Skip to main content

Employee Evaluation

Employee Evaluation

Business Affairs
Date enacted or revised: 
Revised December 2014, Effective January 2015.

I. Administrative Evaluations

The Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System requires that each institution evaluate each faculty member and administrator on an annual basis, and that the evaluation be filed in appropriate personnel files.  Official job descriptions and procedures for evaluation of administrative performance for University employees are available in the Office of Human Resources.  Administrators are evaluated annually by peers, supervisors, respective staffs and by persons with whom they interact in performing their administrative duties.  Evaluation results are shared with the employee.

II. Dean and Department Head Evaluations

Deans and department heads are evaluated by faculty within the college/department.  In addition, deans and department heads/directors participate in Administrative Performance and Effectiveness Evaluations every year.  This process allows the faculty a voice in evaluating their indirect and direct supervisors, and allows peer employees with whom administrators work an opportunity to evaluate performance.  Evaluations are administered by the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness each year.  Evaluation results are reviewed by the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs and shared with the respective dean.  The dean, in turn, discusses results with the respective department head.  Deans are evaluated for job performance by the Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs.

III. Evaluations - Non-Classified Staff

Non-classified, non-faculty personnel participate in an Annual Employee Performance Review.  Each employee is evaluated on performance of the major job functions applicable to the job position.  Employees participate in an annual planning session to set objectives for the unit. Job performance evaluations are conducted and then the employee discusses the performance rating with the immediate supervisor.  If necessary, a written improvement plan is developed for improving below performance requirement ratings.  The employee and immediate supervisor sign the evaluation.  Then the next level supervisor must review and sign the performance rating.  Evaluation documents are provided to the employee, and they are maintained in the Human Resources office and placed in appropriate departmental files.

IV. Faculty Evaluation Policy (Based on University of Louisiana System Rules)
Revision Effective January 2015

McNeese State University is committed to the principle that meritorious performance in teaching, research and service should be rewarded and that faculty are accountable for their job performance. To support the MSU mission and goals related to excellence in teaching, research and service, faculty participate in the Annual Performance Report (APR) which includes evaluation of teaching, scholarly activity/research, and service and a Performance Level rating.  The APR determines merit level and ranking for faculty within each college.  Effective with the Spring 2004 APR, and in accordance with University of Louisiana System policy number FS-III.X.D-1, "faculty will undergo evaluation to ensure their academic performance is commensurate with their rank and status, and that they remain accountable for their academic performance to the university and the larger community." The APR consists of two measures for each component of teaching, scholarly/professional activity, and service. The APR measures:
  1. Performance level, achieved as "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory," and
  2. Job Effectiveness/Productivity in teaching, scholarly activity/research, and service which is ranked among faculty in the department and college.

Performance level is determined by the faculty member's accountability to his/her job responsibilities and expectations as described in McNeese State University Policies as well as specific departmental and college guidelines. Performance Level, (including the evaluation of collegiality) is independent of merit rankings Category I, Category II or Category III, which are achieved on a competitive basis.  A “satisfactory” Performance Level is a precondition for consideration for awarding merit pay regardless of merit rank, and is required for application for tenure or promotion.
Part-time faculty and faculty with temporary appointments must be evaluated by the department head each semester in order to assess teaching performance and to provide a basis for employment decisions.  The evaluation process for part-time faculty and temporary faculty focuses on classroom performance and other criteria consistent with the stated employment obligations.  Evaluations must be documented and discussed with the faculty member and documentation maintained in the departmental office.

A. Annual Performance Review (APR): Performance Level

The following categories are considered as part of the APR.

At a minimum each faculty member must meet basic job responsibilities and expectations described in University policies and assigned by the department head. Failure to meet minimum expectations for effective teaching and instructional duties, scholarly/professional activity, service, and collegiality will result in unsatisfactory performance level.
Faculty are expected to demonstrate commitment to excellence in teaching. In the area of teaching, performance level factors for basic job expectations include activities relating to assisting students in meeting their academic goals, meeting classes regularly, creating and following syllabi as noted in the University Policies, meeting course objectives, being prepared for classes, using available technology resources to enhance instruction when appropriate, advising/ mentoring/assisting students as they progress through their academic program and college experience, and achieving appropriate student learning outcomes and student success rates, as well as other indicators of excellence in teaching and/or accreditation requirements.  Student evaluation of instruction and at least 3 other components related to teaching are included in this evaluation.

Scholarly Activity/Research
Factors for consideration of performance and merit-level for scholarly/professional activity include the items indicated in the departmental or college APR.  College or departmental expectations for scholarly/professional activity may address specific requirements related to accreditation or discipline specific criteria.

Factors for consideration of performance and merit level for service include the items indicated in the APR such as University, college, or departmental service on committees, as well as community work related to the discipline in which the faculty member is teaching. 
McNeese State University requires all members of the academic community to maintain an atmosphere of collegiality. Collegiality refers to behavior that is professional, cooperative and respectful in a manner consistent with being a productive citizen of the department, college, and University.  Collegiality applies across instruction, research, and service, and serves as one of several criteria that may be related to the “satisfactory” performance level.   Non-collegial behavior is that which does not meet the definition of collegiality as stated above and detracts from the productivity of faculty and staff.  Respectful disagreement and infrequent/isolated incidents of discord should not be designated as non-collegial behavior.  Civil discussion related to differences of opinion and diverse views are crucial to the health of any academic environment.  Examples of non-collegial behavior include but are not limited to:
  • Frequently insulting other faculty members in front of students; or frequently insulting students in front of others
  • Consistently lacking involvement in faculty meetings, university events, and employment responsibilities
  • Regularly being unwilling to offer minimal assistance to other faculty members, the department, or college when expertise, help, or advice is requested
Every faculty member is evaluated by departmental faculty colleagues, at least once every three (3) years for professionalism and collegiality consistent with being a productive citizen of the department, college, and University Community.  Department heads include the collegiality ratings in the performance level rating of faculty when results are available. Deans include the collegiality ratings in the performance level rating for department heads when results are available.

B. APR: Job Effectiveness/Productivity General Overview (Merit, Promotion and Tenure)

Overview of process.

Annual Evaluation
The APR is conducted each Spring and is based on the previous calendar year's job performance (Spring, Fall). The APR and Performance Level rating are the basic evaluation information for decisions concerning renewal of appointment, merit pay, promotion, and tenure.  Department heads combine quantitative and qualitative data to arrive at APR scores which are ranked relative to peer performance in the department and/or college.  Qualitative data may include the department head's observations and measure of work ethic and professional activities.  A copy of the APR form is available from the department head.

Faculty Complete APR Document
A faculty member must furnish his/her department head with written/documented material substantiating activities considered to be meritorious and/or indicating accountability for job expectations.  Faculty members are responsible for timely submission and accuracy of the information included in the APR. The academic calendar reflects dates for APR submission.

Option to Not Participate in APR
A faculty member may decline to participate in the APR for merit; however, the faculty member must state this option in writing to the department head. Any faculty member who does not participate in the APR must, nevertheless, be evaluated for level of job performance and must participate in Student Evaluation of Instruction. Faculty who do not participate in the APR will not be eligible for salary increases, tenure, or promotion. Faculty who do not participate in the APR must participate in student evaluation of instruction and may be evaluated solely on student evaluation of instruction and the department head’s determination of performance level, including collegiality.

Merit Ranking/Category
Merit category is directly related to the level of merit pay (salary increase) if merit is funded;  APR and Performance Level results are considered in appointment renewal, promotion, and tenure decisions.

C. Specific Components for APR and Performance level

The APR consists of three broad categories with weighted components.  An additional component for collegiality is considered every 3rd year in the Performance Level rating to ensure the faculty member demonstrates professionalism and collegiality consistent with being a productive citizen of the department, college, and University Community. Each component is  included when determining Performance level and APR score. Faculty are responsible for consulting with the department head for specific APR expectations within the department and college. Faculty must be informed of the evaluation components. When APR results of one year are discussed, expectations for the upcoming evaluation period should be communicated. The categories are:

Teaching (50%)
APR is measured by SEI and three related components. The teaching component includes previous two semester's SEI results-generally the spring and fall prior to the spring evaluation period. (New faculty hires will have one semester of SEI available.) SEI and three additional components related to effective instructional delivery must be included in evaluation of the teaching component for determining both the Performance level and Merit.

Items that may be considered in the APR include but are not limited to:
  • High SEI results;
  • Innovative practices in teaching writing enriched courses;
  • Quality Enhancement Plan activities included in instruction;
  • Freshmen Foundations activities included in instruction;
  • quality advising;
  • examples of innovative instruction techniques or activities with positive results for student success;
  • course review and summary activities;
  • examples of innovative use of technology (other than web or hybrid course instruction),
  • student enrollment patterns (withdrawals/trends),
  • student success rates, etc.
  • (APR items may be included in determining performance level.)
Performance level is an indication of the faculty member's accountability for meeting University, college, and departmental expectations for academic performance and responsibilities. Performance level for the teaching component must be indicated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  Faculty must meet basic job expectations to achieve satisfactory Performance level.  Factors determining the Performance level may include:
  • meeting department or college established threshold score on SEI;
  • maintaining  throughout the semester appropriate office hours at different times of the day on different days of the week in order to be accessible to students;
  • course syllabi which include required elements according to MSU Handbook, college, or department guidelines;
  • examinations;
  • use of technology to enhance course delivery where appropriate;
  • posting syllabus on Moodle or other electronic sites as required;
  • and other duties as assigned.

Scholarly/Professional Activities (40%)
APR is measured by documented Scholarly/Professional Activity. Faculty must be informed of the evaluation components. Elements of evaluation include documented scholarly/professional activity contributing to the discipline such as publications, presentations, or applied research. In the creative fields such as music, theatre, and art, performance and juried exhibitions are appropriate. In evaluating scholarly/professional work the department head must evaluate the quality of publications (refereed, etc.), presentations (national, regional, state, local, etc.), or juried artistic productions rather than focus solely on quantity. Professional involvement in the K-12 system which leads to documented applied research or presentation at professional meetings may be considered. Scholarly/Professional activity must include documentation indicating a contribution which advances the profession. External grants or internal Shearman Research grants selected competitively for funding should receive greater weight than internal grants for scholarly/professional activity. APR and Performance level expectations for scholarly/professional activities are commensurate with reassigned time and/or other components of job expectations. When APR results of one year are discussed, expectations for the upcoming evaluation period should be communicated.
Performance level for scholarly productivity may be related to accreditation expectations and/or specific departmental criteria. Performance level must be indicated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

University and Public Service (10%)
APR Measures for Service activities may span a broad spectrum. Faculty are expected to participate in and contribute to committee work at the departmental, college, and university level. Participation in lead roles for accreditation efforts must be considered. In addition, faculty who represent the University in their discipline-specific role in ways to contribute to university/community linkages should receive consideration for service merit. Performance level expectations are similar to those for the APR. Faculty must be informed of expectations for University and public service. When APR results of one year are discussed, expectations for the upcoming evaluation period should be communicated.
Performance level must be indicated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory according to departmental guidelines.

Weighting the APR Components: Individual colleges/departments may adopt a plan that deviates from the above no more than + 10% for any APR category, but no category may have a factor less than 10%. The total must add up to 100%. Deans and department heads are expected to set goals and objectives for their respective units and to document faculty input for the plan adopted.  Under this plan, individual faculty members, after consultation with the department head and after receiving approval for departures from the department's guidelines, may deviate + 10% from those guidelines, providing the final factors are within the University guidelines.  For example, teaching may be weighted 60% for faculty who do not received reassigned time; scholarly activity may be weighted 20% and service 20%.  If a faculty member received reassigned time for scholarly activity the scholarly component should be weighted at least 50%.
Faculty members are expected to demonstrate professionalism and collegiality consistent the University’s expectations for effective interpersonal communications, fulfillment of assigned duties and responsibilities, and collaborations that support the goals of the department, college, and University Community.

D. APR and Performance Level Evaluation Procedure

The following describes the performance level evaluation procedure.

Faculty member submits the completed APR and supporting documentation to the department head
The department head reviews all submitted materials and other relevant information to the faculty member's job performance.  Each department must have a template for evaluating APR information.  The department head must review the information submitted on the template and indicate the following in accordance with departmental criteria: 1) the Performance level (satisfactory or unsatisfactory) for each component, and 2) the faculty member's APR ranking among other faculty members in the department.  The department head discusses Performance level and APR results with each faculty member, but does not indicate Category I, II, or III determination. The department head does not assign merit level scores until all faculty are reviewed; the information is submitted to the dean of the college for review.

Department head submits faculty APR results to the dean
After the APR information is forwarded to the dean, the dean evaluates all faculty performance and recommends merit or category I, II, or III ranking.  Each college should have no more than 25% of the faculty in the college in Category I, 65% in Category II, and 10% in Category III.  Faculty eligible in the merit ranking include fulltime faculty (including directors/coordinators within the college) who are continuing service in the upcoming fiscal year. Academic department heads are not counted in the percentage ranking. Job performance level is independent of merit/category ranking and is not subject to merit/category ranking percentages.

Deans Complete APR for Each Department Head
Deans determine merit category for the academic department heads in the college.  Department heads are evaluated on a combination of elements to include administrative performance evaluation, teaching, service, collegiality (every 3rd year), and to a limited degree, scholarly activity. Department heads must be aware of the components of evaluation and expectations of their job performance.
APR Information Forwarded to the Provost/VPAA and President
Deans and departments heads discuss faculty merit  category ranking and department head merit category ranking  and Performance Level rating with the Vice President and President.

Faculty are Informed of Merit Category  by Department Head
After all APR results have been discussed with the dean, provost and President, the Office of Academic and Student Affairs sends approved APRs and merit category assignments to each dean.  The dean provides the information to the department heads who inform faculty of Performance level and the merit category assignment.

APR Appeal at College Level
If the faculty member disagrees with any part of the department head's or dean's evaluation, within 10 days the faculty member must request a conference which will include all parties concerned (faculty member, department head, and dean) to attempt to resolve the difference.

APR Appeal at University Level
If no resolution for an APR that is appealed is reached within the college, the faculty member may appeal to the Provost/Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs within 10 calendar days of the conference held at the college level. If the faculty member does not agree with the Provost’s recommendations he/she may appeal to the Ad Hoc Merit and Promotion Council within 10 days. The Council is appointed by the President and is composed of one tenured faculty member from each college and one from the library.  At least one member of the Council must represent the Faculty Senate. The Council will forward its recommendations and all applicable information with the APR to the President, who will make a final ruling on the recommendations within a reasonable time (not to exceed 90 days).

Faculty Sign Completed APR
Annual Performance Reports, which include a statement indicating Performance level and merit category rank must be signed by the faculty member, the department head, and the dean. These reports are placed in departmental and college personnel files.  Only results of APR merit category rankings (not supporting documentation) are maintained in the Office of Academic and Student Affairs.

E. Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory Performance level

Descriptions of satisfactory and unsatisfactory levels.

Satisfactory Level
Faculty must achieve a satisfactory performance level in teaching, and an additional satisfactory performance level in one of the two other APR components (scholarship or service) to achieve an overall “satisfactory level” of performance.  Collegiality evaluations may be considered in overall performance level ratings if the collegiality evaluation indicates a need for improvement.    A minimum of two of the APR components must be satisfactory and teaching must be one of the two in order to achieve a "satisfactory level."  In addition, in years when collegiality evaluations are available, the faculty member must achieve a 3 or above for the collegiality evaluation in order to achieve a satisfactory rating. 

Unsatisfactory Level
An unsatisfactory performance level indicates the need for improvement.  Although not required, it is recommended that a documented improvement plan be developed when an unsatisfactory performance level is earned.  Required action resulting from unsatisfactory review:
  1. After two (2) consecutive unsatisfactory reviews or three (3) unsatisfactory reviews in a five (5) year period, tenured faculty shall be subject to mandatory remediation. The plan for remediation should be developed by the department head in conjunction with the faculty member and dean. Non-tenured faculty or tenure track faculty will not be considered for renewal of appointment.
  2. If the faculty member and department head cannot agree on the plan of remediation, tenured faculty in the department will develop a plan of remediation.
  3. In those cases where the faculty member, department head and dean cannot agree on the plan of remediation (referred to in section 2 above), the Chief Academic Officer shall determine the final provisions of the plan based on the recommendations by the department head and tenured faculty in the department.
  4. If the faculty member has not achieved significant improvement in performance after a minimum of two (2) years of remediation, a recommendation for dismissal may be made.
  5. A recommendation for dismissal automatically will trigger a review by tenured faculty in the department. Based on all recommendations, including that of tenured faculty in the department, the Chief Academic Officer may recommend that the University President or his/her designees institute proceedings for removal for cause including proper due process.
  6. For any provision of this procedure that requires participation by a group or committee of tenured faculty in the department, and the number of department faculty is insufficient, tenured faculty from outside the department shall be selected to participate in the process.  Appointments of faculty from outside the department require the approval of the Chief Academic Officer.
  7. In certain cases, the University President must exercise discretion as to whether to refer the matter of dismissal to a separate dismissal for cause. This may be done without reference to or at any time during the procedures described in the APR and determination of Performance level.
Revised December 2014;  Effective January 2015