The Library Faculty Manual provides an interview guide for annual evaluations in Section III.E.2.http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/dol/facmanual.htm#interview. I have used it the basis for our notes below with the numbered statements coming from the Library Faculty Manual. Our purpose for reviewing is to develop a shared sense of what we want to achieve in annual reviews.
1. Review of major responsibilities based on individual's position description.
Evidence of achievement in fulfilling each of these, as perceived by faculty member and supervisor.
Deficiencies in fulfilling each of these, as perceived by faculty member and supervisor.
Examination of reasons for deficiencies and obstacles to fulfillment of responsibility.
Verification of continued validity of position description in the light of actual situation.
Additional questions from LEC. What kinds of activities are on CVs? Does the CV show a developing and/or continuing record of achievements? Are library faculty finding ways to show major achievements in their professional service? Are there any difficulties in fitting their activities into their CV? Do they aspire toward promotion? Are they developing a well-rounded record that will give them good grounding for promotion consideration? If the job description was written a few years ago, it may be helpful to look at current job ads from University Libraries which demonstrate current trends in describing job responsibilities more broadly than may always have been true in the past: Mathematics Librarian, Systems Librarian, Coordinator, of Library Instructional Services and Theology/Catholic Americana bibliographic access team manager. All of these positions include mention of library-wide and library faculty responsibilities and list qualifications that increasingly will be factors in the basis for performance evaluations. The review of individual activities should include professional service, scholarship, growth in the profession and university/community service.
2. Review of goals related to faculty member's performance.
Degree to which any included in last year's evaluation have been achieved.
Setting of goals for the coming year.
Additional questions from LEC: In regard to their statement of interests and goals, where are they going? Do their goals relate appropriately to department goals, your goals for the division and/or committees, to the stated library directions, challenges and strategies? If not, is it because there are gaps in our stated library directions, challenges and strategies. Are they aware of these statements? Are they setting appropriate time lines for goals, especially to goals that go beyond what can be achieved in one year? How do individual goals fit into library statements of vision, mission, and directions? Extant documents are listed below.
1) Mission and vision (http://www.nd.edu/~ndlibs/aboutlib/mission.shtml) (ca. 1991)
2) Directions statement in Access under "From the director" (April 1998)
http://www.nd.edu/~ladvance/access/issues/april98/director.htm
3) Proposed directions statement distributed at August 23rd LAM meeting
(http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/dol/directions.html)
4) Challenges and strategies statement
(http://www.nd.edu/~adminoff/dol/deans/index.htm)
5) Library department and committee goals and objectives
(http://www.nd.edu/~libstaff/annreps00/reports.htm)
3.Review of faculty member's report of the activity.
Identification of particular achievements by faculty member and supervisor.
Setting of goals and directions for the future.
Additional questions from LEC: What factors do they use in evaluating their own performance? Explain your factors and explore similarities and/or differences between these sets of factors. Seems also that setting goals and directions is included in two places in the faculty handbook outline, which is ok as this might be appropriate in both areas. Are their goals going to take them and the Libraries in good directions which is something we can evaluate.
LEC has developed the suggestions (attached) of what we are looking for in the four areas of performance with some examples of how these expectations can be measured. In regard to professional service, the Library Faculty Manual states that “all other elements of direct and indirect service activity within the Library including special staff and line job assignments and Library committee work are considered part of professional service.” We welcome individual discussion about these factors as well as advice on putting on the library faculty agenda.
4.Discussion of topics which have been previously listed for inclusion by faculty member and supervisor.
LEC : The topics will vary and represent areas of interest or problems. Especially important to see how these relate to the above questions or are areas where special support is needed.
5.Summary which includes overall evaluation and recommendations which will be made by the supervisor.
Additional comments from LEC: The overall evaluation focuses on identifying achievements and understanding the criteria for evaluation. Also, on evaluating an individual’s goals and interests for coming years in the context of library directions, challenges and strategies. As has been noted in library faculty meetings, the annual review process anticipates the awarding of merit in the spring and informs LEC discussions toward that end. During the spring, we consider how individuals contribute to moving the Libraries forward: who is driving the Libraries to go where we should be going. (File: DOL/library faculty/LEC annual reviews).