Best Practices for Department Heads and

Review Initiators

Steps to a Great Academic Review!

a LAUC-SD/CAPA Workshop2009

1

Goals of this WorkshopBy sharing the best practices of experienced

department heads and review initiators, we intend to:

Raise your confidence in preparing academic reviewsGive 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 abouthttp://gort.ucsd.edu/lauc/review/workshop.html• 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)• LAUC Position Paper No. 1 “Criteria for

Appointment, Promotion and Advancement in the Librarian Series”

• LAUC Position Paper No. 3 “Documentation Guidelines for the Review of Librarians”

• MOU – Memorandum of Understanding between UC AFT and UC

3

Roles*Review Initiator (RI): does most of the evaluation and

writingDepartment Head (DH): summarizes and makes the

decision/recommendationAUL: your ally, makes the case with Admin Team. Ask

early on about their role: active? keep informed?Two Supervisors: If candidate has two supervisors,

higher % is the “home” dept. If candidate reports 50/50, supervisors decide together about recommendation NEW

“Dotted line” reports: Contribute coordinator’s lettersNeed to talk, plan, and agree!

*See ARPM Section III for details

4

PreparationLHR formal call in OctoberUnderstand the candidate’s options

Merit IncreaseCareer statusPromotionAccelerationDeferred ReviewOff-cycle reviewNo ChangeDistinguished Step (advancement to Librarian VI)

Note the academic review calendar Note electronic filing process

5

Study & DiscussKnow candidate’s comparison/peer group: review the

Roster and/or ask LHRKnow who’s on CAPAReview your documentation. You may choose to

review the candidate’s previous file (use LHR’s copy.) However, only the current review file is used for making a recommendation

Talk to your DH/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 questions to LHR6

Meet with candidateSet up a meeting before the letter requests are

dueAsk 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

7

Meet with candidateCoordinator letters (collection managers,

reference desk supervisors) Are they required in your library?

Come to agreement about the “three things” (“six things”) to focus on in the self-review narrative

Reveal (or not) 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 processEncourage candidate to get redacted letters

8

LettersThe candidate suggests letter-writers but the DH (in

consultation with the RI) 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

who you ask for letters9

For First-time CandidatesAdvise on the process; coaching, handholding(Promote attending the workshops by LHR

and CAPA)Recommend using their LAUC Buddy, other

colleaguesWork together: all paperwork is considered

draft until it’s submittedShare examples (your own?)Emphasize deadlines

10

Promotion FilesAddress the current review period separately

from the full career reviewAppend to the end of both the Self-Review

and the RI Review a new narrative section that summarizes the career accomplishments and makes the case for promotion

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

11

Position Description Encourage completing the position description

and academic biography form right after the letter request as a warm-up for the self review

One page long, reflecting your job as discussed in Criteria IA

Describes your job—not how you are spending your professional time

Should add up to 100%0% is given for outside work

12

Academic Biography FormNew in 2008—so it may take more time Read CAPA’s instructions for librariansDo not attach a resume or CVDo not submit any actual material (articles, books)Any standard bibliographic citation format is

acceptableThe “base form” will stay with you throughout

your career at UCSD, so use judgment about how much to include

List memberships here to save room in self review

13

Org Chart

Updated org chart is part of the packet

Responsibility of Dept Head/Review Initiator

14

Self-ReviewsWork together on self-review – try iterative draftsRemind candidates

Don’t assume file readers know who they are or what they do

Give some context in the self-review – the ‘so what?’ factor

Respect the 5 page limit on the self-review Enumeration of accomplishments keyed to the 4 criteria

(~1-2 pages) Narrative discussion of approximately 3 of the most

significant items within IA and approximately 3 from IB-ID (~3-4 pages)

Candidate should include furlough status in section III Other Factors Related to Performance. CAPA Chair will suggest language 15

Self-Reviews NEWINF

O

16

Common Problems with Files

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

review periodInsufficient detail about accomplishmentsUncommon acronyms not spelled out

17

Recommending the right actionHow to decide about acceleration

Per Brian: “RIs need to think very, very seriously when putting a candidate up for acceleration”

Case-making is easier if not combined with other actions (e.g., career status or promotion)

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

be setting within your departmentThis affects your reputation and reflects your

judgment18

RI/DH EvaluationClearly distinguish the voice of the Review

Initiator from that of the Department Head. End each section with printed name and signature

Do not include names of references in your evaluation

What you say stays in the file foreverKeep length to two pages NEWBe explicit that options not recommended were

considered and discussed Negative feedback: written or verbal?No surprises

19

Making the caseThe RI/DH evaluation makes the caseConnect the dots for all readers of the fileChoose salient quotes from lettersUse firsthand observations Integrate A-B-C-D into a coherent packageWrite evaluatively: the “so what?” factorWrite persuasivelyWrite for a wide audienceWatch the superlativesDirectly address unexpected negative feedback in letters

and any red flagsA summary statement at the end is helpful

20

Signing CeremonyShare 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

21

AfterwardUL Decision Letter comes to DH (original for

the candidate and a copy for DH)Make a copy for RI if desired; RI delivers in

person (process may vary depending on department)

LHR now sends format comments to candidate, RI and DH via email

It can be helpful for DH and RI to see the CAPA letter; request from LHR

Get letters early from any supervisors who resign

22

Questions…and please fill out the Evaluation

23