Best Practices for Program Directors and

Other Evaluators

Steps to a Great Academic Review

a LAUC-SD/CAPA WorkshopDecember 2014

1

Goals of this workshopBy sharing the best practices of experienced program

directors and review initiators, we intend to:

Raise your confidence in preparing academic reviews

Give you some ideas to make the process easier

and, ultimately….Create more consistent files, fostering a more

equitable review process

2

Documents you should know aboutWebsite for documentation, forms, etc.:https://

libraries.ucsd.edu/lisn/programs/library-human-resources/academic-review/index.html#academicreview

aka: http://tinyurl.com/ARshortcut

• APM. Academic Personnel Manual – the policy manual for academic appointees in the UC system

• ARPM. Academic Review Procedures Manual – the procedures manual for LAUC-SD (UCSD Librarians)

• MOU. Memorandum of Understanding between UC-AFT and UC

3

Roles*Program Director (PD): summarizes and makes the

recommendation. By definition PD is the Review Initiator (RI).PD may delegate some of the tasks (see ARPM III3b.1-12)

AUL: makes the case with Admin Team. Each AUL has an equal vote.

Two PDs: In cases of split program assignments, the higher % one is the home program. The smaller percentage PD is a required Secondary Evaluator.

*See ARPM Section III A for more on roles & responsibilities

4

PD/RI activities that can be delegated to a Work Leader*Works with the Candidate to establish a calendar to

assure prompt completion of the review fileGathers required documents for assembly into the

Candidate's review fileWrites an evaluation, assessing the value of the

Candidate's accomplishments and contributions, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and recommending measures to be taken to improve performance. [See section IV.C.4.h] 

Ensures that the applicable procedures are being followed and completed, and that the Candidate is able to review and sign all applicable portions of the review file

*See ARPM Sections III A4 and IV C4.g for details 5

Roles*Secondary Evaluators

Request required from: PDs outside of home program for split assignments.

Evaluation covers only area for which s/he has responsibility;

Request optional from: PD or Work Leader within a program where Candidate does

not have an official assignment, but performs some job function (e.g., ‘dotted line’ reports)

Member of a Candidate’s home program who oversees a function of the Candidate’s job but would not have input otherwise (e.g., Work Leaders, coordinators)

May be initiated by Candidate, PD or Secondary Evaluator Optional in terms of asking; required if you are asked to

supply it*See ARPM Section III A for more on roles & responsibilities 6

PreparationLHR formal call in OctoberUnderstand the candidate’s options*

Merit IncreaseCareer statusPromotionDeferred ReviewOff-cycle reviewNo Change

Note the academic review calendar Note electronic filing process

*ARPM Section III B for definitions

7

Meet with candidateSet up a meeting before the referee letter

requests are due (Wednesday, December 1, 2014)Ask the candidate to come prepared with

highlights/biggest accomplishments of the review period

a list of potential letter-writers (limited number)

Ask what they think the recommended action should be

Discuss the letter-writers on their list and what value they might bring to the process

8

Meet with candidateSecondary evaluators’ letters (other PDs, collection

managers, reference desk supervisors)Get letters early from any supervisors who resignDiscuss the up to six accomplishments to focus on in

the self-review narrativeYou may discuss your inclination about the action

that seems most likely, leaving room to change your mind if new information is uncovered in the writing process

Review the processIf the PD requests referee letters, encourage the

candidate to request the redacted letters 9

Referee LettersThe candidate suggests letter-writers but the PD (in consultation

with any delegated evaluation writer) makes the decisionThink strategically:

Consider the letters for this file in the context of the whole career. Don’t get letters from the same people as before; breadth and variety is good

Think especially about B-C-D and areas where you don’t have firsthand information

Limit letter requests !Carefully describe specific area to be addressed (this wording

is directly transcribed into letter requests)

Remember confidentiality: the candidate cannot know whom you ask for letters

10

Study and discussKnow candidate’s comparison/peer group: review the

roster and/or ask LHRReview your documentation. You may choose to

review the candidate’s previous file; the last CAPA and UL letters can be very helpful. However, only the current review file is used for making a recommendation.

Talk to your PD/AUL about the action that makes the most sense to you

Don’t form a solid decision until all documentation is in, but make sure there is tentative agreement -- this is a very consultative process

Take any procedural questions to LHR11

For first-time candidatesAdvise them on the processRecommend that they use their LAUC Buddy

and other colleaguesWork together: all paperwork is considered

draft until it is submittedShare examples (your own?)/encourage them

to gather examples of others in their peer group

Emphasize deadlines

12

Promotion filesAll of the Candidate’s previous review files are

part of this reviewAddress the current review period separately

from the full career reviewAppend a new narrative section that

summarizes the career accomplishments and makes the case for promotion to the end of both the Self-Review (and to the section by a delegated evaluation writer, if there is one)

Slightly longer documents are permitted (but don’t push this too much!)

13

Self-review warm-up

Encourage the candidate to complete the Position Description and Academic Biography right after the letter request as a warm-up for the self-review

14

Position Description One page long, reflecting the job as discussed

in Criterion I.A.Describes the job—not how they spend their

professional timeShould add up to 100%0% is given for outside workEach position description included should

state clearly the time frame it covers for the review period

15

Academic BiographyCAPA has prepared instructions for librarians

http://libraries.ucsd.edu/about/pro/lauc-sd/2_academic_review/index.html

Do not attach a resume or CV This form stays with you throughout your careerDo not submit any actual material (articles,

books)Any standard bibliographic citation format is

acceptableList memberships and continuing education here

to save room in the self-reviewRemember to sign and date it

16

Org Chart

An updated org chart is part of the packet

Responsibility of Program Director

Some candidates may require multiple org charts depending on the magnitude of reorgs in a particular department (S&E, SSHL, etc.)

17

Self-reviews

Remind candidatesDo not assume that any reviewer knows them or knows

the importance of their work • Avoid jargon and acronyms. Spell out acronyms the first

time used in both the bulleted list and the narrative. • Be succinct and to the point• Include only activity that falls within the period under

review• No “double dipping” to highlight accomplishments that

overlap review periodsThe self-review is the candidate’s document. You

may suggest, but they may not want to make changes. 18

Self-reviewsRespect the 5-page limit on the self-review

Enumeration of accomplishments is keyed to the 4 criteria (~1-2 pages)

Narrative discussion of up to 3 of the most significant items within I.A and up to 3 of the most significant items from I.B-I.D (~3-4 pages)

19

Common problems with files

Self-review does not follow formatSelf-review is too longSelf-review includes activities outside of the

review periodInsufficient detail about accomplishments

and impactUncommon acronyms not spelled out

20

Dates to keep in mindJan. 16 - Candidate submits self-review to PDJan. 16 – Secondary evaluator(s) submit

letters to PD

Jan. 31 – Delegated evaluation (if assigned) due to PD

Feb 23 – PD submits Formal Review file to LHR

21

Evaluation GuidelinesSee Appendix VIICriteria A, and B, C or DDiscuss specific evidence of superior performanceParameters such as:

EffectivenessQualityVisibilityContinued growthMeasurable impact(s)ProductivityInnovation

Address any workload imbalances22

Evaluation and RecommendationClearly distinguish any delegated evaluation from the

Program Director’s recommendation. End each section with printed name and signature.

Do not include names of referees in your evaluationWhat you say stays in the file foreverKeep total length of the evaluation and recommendation

to about two pages Be explicit that options not recommended were

considered and discussed (to head off CAPA asking)Negative feedback: written or verbal?During the review process is not the time to bring up

negative feedback with the candidate for the first time. No surprises.

23

Making the caseThe PD evaluation and recommendation make the

case for the recommended action The evaluation should support the recommendation Connect the dots for all readers of the file Choose salient quotes from letters Use firsthand observations Integrate A-B-C-D into a coherent package

Write persuasivelyWrite for a wide audienceWatch the superlativesDirectly address unexpected negative feedback in letters

and any red flagsA summary statement at the end is helpful

24

Writing Exercise Be objectiveBe explicit and clear in your comments

Do not speak in generalities only, give examples

Provide an overall general impression and back it up with concrete examples, observations

Concentrate on overall performanceWhen mentioning negatives concentrate on

recurring issues, not isolated incidentsProvide constructive criticism, if possible

25

Recommending the right actionHow to decide about recommending additional

points?Per Brian: “RIs need to think very, very seriously

when putting a candidate up for acceleration” and “our standard is excellent performance”

Look at the candidate’s comparison/peer groupThink about the precedent/expectations you’ll be

setting within your programThis affects your reputation and reflects your

judgmentIf in doubt, consult with your AUL

26

Recommending additional salary pointsPD’s role

specify on Appendix XI & in the written evaluationRefer to the guidelines in Appendix VIIGreater than expected performance

“Unusual achievement and exceptional promise of growth”

“exceptional” and “demonstrated superior professional skills and achievement”

“Extraordinary contributions”Quality emphasized, not quantityEvident in all aspects normally considered: Criteria A and B,

C or DProvide supporting documentationCraft evaluative language to make the case 27

Review SigningShare a copy of your evaluation with the

candidate in advanceKeep a copy and make one for candidateMake sure you don’t give confidential

letters to candidateFollow LHR procedures for signatures and

submissionMeet the deadline of February 23, 2015

28

AfterwardUL Decision Letter and CAPA

recommendation come to PD (original for the candidate and a copy for PD)

Make a copy for any delegated RI, if desiredPD delivers in person (process may vary

depending on program)LHR sends formal comments to candidate,

PD/RI via email

29

Questions…and please fill out the evaluation

30

CAPA remindersCAPA quorum

3 members of CAPA shall constitute a quorum when reviewing a file

All questions for CAPA go through Doug SpenceAd Hocs

All those in the librarian series with Career Status are eligible to serve on Ad Hocs

There are many files this year and you will probably serve on an Ad Hoc

An Ad Hoc is review group and is as important as the other reviewers

The responsibilities of an Ad Hoc may be found in ARPM ARPM IV.D 2-4

31