Handling Negative Faculty Evaluations & Exit Interviews

This section of the Toolkit provides department chairs (or equivalents) and other academic leaders who lead evaluative processes with strategies for handling negative evaluations for both pre-tenure and tenured faculty. In addition, since some of these recommendations exceed the capacity of individual departments, this section also includes institutional-level recommendations and strategies.

The topics addressed in this section build on the “Principles for Effective Faculty Evaluation Processes” and are listed below:

1. Negative Evaluations of Pre-tenure Faculty
2. Negative Evaluations of Tenured Faculty
3. Navigating Separation: When Tenure is Denied or a Faculty Member is Managed Out
4. Exit Interviews

1. Negative Evaluations of Pre-Tenure Faculty

The characteristics outlined in “Principles for Effective Faculty Evaluation Processes” will enable department chairs (or their equivalent) to identify when a pre-tenure faculty member’s performance does not meet departmental and institutional standards. Regular, timely evaluation during the probationary, pre-tenure period should allow department chairs (or their equivalent) to provide, clear, direct, detailed feedback and to intervene providing both support and correction.

In the event of a negative tenure evaluation, department leaders should be aware of and active in responding to the effect of this outcome on other pre-tenure colleagues. Clarity and consistency of standards and direct communication of performance standards with individual faculty members will help mitigate (if not eliminate) “misinformation” about the tenure review process.

In the event that progress toward tenure is not going well, but there is still time for correction, some or all of the following resources should be made available to the faculty member not meeting performance standards. A clear written statement from the department chair documenting the gap(s) between performance standards and the faculty member’s actual performance. This statement might also identify specific actions that would be needed to close that gap, and the specific evidence that would be needed to demonstrate a positive change in performance. Any communication should be as clear and comprehensive as possible so that candidates can respond appropriately and should include any minority opinions that the department chair is privy to that could be helpful.

A series of scheduled meetings with the department chair and/or another senior faculty member to collaboratively develop plans for addressing the problematic gaps in performance. Including another senior member gives the pre-tenure faculty member an alternative mentor to help them effectively process the feedback from the negative evaluation.

Specifically, department chairs should schedule at least two meetings with pre-tenure faculty members whose performance has not met departmental standards. The first meeting should focus on a discussion of the review and sharing the written statement described above. Between the first and second meeting, the tenure candidate should develop a plan to address the gaps in performance.  The second meeting should be a collaborative dialogue about the faculty member’s plan, affirming its strengths, addressing its weaknesses, and identifying the timeline and resources needed for implementation. Department chairs and/or senior faculty mentors should schedule additional meetings throughout the year to check in on the faculty member’s progress with implementing their plan. Department chairs and/or senior faculty members should provide encouragement, support, and/or accountability as appropriate.  After each meeting, the department chair and/or senior mentor should provide brief, but clear, written accounts of these meetings and any agreed-on steps.

Candidates should also be made aware of any possible tenure-clock extensions that might be available to them depending on their life circumstances (e.g. extensions for caretaking obligations, family obligations, medical reasons, COVID, etc.)

---

2. Negative Evaluations of Tenured Faculty

Tenured faculty members have presumably met and/or exceeded performance standards by the time they were awarded tenure. Among other things, the conferral of tenure is an affirmation that the faculty member embodies the core values and best practices of the institution and an assertion that the faculty member will continue to do so for decades to come. And a commitment to continue meeting performance standards is part of the faculty member’s application for tenure. Indeed, in general, faculty aspire to fulfill their work obligations, which make negative evaluations all the more difficult and simultaneously all the more compelling to navigate.

This section presumes that a regular, ongoing evaluation process is in place for tenured faculty and that this process possesses if not all, at least many of the features detailed in the first section of this report: clarity; transparency; regular and timely; collaborative; providing accurate, constructive, and actionable feedback; supportive; and providing some measure of accountability. If such a process is not in place or is not being implemented as described in the Faculty Handbook, those deficiencies must be addressed before acting on any evaluative review – positive or negative – of any faculty member.

When evaluators determine that a tenured faculty member has not met performance standards, the primary goal is to enable them to elevate the quantity and/or quality of their work so as once again consistently meet performance standards. Again, context matters, and mitigating circumstances must be considered. Extraordinary life circumstances (e.g., birth/adoption of a child, or death of close loved one) and/or major service to the college (e.g., department chair or other major roles) can notably impact a faculty member’s capacity to meet performance standards in all three areas of teaching, scholarship, and service, at least in the relative near term or for the duration of major responsibilities.

If a tenured faculty member has a sufficiently long-term, chronic record of not meeting performance standards without mitigating factors being present, then they must be made aware of the deficiencies in their performance and held accountable for making definitive changes. A faculty member might not be aware of concerns about their performance and those must be clearly communicated, in initial verbal conversations followed up by written summaries of those conversations – again with the goal of enabling them to elevate their performance. Beyond the individual relevance of these actions, other faculty members are often aware of their colleague’s underperformance, particularly within departments. Not acting on problematic performance dampens their morale and can ultimately be destructive to the community of teacher-scholars or teacher-artists in any department.

For persistent under-performers, department chairs should communicate concerns to the faculty member, articulate benchmarks for improved performance in collaboration with the faculty member, agree on a plan and timeline for meeting those benchmarks that is reasonable in light of available resources, and identify possible consequences for continued underperformance. As with negative evaluations of untenured faculty members, an iterative process of meetings is most helpful, including:

• An initial meeting to share the negative performance review
• Intermediate work by the faculty member to develop an improvement plan
• A follow-up meeting, within a month or two, to discuss, clarify, and confirm the plan
• Follow-up meetings in appropriate intervals to confirm progress

One model for such improvement plans might allow three years for a faculty member to turn-around their performance and, alongside improvement in any one particular area, the faculty member should be asked to maintain the quality of their work in other areas.

The faculty member should be active in developing, implementing, and reporting on their relative success in following up on these plans. Along with their standard evaluation materials, the faculty member should submit a reflective response to such a plan: the progress they are making, any challenges they might have encountered, and their updated plans for the coming year.

Ideally, a faculty member will improve so as to merit a positive evaluation indicating they have met or exceeded performance standards in the area(s) of concern by the end of this probationary period. If sufficient progress is made, this is great news! If not and mitigating circumstances are not present, then follow-up consequences should be implemented, which should be articulated at the very beginning of this process. Example consequences might include:

• limited or no access to faculty funding, such as summer funds, travel funds, library funds
• cessation of cost-of-living salary increase
• deferral of sabbatical leave
• other institution-specific consequences.

Of course, the hope is that none of these actions will be required. And these faculty incentives and supports should be reinstated when they faculty member meets performance standards in the area(s) of concern for some appropriate number of years in a row.

Promotion to Professor

Institutions of higher education and departments within institutions differ widely in the percentage of Associate Professors who are promoted to Full Professor and the timelines for achieving such promotions. Generally speaking, within academia, the speed at which men and women reach the ranks of Associate and Full Professor varies, favoring men, except in computer science and psychology. Women spend more time at the rank of Associate Professor than men, and people of color can be given or choose to take on service (both hidden and not) that affects their career trajectory. In light of such general trends, institutions and departments should analyze their status and thoughtfully consider whether adaptive changes are merited.

If so, institutions might work to develop a “pathway to full professor plan” to ensure greater equity across the faculty. The development of such a plan should be carried out at an institutional level, rather than just a departmental level. Deans (or equivalent) should meet with all recently tenured faculty (and their department chairs) to discuss institution-specific expectations for promotion to full professor and encourage newly tenured faculty members to actively aspire toward and follow-up on plans for achieving that next career milestone. Other strategies may include the following:

• A mentor (in or outside of the department)
• Regular assessments by department chairs to assess progress toward promotion
• Continued support for professional development. Institutions should provide continued support for research, and pedagogical innovations. These might include support for manuscript completion workshops, collaboration grants, post-tenure sabbaticals, monetary support for faculty led cohorts, etc.
• Expectations for promotion to full professor should both recognize and value the increased service obligations that come with tenure. These necessary service and leadership obligations often fall most heavily on women, queer faculty, faculty of color and other marginalized groups.
• Clear communication about the value of leadership (e.g. department chair or other administrative roles) in an eventual promotion file. These critical leadership roles often reduce the amount of time/bandwidth available to develop teaching and scholarship portfolios.

See the bottom of this page for recommended resources for handling negative evaluations of tenured faculty.

---

3. Navigating Separation: When Tenure is Denied or a Faculty Member is Managed Out

Department chairs should maintain clear and consistent communication with faculty members regarding their progress toward tenure. These expectations should be made clear to other members of the department during the probationary review period. Departments should be encouraged to use pre-tenure reviews as an opportunity to reaffirm or clarify performance standards for tenure, and these reaffirmations or clarifications should be shared in writing with candidates

Faculty members may choose to opt out of the tenure process if annual and pre-tenure reviews indicate clearly that expectations have not been met. Department chairs should work with faculty members to realistically assess their prospects and chart the best way forward (see recommendations in “1. Handling Negative Evaluations of Pre-Tenure Faculty” above). 

In the event of a failed tenure case, department chairs and other tenured faculty members within the department may have to manage fall-out with the candidate, with the department, with the university, and with the broader academic community. Social media may raise the stakes of these decisions and invite outside scrutiny. 

---

4. Exit Interviews

An exit interview should be conducted for all faculty who are departing the institution to gain insight into why they are leaving and whether there is something we might be able to avoid or mitigate in the future. You should consider who will be responsible for administering the interview (Academic Affairs, Human Resources, or Chief Diversity Officer) and in what format (verbally or written). Be clear about who will have access to the raw data, how the data will be shared out, and whether it will be anonymized.

---

Recommended Resources

Evaluators may also find the following resources helpful:

Resources for Handling Negative Evaluations of Pre-Tenure Faculty

• Chapter 4 of An Inclusive Academy: Achieving Diversity and Excellence, Abigail J Stewart and Virginia Valian, The MIT Press, 2022, ISBN: 978-0262545266
• Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Carol S. Dweck, Ballantine Books, 2007, ISBN: 978-0345472328
• What the Best College Teachers Do, Ken Bain, Harvard University Press, 2004, ISBN 978-0674013254
• Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning, James M. Lang, Jossey-Bass, 2021, ISBN: 978-1119755548
• Promoting Belonging, Growth Mindset, and Resilience to Foster Student Success, Amy Baldwin, Bryce Bunting, Doug Daugherty, Latoya Lewis, Tim Steenbergh, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 2020, ISBN 978-1942072379
• The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey, Simon & Schuster, 2020, ISBN: 978-19821137137
• Atomic Habits, James Clear, Avery Press, 2018, ISBN: 978-0735211292

Resources for Handling Negative Evaluations of Tenured Faculty

• Chapter 4 of An Inclusive Academy: Achieving Diversity and Excellence, Abigail J Stewart and Virginia Valian, The MIT Press, 2022, ISBN: 978-0262545266
• https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-path-to-full-professor-how-to-recover-from-rejection
• The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey, Simon & Schuster, 2020, ISBN: 97819821137137
• Atomic Habits, James Clear, Avery Press, 2018, ISBN: 978-0735211292