2.F.4 Employee Evaluations
Faculty, staff, and administrators are evaluated regularly and systematically in alignment with institutional mission and goals, educational objectives, and policies and procedures. Evaluations are based on written criteria that are published, easily accessible, and clearly communicated. Evaluations are applied equitably, fairly, and consistently in relation to responsibilities and duties. Personnel are assessed for effectiveness and are provided feedback and encouragement for improvement.
and require regular and systematic performance evaluations of faculty, staff, and administrators on an annual basis. These processes differ among employment types, yet all incorporate feedback and encouragement for improvement. on nondiscrimination ensures that decisions affecting an individual's employment will be based on their qualifications, abilities, and performance.
Faculty. Faculty evaluation procedures and regulations are established by the UA System through . In addition, ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ has its own faculty evaluation policies and procedures as described in The Faculty Blue Book, which expand upon and clarify the provisions outlined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Each year, all regular faculty are evaluated in accordance with and the CBA. To comply with this policy, faculty members submit an annual activity report (AAR) detailing their accomplishments in teaching, research, and service, as applicable, which is accompanied by a self-evaluation. The dean reviews these materials for each faculty member and provides written feedback. The complete review, including the dean’s feedback, is retained in the faculty member’s academic file maintained by the office of the associated dean/director. Adjunct faculty are evaluated according to the procedures established by their respective college or campus, as outlined in their . Completion rates for AARs by fiscal year (FY) over the past five years were low in FY21 (18%) and FY22 (17%), were substantially higher in FY23 (77%), remained relatively high in FY24 (71%), and rose further in FY25 (81%). These trends reflect the maturation of centralized tracking and follow-up processes through the Office of Faculty Affairs and Services within the Office of the Provost, the alignment of more complete and trackable reporting with the annual evaluation cycle, and improvements in submission systems and oversight during and after the transition from Faculty180 to Airtable in FY23.
Faculty members seeking tenure and/or promotion are evaluated annually in a progressive and systematic manner, following the faculty evaluation policies and procedures as outlined in The Faculty Blue Book and based on criteria established by their peers and college dean. The college/school and/or department unit peer criteria are available on the ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ Office of the Provost website (see the unit peer criteria tab). Because faculty join the university in different years, past versions of the guidelines must remain accessible until no faculty remains whose evaluations are governed by those earlier unit peer criteria versions. Annual activity reports and are included in the promotion file. For faculty seeking tenure and/or promotion, they undergo a college-level peer review, the dean’s and/or director’s evaluation, and a university-level peer review, after which the provost provides a recommendation to the chancellor, who makes the final decision on promotion and/or tenure. Prior to tenure, faculty undergo a fourth-year pretenure evaluation to ensure that they are making progress toward tenure. All of the review steps for the pretenure review are the same as the tenure and/or promotion review, except that the provost only notes whether the faculty member is making adequate progress toward tenure. Tenured faculty undergo evaluation every six years by their dean, peers, and, when applicable, campus directors. They may also be reviewed by college peer review committees and the provost. If areas for improvement are identified, the faculty member must develop a professional development plan, approved by the dean and/or campus director, outlining objectives and measurable outcomes. Term faculty may apply for promotion to associate professor and subsequently to full professor if they believe their record warrants consideration. They are evaluated according to the same standards and processes as tenure-track faculty.
Staff and administrators. Per , all staff (both nonexempt regular [NR] and exempt regular [XR] designations) must be evaluated annually in writing, with the opportunity to provide a written response to the supervisor’s review. While the evaluation process should typically be completed by the end of the fiscal year (June 30), to ensure that all submissions are completed with the necessary signatures. Performance evaluations must provide sufficient detail to guide employees in achieving the major goals and objectives of their position. To support this process, guidance and training are available through the . At the implementation level, departments may use either the comprehensive or an approved standard PDF evaluation form, such as the . UA HR sends in the spring, and a variety of are provided to assist supervisors and employees throughout the process.
All ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ executive administrators (EX designation) are evaluated annually by their immediate supervisors following the evaluation process detailed above for staff. The chancellor is also evaluated by the UA president periodically through UA HR using a 360-degree model. This model has been extended to other executive administrators as well. Other ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ executive administrators are evaluated by the chancellor, provost, or one of the vice chancellors. These administrators are divided into two groups for review purposes, which include Group A (deans, vice chancellors, and the provost; administrators that report to the chancellor, provost, or a vice chancellor) and Group B (deans and directors; administrators that supervise faculty and report to the provost or a vice chancellor). These administrators undergo a comprehensive review every three years, facilitated by the following Faculty Senate guidelines.
Evaluation completion data has not historically been tracked in a way that distinguishes executive administrators (EX) from nonexempt regular (NR) and exempt regular (XR) staff, so reported completion rates (see below) include all three categories of employees in combination. Beginning in FY26, tracking has been refined to allow for this distinction and more precise reporting by employee category (EX separate from NR and XR combined). Submission and record-keeping processes also contribute to underreporting, as evaluations are submitted either through the MyUA electronic portal or via unit HR coordinators and NextGen forms when the non-MyUA performance management tool is used, with all finalized documents placed in the employee’s official personnel file at the UA System HR Office. While MyUA portal data is captured accurately, PDF-based submissions are not consistently reflected in completion metrics, resulting in reported rates that understate actual performance evaluation completions, which are higher than indicated by the following summary data: FY21 – 63%; FY22 – 55%; FY23 – 69%; FY24 – 71%; FY25 – 73%.