PSLA Performance Review


Title PSLA Performance Review
Policy Owner Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture (PSLA)
Applies to All full-time faculty members in the Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture
Unit Applicability College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources
Effective Date January 1, 2023
For More Information Contact Department Head
Contact Information Sydney Everhart,
Official Website/ Venue Link

Performance Review Policy

December 8, 2022, Approved by majority faculty vote on 12/31/2022.

Consistent with the expectations outlined in Article 30 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between UConn Board of Trustees and UConn Chapter-AAUP ( the following Policies for Annual Performance Review have been adopted by majority vote of the PSLA faculty.  This policy is subject to change based on discussion and subsequent majority vote by the PSLA faculty.


  1. To promote, maintain, and enhance excellence in job performance and to foster informed communication between faculty members and their supervisor, the department head.
    • Based upon each faculty member’s assigned duties in teaching, service, research, extension, and any administrative appointment held by the member.
    • The review should clarify or establish the faculty member’s assigned duties in teaching, service, research, and/or extension for the next year.
    • Provide opportunity for faculty members and their academic unit heads to discuss a faculty member’s ambitions and aspirations within the University and the profession, including teaching preferences and progress toward promotion.


  1. Who is to be evaluated. All tenure-track and permanent non-tenure leading PSLA faculty (CIRE and permanent lecturers) will be evaluated annually by the PSLA department head.  Faculty with joint appointments are expected to participate in PSLA performance reviews.  Jointly appointed faculty with PSLA as their designated home department are evaluated in totality of their responsibilities; whereas joint faculty who reside in another department are evaluated proportionally to their PSLA responsibilities.  Non-permanent faculty, such as gratis-faculty, adjunct faculty, research assistants and associates, and research faculty are not subject to the following departmental policy.


  1. What informs the annual evaluation.


The Faculty Performance Self-Report Matrix (3.1) and Faculty Performance Summary Statement Document (3.2), inclusive of performance achieved during July 1 through June 30 of that year, must be completed, and submitted to the department head annually.  The department head shall communicate the deadline for performance reporting at least 30 days prior, or as early as possible.  Failure to submit self-appraisal documentation (i.e., 3.1 & 3.2) by the deadline can result in a “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” evaluation.  If the department head uses additional information to that submitted by the faculty member to inform their evaluation, the faculty member must be a) informed that this additional information is being taken into consideration, b) given the opportunity to review this information for themselves, and c) given the opportunity to present supplementary information.


  1. What is being evaluated. The department head evaluates the quality and impact of a faculty member’s accomplishments (e.g., products, outcomes) and contributions, with respect to their appointment and position description, over the course of the evaluation period.  Faculty members should document accomplishments in each area of their appointment in light of the expectations identified in their position description documents.  While faculty members may be given credit for contributions and accomplishments outside their appointment that are not stated in their position description (e.g., editorial activities, leadership in professional organizations, funding agency program manager), these contributions and accomplishments do not replace appointment and job description expectations unless previously agreed upon and approved by the department head and/or other appropriate CAHNR administrator.  Faculty members’ contributions to the culture/climate and inclusive excellence within PSLA and CAHNR are subject to evaluation regardless of appointment and position description.  It is also expected that faculty members will contribute to an atmosphere of intellectual honesty and demonstrate integrity, academic responsibility, and ongoing professional development in all aspects of their work.  A faculty member may receive an overall rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” for deficiencies in only one performance area within their appointment split, despite accomplishments in other performance areas within their appointment.  This includes the faculty member’s contributions to culture/climate and inclusive excellence within the unit.


  1. The annual evaluation rubric. The PSLA department head is required to use a standard Academic Performance Evaluation and Professional Development of Faculty Form and Rubric.  The form has spaces for the department head to document their evaluation of the faculty member’s accomplishments; impacts; and organizational, team, and communication competencies within each area of their appointment.  “Good Work” is the performance rating that is the standard of excellence expected of all PSLA faculty.  “Outstanding Work” is the performance rating given when the faculty member documents significant successes beyond normal expectations, and “Extraordinary Year” is reserved for the occasional year in which the faculty member achieves meaningful programmatic impacts and accomplishments far above their peers.  A “Needs Improvement” performance rating is used when a faculty member falls below expectations in one or more areas of their appointment, and when it is believed that corrective action will result in the faculty member being able to return to a satisfactory performance rating.  A “Needs Improvement” rating is not to be used in consecutive years.  Issuing a “Needs Improvement” rating on an annual performance review fulfills the department head’s obligation (Article 30.5.6 Collective Bargaining Agreement) to warn underperforming faculty that an “Unsatisfactory” rating may be given during the following year’s performance review if expected metrics are not met.  A substantial chronic deficiency in performance warrants an “Unsatisfactory” performance rating.


  1. Needs improvement warning and unsatisfactory performance review. A “Needs Improvement” rating shall trigger a meeting among the faculty member, department head, and appropriate representative of the UConn-AAUP, if requested, to develop a plan to achieve a satisfactory performance review.  The faculty member will have the following annual evaluation period to meet outlined performance goals.  Failure to meet the standards defined in the plan shall be considered just cause for an “Unsatisfactory” performance review the following year.  The faculty member may appeal any “Unsatisfactory” performance review through the grievance procedure outlined in Article 10 of the UConn-AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement.


  1. The responsibility of the department head in annual evaluation. The annual performance review should provide feedback on how well the faculty member is performing in relation to their assigned duties and, most importantly, where and how the faculty member might improve that performance. It serves neither the faculty member nor the institution’s best interest when the evaluation is overstated or understated, or when it does not indicate how the faculty member might improve.  Even faculty members who receive a rating of “Outstanding Work” and “Extraordinary Year” may benefit from constructive feedback about how they might improve their performance.


  1. Faculty members’ right to review their annual performance evaluation. Prior to finalization of the department head’s written evaluation, the faculty member must be given the opportunity to meet with the supervising administrator to discuss their performance evaluation.  The finalized written evaluation is given to the faculty member for review and signature.  The faculty member’s signature on the evaluation indicates that they received it, not that they are in agreement with all aspects of the evaluation. The faculty member has the option of including written comments on the evaluation form, or of including a separate letter that will be attached to the department head’s evaluation and become part of the faculty member’s personnel file.