate, more extensive review (including, for example, external reviews and reviews by the full DVF and committees at the College and University levels) and may be based on cumulative performance beyond the five year post-tenure review cycle.

3. Departmental and College Rules

3.1 Individual departments and colleges shall have post-tenure review rules that are supplemental to, and consistent with, this regulation. Department Heads are responsible for ensuring that the procedures set forth in this regulation, and their college and department rules, are followed.

3.2 Individual departments shall have Departmental Rules describing the standards and procedures used to carry out post tenure review. Departmental Rules shall define standards for meeting expectations and departmental criteria for designation as exceeding expectations. Departmental Rules shall include the composition of the Department Post Tenure Review committee (“PTR Committee”) and a procedure to select the committee by a process agreed upon by the tenured faculty in the department.

3.3 The PTR Committee shall consist of no less than three (3) tenured faculty members from the department/unit.

3.4 Individual colleges shall have rules describing college standards for meeting or exceeding expectations, procedures for selection of a College Post-Tenure Review Committee, and any additional procedures for the College reviews. Individual colleges shall establish procedural timelines that ensure, when required, that the Provost will receive any materials for review from the college no later than May 15. Any departments or colleges that consider extending their procedural deadlines, as allowable per their rules, should do so in a manner that is fair and consistent to all faculty members undergoing post-tenure review in that cycle.

3.5 A faculty member serving on a college post-tenure review committee and presented with a case from their own department should recuse themselves from that case if the faculty member also served on their department’s PTR committee.

4. Joint and Interdisciplinary Appointments

4.1 In the case of joint appointments, appointments in which the work of the faculty member under review is substantively interdisciplinary, or the department includes no other expert in the specific field of research/creative activity of the faculty member under review, the home department will be responsible for conducting the review. Consultation will take place as described in the plan for review developed in the first year of the appointment. (See NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure).

4.2 Based on this plan, the home department may conduct a single post-tenure review by a peer review committee made up of DVF from the home department, with written input from the department head(s) from the other appointing department(s) or the coordinator(s) of interdisciplinary program(s) to which the faculty member has been assigned. Alternatively, the review may be conducted by an interdisciplinary peer review committee appointed by the Dean and made up of faculty from the home department and appropriate interdisciplinary faculty members. The Department Head of the home department will be responsible for communicating the results of the review to the faculty member and, for faculty members whose performance does not meet expectations, coordinating the creation and implementation of the development plan.

5. Procedures

5.1 At the beginning of a post-tenure review cycle, the faculty member and the Department Head will develop a five-year (long-term) work plan. This plan will be coordinated with the faculty member’s Statement of Faculty Responsibilities (“SFR”) and their annual performance reviews, though annual performance reviews are not a substitute for the periodic, cumulative post-tenure review process.

5.1.1 Faculty members, in consultation with their Department Heads, may modify the five-year work plan annually if deemed appropriate by changes in departmental or personal circumstances.

5.2 To assess a faculty member’s cumulative performance, the following materials or documents with equivalent content shall be provided to the review committee:

5.2.1 A current CV;

5.2.2 The SFR;

5.2.3 The faculty member’s five-year work plan;

5.2.4 Each annual faculty activity report since tenure conferral, the last post-tenure review, or successful promotion (whichever is most recent);

5.2.5 Each annual faculty performance review and any faculty success plans since tenure conferral, the last post-tenure review, or successful promotion (whichever is most recent);

5.2.6 Peer teaching evaluations since the last review; and

5.2.7 A required candidate statement up to three (3) pages. Candidates may choose to present a Major Disruptions Impact Statement as a discrete one-page component of their candidate statement, or they may choose to integrate information about the impact of a major disruption throughout a three-page candidate statement. If integrating across a three-page statement, faculty should ensure that the impacts of a major disruption are clearly and explicitly presented to address the intent of this opportunity.

Materials provided to the PTR Committee shall be limited to the items listed in section 5.2 unless the Departmental Rule allows or requires additional materials. Only the materials submitted by the faculty member shall form the basis of committee assessments.

5.3 The PTR Committee shall be selected in accordance with the Departmental Rule or guidelines for review of joint or interdisciplinary appointments (see section 4 of this regulation). The faculty member being reviewed will not have the option of selecting members of the PTR Committee. Members of the PTR Committee shall maintain confidentiality of the process and any reports (except as to be shared with the faculty member being reviewed and the Department Head).

5.4 The PTR Committee will provide a comprehensive written assessment of the faculty member’s performance to determine whether the faculty member meets, does not meet, or exceeds expectations for each realm of responsibility described in the SFR based on performance standards defined in the Departmental Rule. The PTR Committee will also make an overall determination of whether the faculty member’s performance meets, does not meet, or exceeds expectations. The determination of exceeds expectations should be reserved for the most exceptional performance, specific examples of which should be included in the rationale. In cases where a PTR Committee has recommended that a faculty member’s performance exceeds expectations, the Department Head may agree or disagree with the recommendation.

5.6 The Department Head shall provide the faculty member with the PTR Committee’s written assessment including the numerical vote and their own assessment. The Department Head’s assessment will also be shared with the PTR Committee. The faculty member has the option to provide a written response to the assessments of the PTR Committee and/or the Department Head within fourteen (14) calendar days upon receipt of them. Any written response becomes part of the post tenure review record.

5.7 Upon completion of the evaluation, the Department Head will submit to the Dean the faculty member’s post-tenure review documentation, the PTR Committee’s report, the Department Head’s post tenure review evaluation of the faculty member, and the faculty member’s optional response.

5.8 The Dean will review the faculty member’s post tenure review documentation and the reports and responses received from the Department Head and make an independent, comprehensive determination as to whether the faculty member overall meets, does not meet, or exceeds expectations for the realms of responsibility described in the SFR based on performance standards defined in the Departmental Rule. The Dean will also determine which faculty members will be designated as exceeds expectations based on recommendation of the PTR Committee and/or Department Head and the faculty member’s performance compared to overall performance expectations for college faculty.

5.8.1 The Dean may consult with the PTR Committee and the Department Head prior to completing their post tenure evaluation of the faculty member’s performance.

5.8.2 The Dean shall consult with the PTR Committee and the Department Head if their meets or does not meet expectations assessment will differ from the assessment of the PTR Committee and/or the Department Head.

5.8.3 The Dean’s written assessment will be provided to the faculty member being reviewed, the PTR Committee, and the Department Head.

5.9 If the overall determination of the PTR Committee, the Department Head and the Dean is that the faculty member’s performance meets expectations, the review is concluded and the next post tenure review shall occur in five (5) years.

5.10 If the Dean’s overall determination of meets or does not meet expectations differs from that of the PTR Committee and/or the Department Head, the post-tenure review documentation and assessments will be forwarded to a College Post-Tenure Review (PTR) Committee (see Section 5.10).

5.11 Reviews by College Post-Tenure Review Committee

5.11.1 If the Dean’s initial determination of the faculty member’s performance as indicated in section 5.9 differs from that of the Department PTR Committee and/or the Department Head, all of the materials from the review will be sent to a College PTR Committee selected in accordance with the College PTR Rule. Members of the College PTR Committee shall maintain confidentiality of the process and any reports (except as to be shared with the faculty being reviewed and the Dean).

5.11.2 The College PTR Committee will review the post-tenure review materials and make an independent overall determination of whether the faculty member meets or does not meet expectations for performance standards as defined in the Departmental Rule.

5.11.3 The College PTR Committee’s written assessment will be shared with the faculty member under review, the Department PTR Committee, the Department Head and the Dean. The College PTR Committee’s written assessment shall also be shared with the Provost. The Dean will review this assessment and take the College PTR Committee’s assessment into consideration before completing a second written assessment and determination of meets or does not meet expectations. The Dean’s second assessment will be provided to the faculty member being reviewed, the Department PTR Committee, and the Department Head.

5.11.4 If the College PTR Committee and the Dean’s second assessment are in agreement that the individual meets expectations, the review is concluded and the next post-tenure review shall occur in five (5) years.

5.11.5 If the College PTR Committee and the Dean’s second assessment are in agreement that the individual does not meet expectations, the Department Head will prepare a written performance development plan and proceed as described in section 6.

5.11.6 If the College PTR Committee and the Dean’s second assessment are not in agreement, the post-tenure review documentation will be forwarded to the Provost (see section 5.11).

5.12 Review by the Provost

5.12.1 If the Dean’s determination in their second assessment differs from that of the College PTR Committee, the complete PTR materials will be reviewed by the Provost, who may consult with the Dean and the College PTR Committee before determining whether the outcome of the review will be meets or does not meet expectations.

5.12.2 If the Provost’s final determination is that the faculty member’s performance does not meet expectations, the Department Head will prepare a written performance development plan as described in the next section.

6. Performance Development Plan Requirements and Procedures

6.1 Criteria for performance development plans include the following:

6.1.1 The plan should be developed in consultation with the faculty member and relevant peers in the department(s) or program(s) participating in the review. The performance development plan should be finalized within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the issuance of the determination that the faculty member’s performance does not meet expectations; at the latest, the performance development plan must be finalized prior to the start of the next academic year (for 9-month faculty) or fiscal year (for 12-month faculty). The responsibility to finalize the performance development plan (and in a timely manner) is shared between the Department Head and faculty member; if there is disagreement about the content of the plan, the Dean shall review and finalize the plan. The institution of a performance development plan pursuant to this regulation is not grievable (see also section 8.3).

6.1.2 The plan will provide specific descriptions of areas for improvement as they relate to the realms of responsibility described in the faculty member’s SFR and include a specified timeline of at least one year (usually 2-3 years) during which improvements are expected to occur.

6.1.3 The plan will document what the faculty member must do to meet expectations according to the specified timeline and the consequences of failing to make the required improvements.

6.1.4 The plan may redefine faculty workload distribution to better leverage the faculty member’s expertise and abilities. If workload distribution is changed, the faculty members’ SFR should change accordingly.

6.2 The Department Head shall meet with the faculty member at least twice annually to assess progress toward meeting the performance development plan. The Department Head will provide a written summary of these meetings to the faculty member and will place a copy in the faculty member’s personnel file.

6.3 The Department Head will assign a peer mentor to meet with the faculty member at least twice annually to facilitate progress toward meeting the performance development plan. There will be a written summary of each of these meetings provided to the faculty member and placed in their personnel file.

6.4 For each post tenure review during a performance development plan, the Department Head will provide the PTR Committee with the faculty member’s performance development plan, all assessments from the immediate previous post-tenure review, and all materials supplied by the faculty member as evidence of their meeting, or making progress towards meeting, the performance development plan.

6.5 Evaluation during a Performance Development Plan

6.5.1 When reviewing the progress toward meeting the performance development plan, the PTR Committee and the Department Head shall determine annually (1) whether the faculty member is making the expected progress in meeting the requirements of the performance development plan and (2) whether the faculty member’s performance meets expectations in the realms of responsibility described in their SFR.

6.5.2 During the timeline of the plan, it is expected that the faculty member will make progress on meeting the requirements of the performance development plan. It is not expected that the faculty member meets all requirements of the performance development plan such that the faculty member’s overall performance meets expectations until the end of the plan timeline, though they may meet this level of performance earlier.

6.5.3 The PTR Committee will make an overall determination that the faculty member either meets expectations or does not meet expectations. The Committee’s written assessment should address whether the faculty member is making expected progress towards meeting the plan and whether the faculty member meets expectations in the realms of responsibility as described in their SFR. The Committee’s written assessment will be sent to the Department Head, who will add their own assessment.

6.5.4 If the PTR Committee’s and/or Department Head’s determination is that the faculty member does not meet expectations, the Department Head will share the PTR Committee’s and the Department Head’s written assessments with the faculty member, who has the option to provide a written response to the assessments within fourteen (14) calendar days of their receipt. Any written response becomes part of the post tenure review record. The Department Head will provide the PTR Committee’s and Department Head’s assessments and the faculty member’s optional response to the Dean.

6.5.5 The Dean will review the materials and make a determination of whether the faculty member meets or does not meet expectations.

6.5.6 If the determinations of the PTR Committee, Department Head, and Dean are that the faculty member meets expectations, the review is complete and the next post-tenure review shall occur in five (5) years.

6.5.7 If the determination of the PTR Committee, Department Head, and Dean is that the faculty member does not meet expectations, the faculty member will continue to work toward the goals of the professional development plan.

6.5.8 If the Dean’s assessment differs from that of the PTR Committee and/or the Department Head, the Dean will consult with the PTR Committee and the Department Head and make a final determination as to whether the faculty member meets expectations and the review is concluded, or does not meet expectations and continues on the performance development plan.

6.6 Evaluation at the Conclusion of a Performance Development Plan

6.6.1 The following procedures apply in the final year of a performance development plan. At the end of a performance development plan, the PTR Committee and the Department Head shall determine (1) whether the faculty member met the requirements of the performance development plan, and (2) whether the faculty member’s performance meets expectations in the realms of responsibility described in their SFR. If the faculty member made progress on completing the requirements of the performance development plan but did not meet all requirements of the performance development plan, the assessment rendered should be does not meet expectations of the plan.

6.6.2 The PTR Committee will make an overall determination that the faculty member either meets expectations or does not meet expectations. The PTR Committee’s written assessment will be sent to the Department Head, who will add their own assessment.

6.6.3 If the determinations of the PTR Committee and Department Head are that the faculty member meets expectations, their written assessments will be sent to the Dean, who will add their own assessment.

6.6.4 If the Dean agrees with the PTR Committee and Department Head that the faculty member’s performance meets expectations, the review is complete and the next post-tenure review shall not occur in fewer than five (5) years.

6.6.5 If the PTR Committee’s and/or Department Head’s determination is that the faculty member does not meet expectations, the Department Head will share the PTR Committee’s and the Department Head’s written assessments with the faculty member, who has the option to provide a written response to the assessments within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of them. Any written response becomes part of the post tenure review record. The Department Head will provide the PTR Committee’s and Department Head’s assessments and the faculty member’s optional response to the Dean along with recommendations for any administrative action.

6.6.6 If the Dean’s assessment differs from that of the PTR Committee and/or Department Head, the Dean will review the materials and written assessments and consult with the PTR Committee and the Department Head. The Dean will make a final determination as to whether the faculty member meets expectations and the review is concluded, or does not meet expectations.

6.6.7 If the Dean agrees with the PTR Committee and the Department Head that the faculty member’s performance does not meet expectations, the faculty member may be asked to develop, in conjunction with the Department Head, a new development plan as described in Section 6.1. A review of the faculty member’s progress in achieving the goals will be conducted each year according to the timeline of the development plan.

6.6.7.1. The faculty member may be asked to develop, in conjunction with the Department Head, a new performance development plan as described in section 6.1.

6.6.7.2 Alternatively, the Dean may consult with the PTR Committee and the Department Head and may request that the university seek to impose appropriate sanctions.

6.6.8 Multiple post tenure review determinations of does not meet expectations for a faculty member may, in the most serious cases, lead to a recommendation for discharge for cause pursuant to Section 603 of The Code.

7. Training for Individuals Involved in Post-Tenure Review

7.1 NC State, through the Office of the Provost, shall provide ongoing support and training for all post-tenure review evaluators, including post tenure review committee members, Department Heads and Deans.

7.2 NC State shall ensure that all post-tenure review evaluators receive training in campus-specific policies and procedures and training provided by the UNC System for all post-tenure review evaluators.

7.3 NC State will make available any UNC System Office digital training modules that focus on the basics of state personnel policy and UNC policies, regulations, and guidelines related to personnel and tenure; the essential elements of a useful and thoughtful review; how to prepare, conduct and manage a meaningful review process; and how to provide constructive criticism in a positive manner.

8. Reporting and Administrative Action

8.1 The Dean will provide confirmation of the completion of all scheduled post tenure reviews to the Provost annually using a process specified by the Provost. In turn, the Provost will certify to the UNC System Office annually that the review process at NC State is in compliance with UNC Policy 400.3.3 (Performance Review of Tenured Faculty).

8.2 The Department Head will ensure that all post tenure review documentation (i.e. submission by the faculty member, all written assessments, the faculty member’s response (if any, and other documents related to the review) is placed in the faculty member’s personnel file, which is confidential and not open for inspection except as provided by state law.

8.3 A faculty member who receives an overall post tenure review determination of does not meet expectations has the right to file a grievance in accordance with procedures set forth in NCSU POL05.25.01 – Faculty Grievance, Review and Hearings Policy. The filing of a post-tenure review grievance by a faculty member based on an overall determination of does not meet expectations does not eliminate, postpone or otherwise affect the obligations of the faculty member (or the university) regarding the development and implementation of a performance development plan or any other duties and responsibilities provided in this regulation.

8.4. The Dean will report the names of all faculty who receive a post-tenure review of exceeds expectations to the Provost annually using a process specified by the Provost. The Provost will coordinate means of appropriate recognition and/or reward for these faculty in cooperation with the Office of Faculty Excellence and the Deans of each college.