Procedures for Annual Merit Evaluation of Faculty
PPD-1303
PPD Number: 1303
Title: Procedures for Annual Merit Evaluation of Faculty
Responsible Office: Dean & Director
Effective Date: December 2006
Last Update: January 12, 2026
I. Scope:
This policy and procedure document (PPD) applies to all faculty positions with a primary appointment within William & Mary’s (W&M) Batten School of Coastal & Marine Sciences (Batten School) & Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS).
II. Purpose & Policy Statement
This PPD outlines the procedures for the annual merit evaluations of all Tenured/Tenure-eligible (TTE) Faculty, Full-time, Non-tenure-eligible (NTE) Faculty, Full-time Visiting NTE faculty, Part-time NTE (Adjunct) Faculty, and Post-doctoral Fellows. Annual evaluations are central to faculty career development and should be a constructive and useful exercise for the faculty member, supervisors, and institute. Evaluations should be centered on an individual’s specific profile within the context of a set of consistent parameters and expectations – balancing the assessment of accomplishments and performance via qualitative and quantitative means.
III. Procedures for Annual Merit Evaluation of TTE and Full-time NTE Faculty
1. Section Chairs shall conduct annual merit evaluations of their respective faculty consistent with the William & Mary Faculty Handbook. For faculty within Centers, Section Chairs have ultimate authority for evaluations, which should be developed collaboratively with Center Directors. This input should include a letter of input from the Center Director to the Section Chair and a meeting between both parties focused on discussing the faculty member’s performance towards Center objectives. Annual evaluations for faculty with administrative roles (for example Center Directors; see PPD-1310 for details) shall be primarily conducted by the Section Chair, with input from the faculty member’s administrative supervisor for the administration component of the evaluation. Annual evaluations of faculty shall be delivered to the Dean & Director by the Section Chair, according to the deadline and procedures outlined by the administration in a memo to the faculty. Section Chairs themselves shall be evaluated directly by the Dean & Director.
3. It is important that the Section Chair (together with the faculty member’s supervisor, if different from the Section Chair) foster long-term faculty development for senior faculty and mentoring of junior faculty during the annual evaluation process to ensure alignment with the evaluation factors considered for promotion and tenure review (as outlined in PPD 1308). The annual evaluation is to be based on the goals, objectives, and allocation of effort in the previous year’s planning statement, and how accomplishments compare to other faculty across the institute. Situations may arise in the course of a year where the agreed upon effort, goals, and objectives may be modified to meet altered responsibilities or new opportunities. Any changes should result in a new planning statement developed with the Section Chair and in consultation with the ADRAS, ADAA, and Center Directors and/or Administrative Supervisors (if applicable). The new, approved planning statement should become part of the evaluation documentation along with the original planning statement.
4. Section Chairs shall evaluate both the quality and quantity of the faculty member’s activities in each of the five evaluation areas using the following guidelines.
Exceeds Expectations: This rating shall be awarded to a faculty member who is deemed truly outstanding in his or her effort and performance in a given evaluation area.
Meets Expectations High: This rating shall be awarded to a faculty member who exhibits above normal effort and performance, and on occasion exemplary performance in a given evaluation area.
Meets Expectations: This rating shall be awarded to a faculty member who exhibits normal effort and performance expected of faculty in a given evaluation area.
Meet Expectations Low: This rating shall be awarded to a faculty member whose effort and performance in a given evaluation area is generally below the performance expected of faculty.
Does Not Meet Expectations: This rating shall be awarded to a faculty member whose effort and performance in a given evaluation area is often below and occasionally substantially below the performance expected of faculty.
In each instance, both the quality and quantity of the faculty member’s activities in each of the five evaluation areas shall be evaluated relative to the allocation of effort reflected in a faculty member’s annual profile, and relative to the faculty across the institute. It is the responsibility of the Section Chairs to work together to discuss how criteria will be applied consistently across the institute in assessing annual performance, and explain these criteria to their section faculty.
Section Chairs, and the Dean & Director in the case of Section Chair evaluations, will receive input from the ADAA for Education evaluations, and the ADRAS for Advisory Service to Virginia evaluations. They will also receive input from the faculty members’ Administrative Supervisor for any administrative role outlined in the planning statement.
5. The Section Chair shall award one of the following evaluation outcomes with the associated scores to each area of evaluation for each faculty member: Does Not Meet Expectations (1.0); Meets Expectations Low (1.5); Meets Expectations (2.0); Meets Expectations High (2.5); Exceeds Expectations (3.0). A cumulative score shall be determined by summing the product of each area’s score (Research and Professional Service, Advisory Service to Virginia, Education, Governance, and Administration) multiplied by the respective percent effort allocation in the faculty member’s previous year’s planning statement. The final sum, rounded to the nearest decimal, is the faculty member’s annual merit evaluation score.
For example, if a faculty member’s planning statement allocated 60% to Research and Professional Service, 15% to Advisory Service to Virginia, 20% to Education, 5% to Governance, and 0% to Administration, and the Section Chair’s evaluation of the faculty member’s performance in the non-0% categories was Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations, Exceeds Expectations, and Meets Expectations, respectively, the annual merit evaluation score rounded to one decimal would be 2.4 (0.60x2 + 0.15x3 + 0.20x3 + 0.05x2 + 0.00x0 = 1.20 + 0.45 + 0.60 + 0.10 + 0.00 = 2.35).
6. The maximum cumulative score for an annual evaluation would be 3.0 for “Exceeds Expectations” in all categories. Receiving a “Meets Expectations” in all categories would result in a cumulative score of 2.0. Not meeting expectations in all categories would result in the minimum evaluation score of 1.0. Any evaluation score between 1.0 and 3.0 is possible. Barring extenuating circumstances, a post-tenure review will be triggered for tenured faculty when a faculty member receives an unsatisfactory overall performance over three consecutive years (see PPD-1308). An unsatisfactory overall performance occurs when a faculty member has an annual merit evaluation score of 1.5 or less over three consecutive years. The Section Chair will be responsible for informing both the faculty member and the FS&TR committee when a post-tenure review has been triggered.
7. The Section Chair (together with the faculty member’s supervisor, if different from the Section Chair) and each faculty member may meet more than once during the evaluation process to discuss the faculty member’s activity, documents, planning statement, etc. When the Section Chair has completed their evaluations of all Section faculty, they will meet with each faculty member to explain the basis for the scores received in each evaluation area. At that meeting, the Section Chair shall provide each faculty member the distribution of scores for the entire Section. Each faculty member shall be afforded an opportunity of seeing their written evaluation at least two weeks prior to the delivery of the evaluation to the Dean & Director.
8. Each faculty member has the right to challenge their evaluation. The faculty member shall present it in writing to their Section Chair with sufficient time for the chair to respond and still meet the Dean and Director’s deadline for submission of the annual evaluation. If agreement cannot be reached between the faculty member and Section Chair, the faculty member’s challenge, the response of the Section Chair to the challenge, and the Section Chair’s evaluation shall be forwarded to the Dean & Director for resolution.
9. It is understood that from time to time an individual faculty member may have extenuating circumstances that affect their performance. The Section Chair and the Dean & Director will consider the implications of these circumstances regarding annual performance as appropriate.
IV. Procedures for Annual Merit Evaluation of Full-time Visiting NTE Faculty, Part-time NTE Faculty (Adjunct Professors), and Post-doctoral Fellows
1. Supervisors shall work with new employees in these categories to develop a plan of work for the contracted period to outline the goals, objectives, allocation of effort, and expectations of the position that is similar in structure to planning statements submitted by TTE and Full-time NTE Faculty. The plan should be based on the supervisor’s or institute’s needs and expectations of the position, considering opportunities for professional development as possible. The plan for all employees shall be submitted by the supervisor to the Dean & Director’s office within 3 months of the start of the contract.
2. When an employee in these categories is due to be evaluated (see the Policy on Evaluation of Post-doctoral Fellows and Part-time NTE Faculty), the supervisor and faculty member will be notified in writing by the Dean & Director’s office at least two months before the due date. Evaluations will normally be due in the April-May timeframe.
3. Upon notification of the need and timeline for evaluation, the employee will submit to their supervisor a brief narrative (0.5 to 3 pages in length) describing accomplishments and impacts for the period being evaluated. This narrative should address the goals, objectives, expectations, and effort allocation outlined in the plan.
4. The supervisor will write a letter of evaluation (0.5 to 3 pages in length) for the employee based upon the narrative, plan, and other appropriate measures of quality and quantity of work. Examples may include, but are not limited to, student course evaluations, developed syllabi, professional development, publications, conference presentations, grants awarded, and other scholarly products. The evaluation is to be based on the goals, objectives, expectations, and allocation of effort in the plan and shall include one of the five overall qualitative ratings described in Section III.
5. Upon completion of the evaluation, the supervisor will provide the evaluation letter to the employee for their review a few days prior to meeting with the employee to discuss outcomes, next steps, and the plan for the coming year. In the case an employee challenges a point or finds a mistake in the letter, they can request a revision or further review. The supervisor has the final authority on the evaluation, but the employee shall be allowed to append comments to the evaluation if they desire.
6. After the meeting, the supervisor shall submit the evaluation letter and the new plan to the Dean & Director’s office.
7. It is understood that from time to time an individual may have extenuating circumstances that affect performance. The supervisor will consider the implications of these circumstances regarding performance as appropriate.