Academic Appointee Annual and Post-Tenure Productivity Reviews
BOT-24
About This Policy
- Effective Date:
- 06-12-2025
- Date of Last Review/Update:
- 06-12-2026
- Responsible University Office:
- Academic Leadership Council Executive Committee
- Responsible University Administrator:
- Board of Trustees
- Policy Contact:
Academic Leadership Council Executive Committee
Scope
This policy applies to all academic appointees, subject to distinctions established in Indiana Code (IC) 21-39.5-2-2 and IC 21-38-3.5 and as described below.
A foundational principle of Indiana University is its enduring partnership across its units, including faculty and librarians, to collectively advance the institution's mission. The establishment, revision, and retirement of academic policies will occur with consultation and input from the University Faculty Council (UFC).
Pursuant to IC 21-38-11, faculty governance organization actions are advisory only.
This policy shall supersede all campus, school and college, program, department, center, institute, and unit policies on any core or regional campuses of Indiana University.
Policy Statement
The university's reputation is built upon the productivity, conduct, and professional contributions of its academic appointees. Productivity is a measure of the academic appointee's performance across the domains of teaching (including librarianship), research and creative activities, and service as defined by the appointee's discipline and evaluated by the standards of the appointee's unit and campus.
Accordingly, all academic appointees must complete an annual review. In addition, and in compliance with Indiana law, all tenured academic appointees must undergo a comprehensive post-tenure productivity review every five years.
Review procedures must adhere to the principles of academic freedom, protect the appointee’s right to due process, and establish professional development as a core objective.
All academic appointees and department chairs or unit heads are expected to comply with the review process to ensure that review files contain all relevant materials.
Review Cycle
Annual Review
Each academic appointee will complete an annual review based on calendar-year performance (January 1 through December 31).
Post-Tenure Productivity Review
Each tenured academic appointee will also complete a post-tenure productivity review not later than five years after the effective date of tenure and not later than five years thereafter, in compliance with Indiana law.
The first post-tenure productivity review will assess the faculty member’s performance during the five years preceding the review. Subsequent post-tenure productivity reviews will assess performance during the five-year period since the most recent post-tenure productivity review. The post-tenure productivity review will focus on the applicable five-year period, which the faculty member may discuss within the broader context of their academic career.
Academic Appointees with Administrative Roles
Academic appointees holding administrative roles—including chairs, directors, any position with faculty supervisory responsibility, any role with an administrative appointment of 0.50 full-time equivalent (FTE) or greater, or other academic roles as determined by the chief academic officer (CAO)—will be reviewed annually by their respective supervisors.
Tenured academic appointees serving in such roles will undergo their next post-tenure productivity review in the fifth year following the conclusion of their administrative appointment (defined as the date the appointment falls below 0.50 FTE).
Impact of Leaves on the Review Cycle
Faculty on an approved leave of absence during the spring semester of their scheduled post-tenure productivity review year who are unable to participate will have their review postponed until they return from leave. The postponed review will assess performance during the original five-year review period. Approved leaves taken at any other time within the five-year review window will not delay the timing of the review; however, periods of leave will be taken into consideration, as appropriate, in evaluating performance.
Review Criteria
Rating | Annual Review | Post-Tenure Productivity Review |
Exceeds Expectations | The faculty member’s productivity and performance exceed unit-defined criteria for the previous calendar year. | Not applicable. |
Meets Expectations | The faculty member’s productivity and performance meet unit-defined criteria for the previous calendar year. | The faculty member’s productivity and performance meet or exceed unit-defined criteria for the previous five years. |
Does Not Meet Expectations | The faculty member’s productivity and performance fall below unit-defined criteria for the previous calendar year. In the case of a “does not meet expectations” rating, the faculty member must be placed on a 12-month, developmental performance improvement plan (PIP). Successful completion of the PIP replaces the “does not meet expectations” rating for that annual review with a “meets expectations” rating. | The faculty member’s productivity and performance fall below unit-defined criteria for the previous five years. A faculty member will be considered not to have met expectations if, during the previous five years, the faculty member received an overall “does not meet expectations” rating on an annual review and did not successfully complete the required 12-month, developmental PIP, or demonstrated a sustained failure to meet the assigned academic and professional duties of the position. In the case of a “does not meet expectations” rating, the faculty member must be placed on a 12-month, developmental PIP. Successful completion of the PIP places the faculty member in good standing and supersedes the “does not meet expectations” rating. A faculty member who fails to successfully complete the PIP may be subject to dismissal from employment at all the end of the academic year. |
Unsatisfactory | Not applicable. | The faculty member has received an overall rating of “does not meet expectations” in two or more annual reviews without successfully completing the required PIPs. A faculty member who receives a final productivity rating of “unsatisfactory” may be subject to dismissal from employment at the end of the academic year. |
Use of Conduct Findings
Findings of misconduct may be considered in annual performance reviews; salary and merit determinations; and reappointment, tenure, and promotion reviews, consistent with BOT-15: Academic Appointee Responsibilities and Conduct.
Annual Review Requirements
Academic Review and Reporting
Each academic appointee must use the university’s approved performance management system to document professional activities and accomplishments during the preceding calendar year. Reporting will address the areas of teaching (including librarianship), research and creative activities, and service, as applicable to the appointment.
Workload Allocation
Each unit (e.g., college, school, department, library) will:
- Establish the academic appointee’s workload allocation with input from the
appointee - Periodically update the allocation with input from the academic appointee
- Maintain a record of the allocation for each review period, including any adjustments
These records must be retained so they are available for the five-year post-tenure productivity review period, as applicable.
Annual Review Documentation
The department chair or unit head will report the results of the review through a standardized annual review report letter or by using the report generated by the university's approved performance management system.
The annual review documentation must include the following:
- A standard introductory paragraph stating that the review is required by policy, that the evaluation may be used for potential merit increases, and identifying the evaluation period
- Reference to the faculty member’s approved workload allocation in teaching (including librarianship), research and creative activities, and service
- A summary of the university-level standard performance rating categories used for annual review:
- Exceeds Expectations
- Meets Expectations
- Does Not Meet Expectations
- A written summary and performance rating for each assigned area of responsibility
- Affirmation that the faculty member has met the intellectual diversity criteria identified in IC 21-39.5
- Documentation of any deficiencies in any area of responsibility
- An overall performance rating
Discipline-Specific Criteria
Each campus, school, college, and/or department will maintain discipline-specific criteria, as defined by the academic unit, that clearly describes productivity expectations for all faculty members and are comparable to the academic standards of peer institutions. These criteria must:
- Take into consideration the productivity requirements of the discipline
- Be adaptable to approved differential ranks and workload allocations in teaching (including librarianship), research and creative activities, and service
- Be written clearly so that a faculty member understands the level of productivity or performance required to earn each performance rating
Each campus, school, college, and/or department will review and revise these criteria no fewer than every four years.
Performance Improvement Plan Requirement
If an academic appointee receives an overall performance rating of “does not meet expectations” in a given calendar year, the appointee must be placed on a 12-month, developmental PIP to address the identified deficiencies.
Post-Tenure Productivity Review Requirements
The post-tenure productivity review evaluates faculty performance over the preceding five-year period and incorporates the faculty member’s annual review evaluations from that period.
Legislative Requirements for Post-Tenure Productivity Review
In compliance with Indiana law, the post-tenure productivity review must include the following:
- The faculty member’s teaching workload
- The total number of undergraduate and graduate students taught
- The time devoted to instructional assignments and to supervising graduate students
- The faculty member’s research and/or creative activities productivity
Faculty Members Meeting or Exceeding Expectations
If the faculty member received overall ratings of “meets expectations” or “exceeds expectations” in all annual reviews (including those ratings that are a result of a successful PIP) within the five-year review period, the faculty member must submit all legislatively required post-tenure productivity review documentation listed above, as well as:
- An updated curriculum vitae (CV)
- The approved workload allocation
Faculty Members Not Meeting Expectations
If the faculty member received one or more overall ratings of “does not meet expectations” in any annual review during the five-year review period, and has failed to successfully complete a 12-month, developmental PIP(s), the faculty member must submit all legislatively required post-tenure productivity review documentation listed above, as well as:
- An updated CV
- The approved workload allocation
- A single page per productivity area (e.g. teaching (including librarianship), research and creative activity, and service) highlighting accomplishments and summarizing productivity over the previous five years
Reason for Policy
Indiana University depends on the professional performance, conduct, and contributions of its academic appointees. This policy establishes a consistent framework for evaluating academic appointee performance and productivity.
Procedures
Annual Report Procedures
To support the annual review process, academic appointees will submit annual reports using a university-wide annual report form maintained by the Academic Leadership Council (ALC) Executive Committee for use across all campuses, college or schools, departments or programs, and academic units.
Annual Review Process
Annual Review will be conducted by the department chair or unit head, or their designee, in accordance with procedures approved by the unit.
Annual reviews may include a discussion of the faculty member’s career progress. During this discussion, the appointee may be informed of matters relevant to progress toward tenure and/or promotion. The appointee should be provided with a written summary of the career progress review.
At the final review level, a faculty member who receives a “does not meet expectations” rating has the right to appeal to the dean within ten (10) business days of receiving their written summary.
Annual Review and Salary
Each campus may adopt procedures to guide the use of annual review outcomes in determining a faculty member’s salary based on merit. Such procedures must be consistent with the university's policies regarding compensation. Faculty members must submit an annual review in order to be considered for salary increases.
Salary policies at all levels must be written and publicly available. Units must report annually to faculty on the implementation of these policies.
Post-Tenure Productivity Review Procedures
On each campus, the following procedures will be followed to complete the post-tenure productivity review. The faculty member’s department chair or unit head will review materials submitted by the faculty member.
The department chair or unit head will prepare a written assessment of the faculty member’s overall productivity and then submit it and the applicable five years of annual reports to the performance management system. Together, these materials will constitute the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and will be submitted to thedean’s office.
Deans may request that the department chair or unit head include an overall initial productivity rating.
Post-Tenure Productivity Review Committee
The dean may convene a post-tenure productivity review committee to assist in evaluating the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet. The committee serves in an advisory role to the dean in assessing the five-year review period.
Dean Review
The dean will review the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and assess the faculty member’s productivity during the five-year review period. The dean will add a brief letter recommending a productivity rating for the faculty member. The productivity rating options are:
- Meets Expectations
- Does Not Meet Expectations
- Unsatisfactory
Faculty Review and Response
Before forwarding the packet to the CAO, the dean will provide the faculty member with the dean’s letter and all materials included in the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet.
The faculty member will have ten (10) business days from the submission of the dean’s letter to submit an optional written response. If submitted, the response will be added to the packet before it is forwarded to the campus CAO.
Chief Academic Officer Review
The CAO will review the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and assess the faculty member’s productivity during the review period. The CAO may accept or modify the dean’s recommended rating.
Chancellor Review and Final Determination
The CAO will forward the packet, along with their recommended rating, to the chancellor. The chancellor will review the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and may accept or modify the CAO’s recommended rating. The chancellor will then notify the university President of their final determination.
Post-Tenure Productivity Review Rating Results and Performance Improvement Plan
Productivity Ratings of “Meets Expectations”
A faculty member who receives a final productivity rating of “meets expectations” has successfully completed the post-tenure productivity review process. The faculty member’s next review cycle will occur five years later.
Productivity Rating of “Does Not Meet Expectations”
In compliance with IC 21-38-3.5, a faculty member who receives a final productivity rating of “does not meet expectations” will be placed on a 12-month, developmental PIP.
The dean, or their designee, in consultation with the faculty member and the faculty member’s department chair or unit head, or their designee, will develop and approve the PIP. The PIP will be forwarded to the CAO for review and approval.
The faculty member will have 12 months from the effective date of the PIP to complete its requirements. Failure to successfully meet the requirements of the plan may be subject to dismissal from employment at the end of the academic year.
Productivity Rating of “Unsatisfactory”
A faculty member who receives a final productivity rating of “unsatisfactory” may be subject to dismissal from employment at the end of the academic year.
Performance Improvement Plan Requirements
The 12-month, developmental PIP must identify specific and actionable concerns related to the faculty member’s productivity and describe how those concerns will be addressed in the areas of teaching (including librarianship), research and creative activities, and service. The faculty member should be actively engaged in the development of a meaningful and effective plan and is expected to make a good-faith effort to implement it. Failure or refusal to implement the PIP may result in dismissal from employment.
Although each PIP is tailored to the individual circumstances of the faculty member, the plan must, at a minimum:
- State the effective and completion dates
- Identify the specific areas requiring improvement
- Define the goals or outcomes necessary to address those areas
- Outline the actions to be taken to achieve the identified goals or outcomes
- Identify the institutional resources that will support the plan
- Establish timelines for achieving the goals and outcomes
- Specify the criteria for assessing progress through regular reviews
- Establish a schedule of meetings to review the faculty member’s progress
Progress Reporting
The faculty member must submit end-of-semester progress reports to the department chair or unit head. The department chair or unit head will share the progress report, along with any comments, with the dean.
Completion or Failure of the Performance Improvement Plan
A faculty member who meets the requirements of the 12-month, developmental PIP by the established completion date is considered to have met productivity expectations and will not be subject to dismissal from employment under this policy.
A faculty member who does not meet the requirements of the PIP by the established completion date may be subject to dismissal from employment at the end of the academic year. The CAO, in consultation with the dean and the department chair or unit head, may recommend dismissal from employment to the chancellor. The chancellor may accept or modify the recommendation and will then notify the university President of their final determination. The CAO is responsible for issuing the final dismissal from employment decision.
Right to Appeal
A faculty member adversely affected by a post-tenure productivity review decision has the right to appeal to a campus Faculty Board of Review, in accordance with ACA-17: Faculty Boards of Review Uniform Standards.
History
June 12, 2025 – New policy
December 5, 2025 – Clarifications to aid implementation
June 2026- Substantive revisions