Post-tenure Review: National Trends, Questions and Concerns

Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, Fall 1999

Post-tenure Review: National Trends,Questions and ConcernsChristine M. Licata and Joseph C. Morreale

ABSTRACT: Evaluation and development of tenured faculty, commonly referred to aspost-tenure review, is one of the most controversial policy initiatives of this decade. Reac-tion to these policies has been mixed. The authors discuss the evolution of such policies,1

review current practices, describe common approaches, and summarize unifying prin-ciples that lead to successful implementation. Lingering questions regarding impact,outcomes, cost, and benefit are explored.

History and Development

Current interest in post-tenure review is intense. Rooted primarilyin the public sector, but also clearly evident in private institutions,this heightened attention comes principally as a result of growing pres-sures for increased accountability and quality (as detailed in MargaretMiller's article).

While most institutions have policies to evaluate tenured faculty forpurposes of salary and merit adjustments, promotion, teaching awards,sabbaticals, grants, and graduate faculty status, post-tenure review,as we know it today, goes well beyond these traditional review meth-ods. In today's climate, post-tenure review usually means a systematic,comprehensive process, aimed specifically to assess performance and/ornurture faculty growth and development. Normally, it is either part of

cl 1999 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

Christine M. Licata is Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs atRochester Institute of Technology/National Technical Institute for the Deaf. She re-ceived a B.S. and M.S. from Canisius College and a doctorate in Higher Education fromGeorge Washington University. Dr. Licata also currently serves as Senior Associate withthe American Association for Higher Education, where she provides leadership for theNew Pathways II post-tenure review initiatives. She has written and presented exten-sively on issues of senior faculty review and development. Joseph C. Morreale is Asso-ciate Vice President for Planning, Assessment, Research, and Academic Support at PaceUniversity. He received the B.A. in Economics and Mathematics from Queen's College ofthe City University of New York; the M.S.Ed, in Higher Education Administration fromSUNY, Albany; and the M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics from SUNY, Buffalo. His specialinterests in the field of higher education are strategic planning, faculty development,and assessment.

1Based on data collected and reported in Licata, Christine M. and Joseph C. Morreale,Post-Tenure Review: Policies, Practices and Presentations. AAHE Working Paper 12.March 1997.

5

the annual review, separate from the annual merit review, or an out-come of the annual review.

However, post-tenure review is not really a new phenomenon! Itjust feels new because of recent national focus given to it. Almost twodecades ago, the National Commission on Higher Education (1982) sug-gested that post-tenure review was one of the most urgent issues facingthe academic community in the new decade. The Commission believedthat the tenure system was destined to suffer continuous attack, if notelimination, if it continued to be regarded "as a system to protect fac-ulty members from evaluation" (p. 10). Peer review of performance,the preferred approach offered by the Commission, would safeguardtenure and ensure continued competence, individual renewal, and in-stitutional quality. The Commission even took this call a step further byrecommending that sanctions be exercised when chronic substandardperformance prevailed.

At the time that these recommendations were put forth, few inthe academic world were ready to publicly take action on them. Theseideas were carefully considered at a 1983 Wingspread Conference co-sponsored by the American Council on Education (ACE) and theAmerican Association of University Professors (AAUP). The result ofthis forum was a statement issued eventually by AAUP (1995), whichreaffirmed traditional methods of tenured faculty review and concludedthat any additional evaluation of postprobationary faculty was unnec-essary. However, fifteen years later and in response to growing pressurefor post-tenure review, the AAUP has recently reconsidered its positionand has advanced minimum standards for good practice in establishinga formal system of post-tenure review (AAUP, 1997).

Early experiments with periodic review of tenured faculty (as distin-guished from merit review) did find support on selected campuses. Coe(1973), Earlham (1975), St. Lawrence University (1977), and CarletonColleges (1980) reported such practices, as did the California State Uni-versity (CSU) System. In fact, a periodic peer review policy within theCSU System predated the collective bargaining agreement establishedthere in 1983. Most of these early policies were characterized by a strongfaculty growth and development objective (Licata, 1986).

But the strongest push for consideration and adoption of post-tenurereview policies has come over the past decade. The Carnegie Founda-tion for the Advancement of Teaching reports that 46% of all insti-tutions responding to its 1994 national survey on the reexaminationof faculty roles and rewards noted that they had regular post-tenurereview of faculty and 28% indicated it was currently under consideration

6 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

(Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1994, p. 108). Another study of 680 publicand private institutions places the estimate even higher, with 61% ofpublic and private institutions indicating they have post-tenure reviewpolicies in place and another 9% in the midst of policy development(Harris, 1996). We know from recent work done by the American Asso-ciation for Higher Education (AAHE) that over 30 states have reportedserious activity in this area (Licata, 1998). Even professional schoolsand accrediting bodies, including the Association of American MedicalColleges, the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, theNorth Central Association of Accreditation, and the American Associ-ation of Dental Schools, have seriously taken up the concept.

National Trends in Post-tenure Review

What do we know about policy and practice? Despite ongoing debateabout preferred policy objectives, certain practices are reported in thefield; and certain trends are beginning to emerge.2

Definition and Frequency

In most settings, post-tenure review is distinguished from the tradi-tional annual merit review because it is usually a peer review-drivenprocess and is designed specifically to systematically assess perfor-mance; nurture professional growth; promote improvement, if neces-sary, through a required plan (usually of one to three years); and, insome situations, impose sanctions when improvement is not forthcom-ing. Sanctions noted in policies include such measures as salary de-creases and salary freezes.

Post-tenure review policies usually can be separated into two basiccategories. One is comprehensive periodic review of all tenured faculty,usually at 5-7 year intervals. This approach has been adopted in insti-tutions of the state university systems of California, Florida, Hawaii,Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. The other is selec-tive review of some faculty, triggered by extant review processes (usu-ally the annual review) which show ongoing substandard performance

2The American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) New Pathways II Project: Aca-demic Careers for the Next Century ... From Inquiry to Practice is conducting action-oriented research on these and other questions related to the outcomes of post-tenurereview. For more information, contact the authors.

Post-tenure Review: National Trends, Questions and Concerns 7

in one or more areas. This approach is used in public institutions inthe systems of Arizona, Minnesota, Colorado, Texas A & M, and mostVirginia commonwealth campuses.

Models

Three basic models are currently followed: annual reviews, summa-tive (consequential) reviews, and formative (developmental) reviews.

Annual reviews. As post-tenure review discussions unfold, institu-tions are forced to wrestle with the important questions of what benefitsand limitations are appropriated by the annual salary review processand what a post-tenure review policy can contribute to improve thedesired objective.

This analysis normally results in a decision: either (1) to modify andstrengthen the annual performance review or (2) to develop a post-tenure review process which is separate from or a result of the annualreview.

The report of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Planning Com-mittee on Tenured Faculty Review and Development (1993) articulateswell the rationale used by the majority of institutions adopting separatereview process:

The system of annual merit review lends an extensive process of yearlyevaluation with recommendations on salary, which are frequentlymarket-rather than merit-driven. The strains in such a system becomeparticularly apparent when compensation is inadequate to meet compe-tition from other educational institutions and other parts of the economy,(p. 7)

Additionally, institutions point out that annual reviews do not lendthemselves to assessing achievements requiring a period of time greaterthan a year, usually include no professional development planning, andare often carried out in a perfunctory manner only by administrators.So, many institutions opt to complement the annual review with a morecomprehensive peer review approach.

Summative (Consequential). This approach is designed to result insome personnel action or consequence. Satisfactory performance is thebaseline against which the assessment is made. The results of the re-view for those judged to be meeting their obligations in an acceptableway include formal recognition and reward as well as the opportunity toupdate individual professional development plans, refocus efforts, initi-ate new plans, and seek institutional support. For those assessed as in


need of improvement, a growth and improvement plan is normally re-quired, which establishes goals, activities, and timelines. Consequentialpolicies also stipulate what actions are allowable if satisfactory prog-ress is not achieved. Many policies indicate that if chronic underperfor-mance or non-performance are not remedied, actions for discharge canbe initiated.

Summative policy outcomes almost always follow the triggered ap-proach, primarily because, with this model, the faculty reviewed arethose already identified as needing improvement. For example, atArizona State University-Main and West Campuses (see McLean &Callarman article), an enhanced review is triggered by unsatisfactoryperformance identified through the mandatory annual review, by thedean's five-year review, or as a result of program reviews conductedevery seven years. The policy makes it clear that the individual has aresponsibility, shared with the university, to improve performance. Thepolicy stipulates as well that only after the improvement process hasclearly failed should dismissal proceedings be considered.

Formative (Developmental). This model seeks development andgrowth and rarely results in any type of personnel action. The reviewputs singular emphasis on individual professional development, andin most settings, integrates individual development goals with depart-mental mission and priorities. Ithaca College, for example, uses a cumu-lative review of its tenured faculty, conducted, on average, every sevenyears, to focus on developmental issues. A departmental peer commit-tee conducts the review and provides constructive feedback on waysto integrate departmental and local unit teaching objectives into theprofessional plan.

Similar policy approaches are found at St. Francis College (NewYork), University of LaVerne, and Utica College of Syracuse Univer-sity. In each case, a committee helps assess performance and shape adevelopment plan that focuses on career development and departmen-tal mission. Faculty enrichment is the outcome sought.

Mixed Models. Rarely does one see a policy approved today that doesnot have faculty development and enhancement as important objec-tives. Because of this, policies recently developed usually contain as-pects of both the formative and summative models.

In fact, most policies are heavily laden with developmental designprinciples. This notion of combining developmental and consequentialreview objectives finds reasonable support among practitioners. How-ever, this coupling of outcomes usually meets with objections from eval-uation theorists and many faculty development specialists who caution


that the two processes should be developed and administered separatelybecause the evidence collected and interpretation given to the resultsserve two very different purposes. Until campuses gain more experi-ence with these newly established policies, the exact consequences ofjoining both objectives into one process remains untested.

Faculty Reaction

Efforts to require post-tenure review have met with mixed facultyreaction. This can be attributed to the conflicted conversations and am-biguous objectives which frequently characterize public discourse on theissue. Confusion exists in some quarters about whether these reviewsare intended primarily to promote ongoing senior faculty vitality or toreprimand underperformers. Formulating discussions are often repletewith seemingly opposing purposes and emotionally charged rhetoric.

Because the term "post-tenure review" conjures up negative imagesof a re-tenuring process, some institutions have purposely steeredaway from using it. Instead, we see such titles as "Periodic Multi-YearReview" proposed by University of Massachusetts System campuses;"Comprehensive Review of Sustained Performance" used by the StateUniversity System of Florida; and "Faculty Review and Enrichment"proposed by faculty at Indiana University Purdue University atIndianapolis.

Critics of post-tenure reviews claim the reviews are unwarranted,punitive in nature, and a veiled threat to undermine tenure by nar-rowing the threshold for what constitutes incompetence—shifting theburden of proof from administration to faculty.

Proponents see the picture differently. They acknowledge the contri-bution that these reviews make, when approached developmentally, tosustaining career energy and assisting in career enhancement. Theypoint to faculty demographics and understand that by the year 200068% of all full-time faculty will be over 50 years of age and 50% willbe 55 years or older (National Center for Education Statistics, 1993).Further, they recognize that the uncapping of retirement poses uncer-tainty about faculty retirement patterns. Most important, supportersalso realize that institutional advancement and change are dependentupon the support, leadership, and vitality of this rich cohort of seniorfaculty.

A case in point: faculty senate and faculty union representativesfrom the State University of New York and the California State Uni-versity Systems, the two largest systems of higher education in this


country, recently lent support to the idea that post-tenure faculty shouldexperience continuous evaluation and development. In a report au-thored by both groups, "Public Higher Education and Productivity:A Faculty Voice" (1997), they affirmed the readiness of their facultyto help address the challenges facing public education and advancedseven principles to guide such action. The report recommends that clearperformance expectations be established and regular evaluations oc-cur within the pre and post-tenure cycles. The way such evaluationstrengthens performance is through "constructive peer evaluation sep-arate from personnel actions as part of faculty development programs"(p. 6).

The underscoring of the developmental approach is supported as wellby Committee A of the American Association of University Professors(AAUP). In its recent statement on post-tenure review, the AAUP pointsout that it supports post-tenure review when its sole objective is facultydevelopment: "post-tenure review ought to be aimed not at accountabil-ity and efficiency, but at faculty development" ("Post-tenure review: AnAAUP response," p. 44).

Common Features and Principles1

Most policies developed over the last five years have attempted toaddress faculty concerns regarding post-tenure review. These policiesshare common features and basic assumptions about what is crucial tosuccessful policy implementation.

On campus after campus, faculty involvement in framing initial dis-cussions of the topic, formulating precise policy language, and initiatingspecial policy implementation have proven to be the most critical stepsto forging policy parameters. As a result, the eventual acceptance andfollow through are made much easier.

In reviewing such collaborative efforts, common policy features read-ily emerge. Faculty in particular are instrumental in giving seriousattention to ensuring that the following are present.

Clarity of Purpose of Review. Policy language is made clear about thepurpose of review, expected results, and institutional support. Theseare three critical foci that guide subsequent policy provisions.

Affirmation of Academic Tenure. Tenure rights and obligations are mu-tually acknowledged in policy. Academic freedom is preservedthrough appropriate provisions protecting due process, the right toappeal, and upholding the long-standing definition of adequate cause.


Decentralized Decision-Making. The tradition of shared governance atthe departmental or local unit level is supported in practice byremanding the establishment of performance criteria and standardsand other procedural aspects to that unit. Such flexibility allows fordepartments to integrate individual department mission, function,and discipline into performance expectations and assessment meth-ods. It also helps support differentiated work assignments and ac-commodate changing career emphases within the same unit.

Peer Review as Essential. Increasingly, faculty believe that peer reviewis the component that offers the most opportunity to make these pro-cesses meaningful and substantive. Faculty see peer involvementas an invitation to take control of one's individual and departmen-tal destiny. In commenting on the role of peers in rebuilding com-munity, Tierney (1997) challenges faculty to embrace the idea ofcommunity as a place where we move away from the "we" (externalconstituencies)/"they" (faculty) struggle and replace this polarity bycreating a context for post-tenure review where faculty members—bybonds of reciprocal obligation—seek to develop one another's perfor-mance (p. 25). In this way, the review is developmental and focusedon prospective goals which help colleagues understand individual di-rection, the process for supporting and evaluating individual effort,and community needs.

Sound Evaluation and Development Principles. Most policies build onsound evaluation procedures which include:

• Establishing well-understood and accepted criteria and standardsupon which the evaluation is based. On some campuses, the tenureor promotion criteria are used. On others, departments or localunits establish minimum standards or expectations;

• Using multiple sources of defensible and useful data from students,peers, administrators and, in some cases, from external review-ers;

• Requiring that an introspective self-evaluation be part of the pro-cess. This forms the basis for a professional development planwhich is a critical component of the process;

• Providing constructive feedback about performance, usually in theform of a discussion that incorporates long-range career growthand professional development objectives;

• Providing opportunities for professional development and careergrowth to the "star" performers, the solid performers, and those inneed of improvement.


Important Questions to be Answered

We end this overview of post-tenure review with some importantquestions for consideration. Our preliminary work, reviewing over 100policies and interviewing selected faculty and administrators withinnine institutional settings, suggests that the questions that facultymembers, department chairs, and deans frequently ask center on is-sues of impact, cost, and benefit. These include:

• What benefits and outcomes can campuses expect from such a pro-cess and how should we report these?

• Which model of review carries the most benefit in terms of outcomeand the least burden in terms of time and resources?

• What challenges can members of peer review committees and de-partment chairs expect to encounter as they work within the post-tenure evaluation environment?

• Is there evidence that post-tenure review improves teaching, re-search, and service and helps maintain faculty vitality?

• Is there evidence that post-tenure review diminishes collegiality,inhibits pursuit of controversial research, or obstructs academicfreedom?

• Will post-tenure review keep tenure viable and forestall furtherexternal interference?

• Will post-tenure review have unintended positive or negative con-sequences for related campus systems and culture?

Future research on post-tenure review2 must focus on these questionsand help inform the debate on it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let's put post-tenure in a contemporary perspective.Most would agree that higher education must be ready to transformitself to meet the challenges that it faces in the next century. Seniorfaculty command important attention in this transformation becausethis cadre represents intellectual capital and a resident brain trust thatcolleges and universities must work to maintain and appreciate.

Bland and Bergquist (1997) suggest that vitality is best facilitatedwhen an integrated approach to growth and development is used—an approach that recognizes the inseparability of individual and insti-tutional vitality and pays attention to the varied needs of faculty at


different stages of careers and development (pp. 83-87). This approachhas, in fact, become the objective of developmental post-tenure reviewpractices. In so doing, compelling reaffirmation of certain basic com-munity expectations are occasioned. First, while tenure accords rightsand privileges to faculty, it also carries with it a corollary responsibilityto continue to develop professionally and help meet the growing needsof the institution. Second, the institution holds a corresponding com-mitment to provide a nurturing and supportive environment so thatrejuvenation is possible (pp. 83-87).

William Plater (1998) suggests that this is a fitting time in the his-tory of the academy for faculty to reclaim and preserve tenure by usingit. Among other things, using tenure entails "setting standards of per-formance, holding all members of the academic workforce accountableand taking action to improve those who are not meeting their respon-sibilities." (p. 713)

In the final analysis, the review and development of senior facultymight better be defined as a means to an end rather than as an endin itself. Post-tenure review offers one context in which faculty agency,accountability, and responsibility can be made integral to institutionaltransformation and vitality. And, if done well, post-tenure review willenhance academe's ability to control its own destiny.

References

American Association of University Professors (1995). On periodic evaluation of tenuredfaculty. AAUPpolicy documents and reports. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of University Professors (1997, September/October). On post-tenure review. Academe, 83(5), 44-51.

Bland, C. J., & Bergquist, W. H. (1997). The vitality of senior faculty members: Snow on theroof-fire in the furnace. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 25(7). Washington,DC: The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and HumanDevelopment.

Chait, R. P., & Ford, A. (1982). Beyond traditional tenure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Glassick, C., Huber. M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Harris, B. J. (1996). The relationship between and among policy variables, type of institu-

tion, and perceptions of academic administrators with regard to post-tenure review.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University.

Licata, C. M. (1986). Post-tenure faculty evaluation: Threat or opportunity? ASHE-ERICHigher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of HigherEducation.

Licata, C. M., & Morreale, J. C. (1997, March). Post-tenure review: policies, practices andprecautions. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Licata, C. M. (1998, June). Post-tenure review: At the crossroads of accountability andresponsibility. AAHE Bulletin 50(10), 3-6.


Post-tenure Review: National Trends, Questions and Concerns

National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). National study of postsecondary faculty.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research andImprovement.

National Commission on Higher Education Issues. (1982). To strengthen quality inhigher education (ED226646). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Plater, W. (1998, February). Using tenure. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 680-715.State University of New York and the California State University (Faculty Senates and

Faculty Unions) (1997, March). Public higher education and productivity: A facultyvoice. Author.

Tierney, W. G. (1997, May/June). Academic community and post-tenure review, Academe.83(5), 23-25.

University of Wisconsin-Madison (1993, February). Report of the planning committee ontenured faculty review and development. (Faculty Document 989-15). Madison, WI:Author.

15

Post-tenure Review: National Trends, Questions and Concerns

Documents

Transcript of Post-tenure Review: National Trends, Questions and Concerns