The School of Medicine is dedicated to sustaining and facilitating the career development of its faculty in scholarship, teaching, and professional service. This Policy on Faculty Development ("Policy") was created in recognition that our faculty are the most important resource in the School of Medicine. Maintaining and developing each faculty member's professional engagement throughout his or her career is a high priority for the school. The Policy shall be implemented and conducted within the School of Medicine without discrimination in regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, disability, or veteran status. All policies, procedures, and actions regarding faculty development shall conform to the Bylaws of the University, the Statement of Principles Governing Faculty Relationships, and the Affirmative Action Program. As part of the career development process, departments shall make available to all of their faculty members the School of Medicine Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure ("Guidelines"). The Guidelines include a discussion of the criteria and requirements for faculty performance leading to promotion and the award of tenure. Faculty are encouraged to be familiar with the Guidelines.
In each department of the School of Medicine, the Chair or the Chair's designee shall conduct a periodic professional development review with each regular faculty member who holds a primary appointment in the department. This review shall be based on performance in the areas of teaching scholarship, and service and shall be conducted using the online faculty evaluation form, the Career Development Conference Report (CDCR), which is available annually to all departments (https://secure.web.emory.edu/med/prod/database/fes/index.cfm). Instructions for its use are included with the form.
The general criteria for performance and promotion in each mission area are included in the School of Medicine Guidelines. The departments may establish specific criteria in addition to, but in accordance with, those described for the School of Medicine. These criteria must be included in the departmental guidelines for appointment and promotion and made available to the faculty of the department. Initial letters of appointment should reference the School of Medicine and departmental guidelines and general criteria.
The objectives of the periodic professional development review of each faculty member's performance are:
Each department shall develop written departmental guidelines for faculty review and development, in accordance with the School of Medicine Policy on Faculty Development and Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure. The departmental guidelines shall include the specific criteria for faculty review or shall provide reference to the criteria stated in the School of Medicine Guidelines. The departmental guidelines may be more detailed depending upon the needs and strategic plans of the individual department. The departmental guidelines shall include a mechanism for accomplishing formal faculty mentoring in the department or division, when requested by the faculty member. These guidelines should not restrict the diverse interests, contributions, and creativity of individual faculty members. A copy of the departmental guidelines on faculty review and development shall be submitted to the Dean of the School of Medicine for approval.
Initial faculty duties, responsibilities, career goals, and objectives should be established by the Chair or the Chair's designee in writing during the recruitment stage for all regular, full-time faculty members and be part of the faculty member's departmental record. Ordinarily, the written document will be part of the recruitment letter(s) by the Chair or Division Chief. A template of the recruitment letter is available online at http://www.med.emory.edu/dean/facultyaffairs_policies.cfm.
The following schedule establishes the minimum guidelines for periodic faculty development review. Reviews may be conducted more frequently if desired by the Chair or faculty member. A review in which no weaknesses are identified at any time during this timetable does not ensure that future reviews will be similarly positive and does not necessarily ensure promotion.
Associates and Senior Associates
Associates and senior associates will have career development conferences at the discretion of the Chair or Chair's designee. Faculty in these ranks may request reviews.
Instructors and Assistant Professors
Instructors and Assistant Professors will have career development conferences at the end of the first and fourth academic year. The latter review is intended to represent a mid cycle review for faculty in the tenure track. Thereafter reviews will occur at 3-year intervals.
Associate professors will have an initial review at the end of the third year and at 5-year intervals thereafter.
Professors will have development reviews at 5-year intervals after appointment or promotion to the rank of Professor.
The faculty member will complete Part I of the CDCR prior to the career development conference. This section of the form captures faculty accomplishments related to scholarship, teaching, and service and contains a section in which the faculty member specifies both short and long term goals. The Department may also request that faculty bring additional materials to the development review such as teaching evaluations.
In each department, the Chair or Chair's designee will have periodic, formal career development conference meetings in the department according to the schedule described herein. The Chair's designee may be a Division Chief, a senior faculty member in the department, or the direct faculty supervisor of the faculty member. At the discretion of the Chair, other faculty participants internal or external to the department may be included in the meeting if desired by the Chair or Chair's designee or requested by the faculty member. These individuals are herein referred to as the "evaluator."
The career development conference meeting should be conducted in a manner free of arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory elements; should reflect the nature of the individual's field of work; and must conform to fair and reasonable expectations as recognized by faculty peers in each department. All participants should be sensitive to the special needs and circumstances of individual faculty members.
Prior to the review meeting the evaluator should review Part I of the CDCR. The evaluator and faculty member will jointly review and modify, as appropriate, the short and long term goals proposed by the faculty member in Part I. A development plan should be created and should set appropriate time lines for accomplishments of these objectives and should indicate criteria for self-monitoring by the faculty member. The plan should include guidance on promotion matters and the ways in which the department will assist the faculty member. Participants in the review should assess the quality of the faculty member's accomplishments and contributions, identify any weaknesses or deficiencies in the record and develop a remedial plan that defines specific goals and outcomes that would help the faculty member overcome these weaknesses.
Following the career development conference the evaluator will complete and submit Part II of the CDCR online. This portion of the form includes a section in which the faculty member is evaluated in each of the academic missions using the following descriptors: “exceeds expectations,” “meets expectations,” “needs improvement,” or “not applicable” and a narrative summary outlining important points of the discussion, expanding on the reasons for the foregoing evaluation, detailing goals and objectives, and defining a remedial plan, if any.
Once Part II is submitted, the faculty member receives notification that it is available for review. The faculty member should carefully review Part II and complete Part III, which allows for faculty comments. Online submission of Part III, which will occur automatically if the faculty member has not signed on within two weeks after Part II is posted, will be considered an acknowledgment that the faculty member has read, understood, and verified the contents of Part II. If a faculty member and the department cannot agree on the contents of the written document, the faculty member may request a second development plan (see “Additional processes” below). Following online submission of Part III, Part IV of the CDCR will be made available to the Chair or Chair's designee to make final comments. Online submission of Part IV by the Chair or Chair's designee is considered verification and completion of the form.
Follow-up meetings or reviews before the next scheduled development review may be part of the faculty member's development plan. Such additional meetings and reviews may also be requested by the Chair or the faculty member.
All CDCRs are archived online for a period of 10 years and are available for review by the faculty, Chair or Chair’s designee and the Dean’s Office, as appropriate. At the end of the academic year, the Dean will receive a summary of the completed CDCRs from each department
If the Chair or Chair's designee and the faculty member cannot agree on the contents of the written meeting summary and development plan as to the faculty member's performance, goals and objectives, and development or remedial plan, or if the faculty member so requests, the Chair shall, in consultation with the faculty member, appoint an ad hoc committee to conduct a second development plan, and provide necessary advice to the Chair on how to resolve areas of disagreement. The ad hoc committee will include senior faculty in the department and may also include senior faculty in the department in which the faculty member holds secondary or joint appointment or other senior faculty whose expertise may be desired. To the extent possible and reasonable, any ad hoc committee member should be knowledgeable about the faculty member's area of research, teaching or professional service.
The procedures for appeal set forth in the School of Medicine Guidelines are available to any faculty member who feels aggrieved by the faculty development procedures as applied to that faculty member.