Steps in Conducting Performance Evaluation


1. Faculty member submits to Chair or other evaluator:

a. a completed Faculty Data Form reporting information about his/her activities during the
evaluation period and indicating how goals and objectives previously set for the period
have been achieved;

b. an updated C.V.;

c. (recommended) a self-evaluation using a copy of the Faculty Evaluation Form;

d. proposed goals and objectives for the next evaluation period.

2. Evaluator completes Faculty Evaluation Form by:

a. recording the weight as a percent previously determined for each area of responsibility
(Teaching, Research and Scholarship, Service, Patient Care);

b. writing comments describing the quality of the performance in each area of responsibility,
based upon the Faculty Data Form and the previously set goals and objectives, and of the
overall performance;

c. based on these written comments, assigning a rating (Exemplary, Satisfactory,
Unsatisfactory) to each area of responsibility and to the overall performance;

d. in consultation with the faculty member, establishing and recording goals and objectives
for next the evaluation period.

3. Evaluator gives the proposed evaluation to the faculty member in advance of the face-to-face
review meeting between them, allowing sufficient time for the faculty member to reflect and

4. Evaluator meets with the faculty member:

a. The evaluator and the faculty member meet to discuss the proposed evaluation and to
agree upon weightings of areas of responsibility and goals and objectives for the next
evaluation period.

b. If appropriate, the evaluator may amend the evaluation following the meeting with the
faculty member.

c. The faculty member should be strongly encouraged to write comments on or attached to
the Faculty Evaluation Form, especially in response to negative aspects and/or an overall
unsatisfactory rating which is appealable under the current UMDNJ/AAUP Agreement.

d. The faculty member must sign the evaluation, which indicates only that she/he has
reviewed the evaluation.

5. Copies of the final evaluation go to the faculty member, the evaluator and the Dean’s Office.

Instructions for Using the NJDS, NJMS, RWJMS, SN, SOM, SPH
Faculty Performance Evaluation Form

The evaluation of faculty performance is one of the most important functions of department chairs,
division directors and other evaluators. When done properly, the performance evaluation process should e an effective means of improving performance, motivating faculty members to reach higher levels of achievement, communicating expectations and dealing with performance-related problems. It is incumbent upon evaluators to be both fair and constructive. Evaluations that are too harsh can result in unproductive anger and a demotivated faculty member; evaluations that are too generous can lead to complacency and lack of progress.
Evaluations must contain sufficient written commentary to explain the assigned ratings, especially if there is an unsatisfactory rating or if improvement is needed. Each faculty member being evaluated should submit an updated curriculum vitae to his/her evaluator. In addition, each faculty member being evaluated should complete and submit a Faculty Data Form reporting information about his/her activities during the evaluation period and indicating how the goals
and objectives previously set for the current evaluation period have been achieved. If additional
quantitative measures are applicable for the faculty member, those data should be attached separately or included in the additional space provided. Finally, it is recommended that each faculty member be asked to submit a self-evaluation of his/her performance using a copy of the Faculty Evaluation Form. As part of the self-evaluation, the faculty member should develop proposed goals and objectives for the following evaluation period and include them in the appropriate section of the evaluation form.

Once the updated curriculum vitae, Faculty Data Form and self-evaluation have been submitted, the
evaluator should follow the steps below in completing the evaluation form. Be sure to consider and attach to the form a copy of the goals and objectives for this evaluation period which were set last year.
1. The Faculty Evaluation Form provides separate sections for the four general areas of responsibility
for faculty members, namely, Teaching, Research and Scholarship, Service and Patient Care. The
relative importance of the responsibilities in each of the four evaluation areas and a weight
reflecting that relative importance for each area should have been established last year in
discussion with the faculty member. (Note that the weights assigned should reflect the importance
of the area of responsibility within the totality of the individual’s duties and responsibilities, not
the relative time commitment to that area of responsibility.) Place the appropriate weights in the
space provided for each area. Weights should be percentages adding up to 100%. If a faculty
member has no responsibility in a given area, the weight is zero (0).

2. Within each area of responsibility, consider the elements listed below and any other relevant
performance standards, including goals and objectives established last year:
Teaching: quantitative elements as listed on the data form; knowledge of current developments in
the field; effectiveness of presentations; student evaluations.
Research and Scholarship: quantitative elements as listed on the data form, quality of the research
outcomes and published results. Service: quantitative elements as listed on the data form; effectiveness of service contributions; ability to work effectively and cooperatively in support of the objectives of the department, the School and the University.

Patient Care: quantitative elements as listed on the data form; professional expertise; effectiveness
of patient care delivery; adequacy of patient recordkeeping.
The sample elements stated above for each area of performance do not comprise a checklist
and are not exhaustive; other elements related to the evaluation area that are not listed may
and should be used.

Written comments reflecting the quality of the work performance should be provided in each
section of the evaluation. These comments should specifically address productivity as reflected in
the Faculty Data Form, and any goals and objectives for the area established in the previous year’s
evaluation. In addition, an evaluation for each area should be checked off in the space provided.
The standard evaluation terms are defined as follows:

Exemplary (BANNER Rating #5):
This rating is reserved for those who consistently excel in their overall job performance. It
indicates that performance is well beyond that which can be expected from most faculty.

Satisfactory (BANNER Rating #3):
This rating is used for faculty who perform their jobs well and are fully competent. It
indicates that performance meets or somewhat exceeds expectations.
Unsatisfactory (BANNER Rating #1):
This rating is used when performance falls below an acceptable level. Performance may
be acceptable in some respects, but improvements are needed to bring overall performance
to the level expected.

3. Write a description of the overall evaluation, and check the appropriate overall evaluation rating in
the space provided. (See the definitions of evaluation terminology provided in section 2, above.)
Once again, productivity, quality of the overall performance, and the achievement of the previous
year’s goals and objectives should be considered specifically. The overall evaluation need not be
an average or weighted average of the individual evaluation areas. A rating of unsatisfactory in a
single important area of responsibility may be sufficient justification for an overall rating of
unsatisfactory. Similarly, an extraordinary accomplishment in a single area of responsibility may
be sufficient justification for an overall rating of exemplary.

4. Give the evaluation to the faculty member in advance of the required face-to-face review meeting
to allow time for him or her to reflect upon it and make response. The individual should be
strongly encouraged to write comments in the space provided on the form, especially if the
evaluation contains any negative aspects. These comments may be needed if the faculty member
decides to appeal an unsatisfactory overall evaluation under a provision of the current
UMDNJ/AAUP Agreement. In any event, the response becomes an important part of the official
evaluation in the personnel files.

5. In consultation with the individual being evaluated, establish specific and measurable goals and
objectives for the next evaluation period. In addition to establishing the goals and objectives
themselves, it is important to give some indication as to how fulfillment of those goals and
objectives will be measured. Establishment of goals and objectives and consultation with the
faculty member regarding those goals and objectives are very important aspects of the evaluation
and are not optional. The consultation may occur during the evaluation session itself or by
exchange of documents. The initial proposal of goals and objectives most frequently is developed
by the faculty member rather than by the evaluator. One approach would be to ask the
member to submit proposed goals and objectives for the following year along with the Faculty
Data Form and updated curriculum vitae. (This approach is especially appropriate for the
development of research objectives.) However, the evaluator has the responsibility of establishing
the final statement of the goals and objectives following the consultation process and adding these
to the evaluation.

6. Meet with the faculty member and review the evaluation with him/her. This meeting is required,
not optional. The faculty member may add comments to the evaluation and must sign the form.
The faculty member’s signature signifies only that he/she has reviewed the evaluation; it
does not signify agreement with the evaluation. In addition, it is important to use this session to
review faculty development issues pertaining to the individual faculty member. For example, for
junior faculty members it is essential to discuss progress toward promotion, steps that should be
taken to qualify for promotion, additional credentials/training that would be useful for career
advancement, and other related matters. An optional section is provided on the Faculty Evaluation
Form for long-term goals, particularly those relating to career development issues for junior

7. Copies of the evaluation should be kept by the individual being evaluated, the evaluator and the
Dean's Office.

Revised: February 4, 2004

Join Today

“ AAUP-BHSNJ is the professional Bargaining Representative for more than 1,400 faculty members and librarians of the BHSNJ. 


As of July 1, 2013, based on the integration of SOM with Rowan University and the integration of the remaining units of the former UMDNJ with Rutgers University (as per the New 
Jersey Medical and Health Sciences Education Restructuring Act as of 2012) AAUP-UMDNJ became AAUP-BHSNJ.

 Faculty and Librarians of the former UMDNJ at both Rutgers and Rowan (and those hired into units of the former UMDNJ) are now part of the Biomedical and Health Sciences of New Jersey American Association of University Professors unit, AAUP-BHSNJ.