Best Practices for Department Heads and Review Initiators Steps to a Great Academic Review!

1. Best Practices for Department Heads and Review Initiators Steps to a Great Academic Review! a LAUC-SD/CAPA Workshop2009

2. Goals of this Workshop By sharing the best practices of experienced department heads 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

3. Documents you should know about http://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

4. Roles* • Review Initiator (RI): does most of the evaluation and writing • Department Head (DH): summarizes and makes the decision/recommendation • AUL: 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 letters • Need to talk, plan, and agree! *See ARPM Section III for details

5. Preparation • LHR formal call in October • Understand the candidate’s options • Merit Increase • Career status • Promotion • Acceleration • Deferred Review • Off-cycle review • No Change • Distinguished Step (advancement to Librarian VI) • Note the academic review calendar • Note electronic filing process

6. Study & Discuss • Know candidate’s comparison/peer group: review the Roster and/or ask LHR • Know who’s on CAPA • Review 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 LHR

7. Meet with candidate • Set up a meeting before the letter requests are due • 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 candidate • Coordinator 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 process • Encourage candidate to get redacted letters

9. Letters • The candidate suggests letter-writers but the DH (in consultation with the RI) makes the decision • Think 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 letters

10. For First-time Candidates • Advise on the process; coaching, handholding • (Promote attending the workshops by LHR and CAPA) • Recommend using their LAUC Buddy, other colleagues • Work together: all paperwork is considered draft until it’s submitted • Share examples (your own?) • Emphasize deadlines

11. Promotion Files • Address the current review period separately from the full career review • Append 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!)

12. 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

13. Academic Biography Form • New in 2008—so it may take more time • Read CAPA’s instructions for librarians • Do not attach a resume or CV • Do not submit any actual material (articles, books) • Any standard bibliographic citation format is acceptable • The “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

14. Org Chart • Updated org chart is part of the packet • Responsibility of Dept Head/Review Initiator

15. Self-Reviews • Work together on self-review – try iterative drafts • Remind 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

16. NewINFO Self-Reviews

17. Common Problems with Files • Self-review does not follow format • Self-review is too long • Self-review includes activities outside of the review period • Insufficient detail about accomplishments • Uncommon acronyms not spelled out

18. Recommending the right action • How 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 group • Think about the precedent/expectations you’ll be setting within your department • This affects your reputation and reflects your judgment

19. RI/DH Evaluation • Clearly 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 forever • Keep length to two pages New • Be explicit that options not recommended were considered and discussed • Negative feedback: written or verbal? • No surprises

20. Making the case • The RI/DH evaluation makes the case • 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 evaluatively: the “so what?” factor • Write persuasively • Write for a wide audience • Watch the superlatives • Directly address unexpected negative feedback in letters and any red flags • A summary statement at the end is helpful

21. Signing Ceremony • Share a copy of your evaluation with the candidate in advance • Keep a copy and make one for candidate • Make sure you don’t give confidential letters to candidate • Follow LHR procedures for signatures and submission • Meet the deadline

22. Afterward • UL 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

23. Questions… and please fill out the Evaluation