Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - University of Minnesota

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 30

									        POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
                   FOR
             PROMOTION OF
         ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS
                  WITH
        EXTENSION ACADEMIC RANK




UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE
         UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA




                  Approved by
        Dean and Director Beverly Durgan

                   August 2006
         Revisions Approved – June 2007
                                                         Table of Contents

       Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………                                                 i

       I. Promotion Policies

                 1. Goals of Promotion Policy …………………………………………………………. 1

                2. Expectations and Rewards Related to Promotions ……………………………….. 2

                3. Promotions Relationship to Annual Performance Reviews …………………….. 2

                4. Minimum Requirements for Applying for Extension Promotion in Rank ……… 3

                5. Promotion Timeline and Expectations…………………………………………….. 3

                 6. Academic Rank and Use of Titles …………………………………………………. 4

                7. Academic Rank Review for Educators Already at Associate or Full Professor… 4

                8. Criteria for Promotion……………………………………………………………… 5

                9. Definitions, Elements and Sample Indicators of Criteria
                        A. Program Leadership …….…………………………………………….        6
                        B. Extension Teaching …………………………………………………… 7
                        C. Scholarship ………………….………………………………………….           9
                        D. Engagement………………………..……………………………………. 10
                        E. Program Management …………………………………………………. 11
                        F. Service ………….……………………………………………………... 12

       II. Promotion Procedures

                1. Roles and Responsibilities Regarding Performance Evaluation
                           and Promotion in Rank………………………………………………… 13

                2.   Performance Expectations for Each Rank Level……………………………...                       18
                3.   Annual Performance Review Forms ………………………………………..….                              19
                4.   Annual Performance Review Summary ……………………………………….                               20
                5.   Annual Performance and Professional Development Discussion Form………               21
                6.   Annual Professional Plan of Work Template.……………………………..……                        22
                7.   Promotion Documentation Guidelines………………………………………….                              24
                8.   Submitting Your Promotion Documentation Via Web………………………..                       26


       Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………………. 28




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 1
                                                I. Promotion Policies

1. Goals of Promotion Policy

The quality of the University of Minnesota Extension Service is sustained through the dedicated,
excellent, and creative work of its academic professionals. Therefore, objective, systematic, and thorough
appraisal of each Extension candidate for initial appointment, reappointment, and promotion in Extension
academic rank is extremely important. Criteria for these Extension processes are linked and consistent
with University and Extension benchmarks and federal reporting. These criteria are also consistent with
the following organizational values (for more detail on Extension mission/values see: Strategic Planning
Framing Concepts: University of Minnesota Extension Service, available at
http://www.extension.umn.edu/jump/compact05/summary.html):

        Extension’s highest value is to serve Minnesotans by helping them learn to address critical issues
         to improve their lives.
        Scholarship and research guide Extension educational programs.
        Extension upholds the land-grant mission of the University of Minnesota, providing people
         throughout the state access to University research and scholarship, and bringing their wisdom and
         insights to the University.
        Extension values personal development of our staff and organizational learning.
        Extension honors the strength that comes from diversity of staff and audiences.
        Extension works in teams, with each participant contributing unique and specialized skills to
         achieve common ends.
        Extension holds itself accountable for making a difference in the lives of Minnesotans.

In addition to the promotion guidelines described in this document, annual performance review processes
are designed to support the promotion process. Annual performance reviews are based on performance
relative to position descriptions and annual plan of work. Annual performance reviews are designed to
align with and provide information to the promotion process. Therefore, the six criteria for promotion as
defined below are also relevant criteria for annual reviews.

Promotion in academic rank within Extension is based on levels of contribution in the six criteria
essential to the quality of the individual’s work as well as the overall impact and reputation of Extension.
These six criteria are program leadership, extension teaching, scholarship, engagement, program
management, and service. A description of each criteria is found in Section I-9. The performance
expectations for each rank are outlined in Section II-2.

Promotion is neither automatic nor routine and the decision is made without regard to race, color, creed,
religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or
sexual orientation. A promotion is awarded to recognize the level of the academic professional’s
contributions to the missions of Extension and the University as well as to their professional field.
Although tenure is not granted along with changes in academic rank in the University of Minnesota
Extension Service, there are clear expectations that academic professionals will move forward in rank and
will be rewarded for attaining a higher academic rank. Responsibility for the Extension promotion
decision rests with the Extension Dean and Director, based on a recommendation from the promotion
review committee, capacity area leader, and the Associate Dean and Director of Programs.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                       Page 2

2. Expectations and Rewards Related to Promotions

Extension educators are expected to make significant or distinguished contributions across the six criteria
outlined in this document.

There are four primary incentives for completing the promotion process. These are:
   1) Personal satisfaction from demonstrating that you are making a difference in the lives of
        Minnesotans,
   2) Enhanced career and professional guidance that comes from periodic review by oneself as well as
        one’s colleagues,
   3) Enhanced professional stature, especially among Extension colleagues who realize your effort
        and talent,
   4) Enhanced organizational stature among stakeholders, both within the state and nationally.

Both the annual performance review and the period promotion reviews are used to evaluate whether
educators are meeting the expectations outlined in Section I-9 and II-2. One of the goals of this
promotion system is to help Extension and regional educators build their reputations. Indirectly, these
will eventually lead to stronger financial status for Extension and its employees.

Given the job classifications for these positions, and University of Minnesota policy, it is not possible to
grant tenure for these positions.

3. Promotions Relationship to Annual Performance Reviews

The annual performance review and professional plan of work must be in alignment with the mission of
the University of Minnesota Extension Service and the individual faculty member, as well as directly
linked to the promotion process. The major reasons for the annual performance review process are:
     It fulfills University policy for staff and faculty evaluation.
     It guarantees timely feedback to academic professionals about their position and professional
        performance.
     It provides substantive performance information on which to base merit salary adjustments.
     It provides a performance structure that contributes to the promotion process for academic
        professionals.
Annual performance reviews do not offer a comprehensive view of one’s work across their career. By
comparison, the promotion process and policies defined here are intended to create a periodic and
systematic review across multiple years of the individual’s development and contributions as a
professional. This process continues over the life of one’s affiliation with the University and emphasizes
not only performance in one’s position but performance as a professional and contributions to program
leadership, Extension teaching, scholarship, engagement, program management, and service.

The processes for an academic professional’s annual performance review, professional plan of work, and
promotion, therefore, form a basis for the individual to be informed about and recognized for their
performance.

The promotion process described here assumes that eligible academic professionals will use the following
documents:
    The most recent promotion policies and procedures document including the definition of the six
       criteria for promotion.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 3

        A position description, updated as needed and verified annually during the performance
         evaluation process. The six criteria for promotion, whether implicitly or explicitly in the position
         description are an explicit expectation for Extension educators.
        A professional plan of work developed in conjunction with the annual performance review.
        Sequential annual performance reviews that formally indicate progress on measures directly
         linked to the promotion criteria.
        Guidelines and a format for preparing promotion documentation (provided annually).
        A timeline for the process and a process document (provided annually by Extension Human
         Resources).

4. Minimum Requirements for Applying for Extension Promotion in Rank

A. Job Classification

Extension academic rank applies to regional Extension educators and to a limited number of campus-
based Extension specialists in 96xx job codes who are parented to Extension and who play educational
roles in program development and delivery. Eligibility for academic rank for campus positions requires
approval by the capacity area leader and the Dean and Director.

Regional educators or campus-based P&A Extension specialists without a master’s degree cannot be
promoted in rank.

This policy does not apply to state or regional P&A staff in administrative or support roles rather than
primarily an educational roles (e.g. regional directors) nor to P&A state specialists parented to
collaborating colleges, nor to faculty in tenure-track positions, nor to staff in local positions (whether
technical advisors, local educators, or program directors). Educators with split program and
administrative/support positions may be eligible for academic rank and promotion in rank if approved by
the Extension Dean and Director and at least half of their role is programmatic and in an appropriate job
classification to be eligible for academic rank.

B. Degree

Extension expects an educator to have or to complete a master’s degree. Any promotion in Extension
academic rank requires a completed master’s degree. A copy of a transcript or diploma showing the date
the degree was granted must be submitted with the candidates’ letter of intent. Current instructors with a
master’s degree will automatically be changed to Assistant Extension Professor. Current instructors
without a master’s level degree will not automatically be promoted to Assistant Extension Professor.
Educators with academic rank currently, but without a master’s degree, will revert to no rank.

5. Promotion Timeline and Expectations

IMPORTANT NOTE: For all campus and regional educators who are not yet at the Associate Extension
Professor rank, failure to meet these timeline expectations will result in non-renewal of the individual’s
annual employment contract. Such non-renewal will be implemented consistent with University policy
regarding non-renewal.

In order to apply this timeline in a clear and effective manner, each Extension educator will have an
explicit promotion clock that determines the dates these timelines will affect him or her. An individual’s
promotion clock begins as stated in the letter of offer. For all others, the promotion clock begins
September 1, 2006. An individual’s promotion clock can be adjusted only under exceptional
circumstances with approval of both the capacity area leader and the Dean and Director of Extension.



Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                       Page 4

        Immediately upon hire all eligible academic professional staff members are expected to work on
         and be responsible for progress in all of the six criteria defined in this document.
        Every Assistant Extension Professor is expected to apply for and receive promotion to the rank of
         Associate Extension Professor within six years. This means an educator will need to apply in
         the fall of their fifth year. The individual can apply for promotion at any time within this six-year
         period and may apply more than once if necessary. An educator who is not promoted to
         Associate Extension Professor within six years will be considered as performing unsatisfactorily,
         resulting in non-renewal. However, passing the review does not result in tenure and does not
         imply that non-renewal is not possible for other reasons.
        An Extension Educator who first has to earn a Master’s degree will have a total of nine years in
         which to complete a Master’s degree and apply for a promotion to the rank of Associate
         Extension Professor.
        An Associate Extension Professor who completes the new review process does not have a time
         limit in which to be promoted to Extension Professor

Definition of Eligible Work: While the promotion process is a comprehensive review of one’s career,
specific work submitted in consideration for promotion must have been completed since the last
promotion in academic rank at University of Minnesota Extension or since hired. Consulting or pro bono
work is eligible for consideration if completed during this time while an Extension employee.

6. Academic Rank and Use of Titles

Three titles will be used in the Extension academic rank system. These are:

    1) Assistant Extension Professor
    2) Associate Extension Professor
    3) Extension Professor


Extension educators without a master’s degrees will not have rank and will use the Extension educator
title.

Staff members who currently have the rank of associate professor or professor earned under the old
criteria and promotion system will keep their current rank until they complete their academic rank review,
but the titles will change to Associate Extension Professor and Extension Professor, respectively.
Educators that do not pass the academic rank review will revert to the next lowest rank and title.

Persons in local positions with rank will keep their current rank, but must use their working titles but not
titles that include academic rank. The academic rank is inactive and they are not eligible for promotions
in academic rank. If they are appointed to a position that is eligible for rank, the rank will become active.
The promotion clock for individuals shifting from a local position to one eligible for rank will start on the
date listed in the appointment letter.

7. Academic Rank Review for Educators Already at Associate or Full Professor.

REEs currently holding the associate or professor rank prior to the adoption of this policy will
automatically be reviewed once under the new policy. After this review, they will only be reviewed upon
request of the supervisor or Capacity Area Leader and with approval of the Extension Dean and Director.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 5


        REEs currently holding the rank of Associate Extension Professor can request, within seven
         years(of Sept. 1, 2006) to be reviewed either as a promotion to Extension Professor or to confirm
         their rank and title as Associate Extension Professor. Failure to provide documentation for this
         review or to pass the review will be considered unsatisfactory performance, resulting in no merit
         increases and reversion to the next lowest rank until they satisfactorily pass the review.
        REEs holding the rank of Extension Professor under the old system will be reviewed within eight
         years (of Sept 1, 2006) using the criteria defined below. Failure to provide adequate
         documentation for this review or to pass it will be considered unsatisfactory performance,
         resulting in no merit increases and reversion to the next lowest rank until they satisfactorily pass
         this review.

8. Criteria for Promotion

Six criteria guide the promotion process and the annual performance reviews. These are grouped into two
categories – primary and secondary

    Primary Criteria:
          1. Program Leadership
          2. Extension Teaching
          3. Scholarship

    Secondary Criteria:
          4. Engagement
          5. Program Management
          6. Service

Evidence of all six criteria is required and will be reviewed. Significant or distinguished contributions in
one or more of these three primary areas are essential for promotion. The absence of documented
significant or distinguished achievements in program leadership, Extension teaching, and/or scholarship
would make promotion unlikely. Similarly, outstanding engagement, program management, and service
should be taken into consideration but shall not, by themselves, be an adequate basis for promotion
without notable contributions in one or more of the primary three areas.

The relative importance of the criteria may differ among positions and should be reflected in the position
description.

9. Definitions, Elements, and Sample Indicators of Criteria

Definitions, elements, and sample indicators for each of the criteria follow. The performance expectations
for each rank are shown in Table 1 in Section II-2.

Note that there is some overlap between indicators in each criteria. The list of indicators is neither
exhaustive nor is it mandatory that a candidate address every indicator in every criteria. Often these
different aspects will be split among members on a program team. It is more important that a candidate
demonstrate their role and how it made a difference on some of these aspects than to cover every
indicator.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                       Page 6

A. Program Leadership

Definition: Program leadership is the intentional creation and continuous improvement of high-quality,
financial viability educational programs that have impacts on knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavior.
It involves the full cycle of deliberate processes, from defining need to evaluating impact and making
adjustments.

Elements of Program Leadership: As part of program leadership, Extension educators help to catalyze
and organize the educational process and their program team to address priority interests of citizens
through educational programs. Educators anticipate issues, create a vision of how they might be
addressed, and catalyze the organization of human and material resources into meaningful educational
experiences and programs. This criterion basically includes the development, improvement and
sustainability of programs.

The University of Minnesota uses the following criteria to evaluate programs:

    1.   centrality to mission
    2.   quality, productivity, and impact
    3.   uniqueness and comparative advantage
    4.   enhancement of academic synergies
    5.   demand and resources
    6.   efficiency and effectiveness
    7.   development and leveraging of resources.

Program leadership enables Extension programs to excel on the above criteria. For additional detail on
these criteria see: “Criteria for Decision Making” in The University of Minnesota: Advancing the Public
Good: A Report of the Strategic Positioning Work Group, February 2005, available at
http://www1.umn.edu/systemwide/strategic_positioning/decision.html.

Sample Indicators for Program Leadership: The following indicators might be used by candidates to
demonstrate their individual contributions to program leadership. We expect that the indicators that are
appropriate will vary widely from one promotion candidate to another for two major reasons. All
programs are at different stages of development have different relationships to their target audiences.
Consequently, some programs will not need work on some of these aspects during the time period under
consideration. Finally, most programs are team efforts and involve a division of labor among campus and
field faculty. Some individuals will provide leadership for some aspects while others will assume it for
others.

For those aspects of the program for which candidates provided leadership to enable the program to
evolve and change, the following indicators might help describe the role and impact of the candidates’
work.

Note that there is some overlap between the criteria on the indicators. This list is not exhaustive, and it is
not mandatory that a candidate address every indicator. Rather, these are potential means of
demonstrating program leadership.

    1. Centrality to Mission
          a. How the program contributes to the public value of the University.
          b. How the program draws from or contributes to the research and teaching programs at the
              University.



Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 7

    2. Quality, Productivity, and Impact
             a. How participants’ learning and behavior have changed as a result of the program.
             b. How outcomes, impacts, and benefits of the program have increased.
             c. How public perceptions of the program quality have changed.
             d. How participants’ willingness to pay fees for the program has increased.
             e. How costs per participant in the program have declined due to new delivery technologies,
                new delivery partnerships, or other means.
    3. Uniqueness and Comparative Advantage
             a. Rationale for the program at the University of Minnesota Extension Service.
             b. How the program compares to other outreach educational programs offered by public or
                private institutions to Minnesota residents.
             c. How the program compares to similar Extension programs in other states.
             d. How the program reaches new and diverse audiences.
             e. How the program contributes to the comparative economic or cultural advantages of
                Minnesota (its private and public value).
    4. Enhancement of Academic Synergies
             a. How the change in the program led to closer connections among disciplines or capacity
                areas.
             b. How the change in the program led to closer connections among research, teaching, and
                outreach.
    5. Demand and Resources
             a. How the program used market research and/or needs assessment to determine demand.
             b. How participation levels changed.
             c. How participants’ willingness to pay fees for the program changed.
             d. How external revenue from the program participants changed.
    6. Efficiency and Effectiveness
             a. How costs to the University per participant in the program have declined due to new
                delivery technologies, new delivery partnerships, or other means.
             b. How the outputs and outcomes of the program have increased more rapidly than
                expenditures.
    7. Development and Leveraging of Resources
             a. How the program team has generated more external revenue.

B. Extension Teaching

Definition: Extension teaching is a complex function that occurs in many ways. In all cases it creates
conditions for learning to take place so the learner can change knowledge, attitudes, and/or skills and
behaviors. It involves interaction between the teacher and learner.

Elements of Extension Teaching: Elements of Extension teaching include the teacher, the learner, the
setting, the method, and the content. Learners might be farmers, business and professional persons,
families, youth, community leaders, or other citizens. The settings might be a meeting room, the
educator’s office, the learner’s home or business, a school auditorium, a farmer’s field, the fairgrounds, or
a community center. Possible methods include workshops, electronic media, publications, computer
analysis, video, television or radio programs, distance delivery technology, personal visits, volunteer
training, a seminar or workshop, group facilitation, and problem solving. Content depends on the
position. Content is highly specialized in academic areas such as youth development, community vitality,
family development, natural resources and environment, agriculture, and food.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 8

Extension teaching can be characterized by immediacy of need and ability to bring relevant content to a
current issue. It most often requires a team effort. Extension teaching involves assessing needs, planning
the learning experience to meet these needs, defining educational objectives, conducting educational
activities to reach the planned objectives, evaluating the learning experience to identify whether
objectives were met, and determining further educational needs of the audience.

Excellent teaching adapts content and depth to the learner and objectives. It uses a variety of materials
that are well prepared and generally research based. Methods and techniques are sequenced, imaginative,
and effective, and respond to the varied learning styles of the audience. Learners are actively involved in
the learning process and are stimulated to apply the knowledge. Excellent teaching helps learners make
connections across subjects, from complex ideas to usable concepts.

Sample Indicators for Extension Teaching: The following are examples of indicators that might be used
by candidates to demonstrate their Extension teaching. The candidate should discuss aspects of these
indicators relevant to their contributions to Extension teaching.

    1. Program content
       a. Content is relevant to the issue and to audience needs.
       b. Content is research based, correct, current, and professionally credible.
       c. Content is at the appropriate level for the target audience.
    2. Pedagogy for youthful learners
       a. Program uses appropriate teaching methods for youth.
       b. Program involves active learning, prompt feedback, high expectations, and diverse methods.
    3. Andragogy for Adult Learners
       a. Program is explicit about the educational goals, demonstrates relevance, is problem centered,
           builds on learners’ experience, and encourages active and self-directed learning.
    4. Teaching materials
       a. Materials are appropriate for participants and for teaching methods being used, with cultural
           sensitivity for new and diverse audiences.
       b. Materials provide great depth of understanding.
       c. Materials provide links to additional resources and references.
    5. Professional competency
       a. Candidate demonstrates mastery of the program content in area of specialization.
       b Candidate creatively uses existing educational materials and programs.
       c. Candidate develops high-quality materials and programs used by others.
    6. Participant and Peer Evaluations of Extension Teaching
       a. Candidate regularly seeks evaluation by both participants and peers.
       b. The form of evaluation should be stated for each item. Candidates should group their
       evaluations as follows (1) end-of-meeting evaluations by participants of teaching style, content,
       and planned behavioral changes, (2) post-meeting evaluations by participants of content and
       actual behavioral changes, (3) review of presentation(s) by extension peers with collected written
       evaluations on the strength and weaknesses of the style, content and communication, (4) review
       of written teaching materials by participants and extension peers with collected written
       evaluations, (5) submission and acceptance of juried posters and presentations on extension
       teaching at regional and national sessions, and (6) submission and acceptance of juried
       publications on extension teaching in regional and national journals and publications. The raw
       data and summaries must be filed with their supervisor, and a summary included in the
       candidate’s annual performance evaluation.
    7. Teaching improvement
       a. Candidate regularly completes professional development programs to improve teaching.
       b. Candidate revises Extension programs based on participant evaluations and peer evaluations.



Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                        Page 9

C. Scholarship

Definition: Scholarship is creative intellectual work that contributes significantly to knowledge in the
field and has impact, is communicated and valued, and is reviewed by peers.

Elements of Scholarship: Scholarship includes:

        the scholarship of discovery—knowledge generation
        the scholarship of integration—synthesis of existing knowledge to form new knowledge
        the scholarship of application—knowledge gained from studying the application of what is
         known
        the scholarship of teaching—knowledge gained about teaching by itself and the development of
         new tools, materials and curriculum.

For additional information on these forms of scholarship, see Boyer, Ernest L. (1990) Scholarship
Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching; and Ernest L. (1996) "The Scholarship of Engagement," Journal of Public Service & Outreach
1(1).
    

All four forms of scholarship exhibit the four characteristics that define scholarship: creative intellectual
work, significance and impact, and being communicated and valued, and being reviewed by peers.

Sample Indicators for Scholarship: The following are examples of indicators for scholarship:

    1. Creative Intellectual Work
       a. Nearly all of the work conducted by Extension educators involves creative work of one of the
          four types outlined above, with scholarship of integration and scholarship of teaching
          probably being the most common. However, there are also opportunities for scholarship of
          discovery and scholarship of application.
       b. The type of scholarship should be indicated.

    2. Significance and Impact
       a. Addresses an issue of significant concern and is worthy of significant effort.
       b. Communicated or published in a credible way and place.
       c. Valued by those for whom it was intended (e.g., testimonials, letters of support, adoption by
           peers or partners).
       d. The extent to which it has a multiplier effect (e.g., train the trainers, build infrastructure for
           program continuation).

    3. Communication and Value
       a. Has been shared with those for whom it was intended.
       b. Has been shared with the field or fields of study (e.g., presented at professional meetings,
          published, included in a Web site).

    4. Review
       a. Has been credibly reviewed by
           i. internal and/or external reviewers selected by the authors
          ii. anonymous internal and/or external reviewers via a juried process
       b. Has been shared in published articles, academic presentations, exhibitions of work, creative
           performances, or other public venues in which peers evaluated it.



Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 10

In reporting scholarship, the form of the peer review must be stated for each item. Candidates should
group their scholarship products as follows:

Ex-post Peer Review of Internal Presentation: Candidate made a presentation to an internal Extension
audience of peers and collected written evaluations on the strength and weaknesses of the content and the
communication and then made revisions in the presentation. The raw data and a summary must be filed
with their supervisor, and a summary included in the candidate’s annual performance evaluation.

Ex-post Peer Review of Staff Papers or Other Written Materials: Candidate posts a written presentation
online or publishes other curriculum and collects written evaluations on the strengths and weaknesses of
these communications. The raw data and a summary must be filed with their supervisor, and a summary
included in the candidate’s annual performance evaluation.

Blind Juried Regional or National Poster Sessions: Candidate submitted proposal to regional or national
group and was evaluated in blind review for a poster and was selected. Report the acceptance rate.

Blind Juried Regional or National Selected Presentations. Candidate submitted proposal to regional or
national group for presentation and was evaluated in a blind review. Report the acceptance rate.

Blind Juried Publication: Candidate submitted paper or article to journal or other group and was
evaluated in a blind review. Report the acceptance rate.


D. Engagement

Definition: Engagement is integral to Extension. It is the process of connecting with communities and
stakeholders to better understand their needs, use their resources, and build their capacity. Engagement
can be demonstrated through the program leadership, extension teaching, and scholarship as well as in
program management. Engagement is viewed as a distinct criterion for promotion to highlight its value
and contribution to our work.

Elements of Engagement: Engagement in Extension education is:

        community oriented—education occurs in either a geographic community or a community of
         interest (a target population), including new and diverse audiences
        interactive—the educational project includes significant community involvement in determining
         program inputs, process, outputs, impact, and outcomes
        mutually beneficial—both the educator and the community benefit from working together
        integrated—education includes a combination of research, teaching, and public outreach
        dedicated to learning—the purpose of engagement is for the educator to learn with the
         community (and vice versa); together, this jointly created knowledge and insights are shared with
         others.

Sample Indicators for Engagement:
    Work with targeted communities through direct partnerships, based on mutual respect and
       recognition of different ways of knowing, relating, and valuing diverse contributions.
    Practice an inclusive teaching approach that reflects diverse learning styles and multiple forms of
       intelligence, followed by reflection on this approach and feedback from learners.
    Conduct an action research project around an identified community need. The process is both
       participatory and collaborative whereby educators and community members actively work
       together to identify issues, strategize solutions, develop mechanisms to address the issues, and
       evaluate the process.

Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 11

        Work with community stakeholders to identify critical issues in society. Provide consultations on
         these issues and work with others to co-create resources that become valued by the public.
        Serve as an active member on a local board. Contribute expertise in a specific subject matter as
         the board carries out its agenda. Connect this board’s work to larger initiatives in the community
         and at the University to help advance its mission.

E. Program Management

Definition: Program management is how Extension delivers programs. Once programs and their
curriculums are developed, they need to be managed and delivered in an effective and efficient manner.
There is some overlap between program leadership and program management. Leadership focuses on
doing the right programs at the right time, while program management focuses on doing the program
right.

Elements of Program Management: Program management includes five key elements:

        Planning—choosing a course of action among alternatives. Program management bridges the
         gap between where we are now and where we want to go. Extension staff members develop
         long-range, annual, and short-term plans within the framework of program development. It
         involves planning the use of resources to maximize educational output.
        Organizing—determining how the job will be done. Three essential ingredients are collaboration,
         delegation, and coordination. For example, it must be decided who will do the actual instruction,
         make equipment and room arrangements, and attend to marketing and other organizational
         details. Coordinating these details is vital to ensure that each segment of the program is
         congruent with the whole and that every opportunity for cooperation between people and between
         programs is encouraged and developed to the fullest.
        Staffing—recruiting, selecting, training, and recognizing the people cooperating in the program.
         Rapport must be established and maintained not only with colleagues but also with learners,
         policy makers, and the wider community. Rapport implies the ability to relate to people and to
         understand their interests and the ways education can help them better meet their needs.
        Implementing—leading and directing people so learning takes place. All plans must be
         implemented in a professional manner and in a way that motivates the learner. This includes
         communicating with and listening to volunteers, staff, administrators, learners, and the
         community.
        Evaluating—Continuous evaluation is essential to enable educators to make sure plans are carried
         out and objectives are accomplished. Both formal and informal evaluations keep educators
         attuned to how things are going and alert them to potential problems so they can make needed
         adjustments and develop further plans.

(Source: University of Minnesota Performance Criteria: Initial Understanding of the University’s
Performance Criteria and Refining Their Meaning for Extension, 2001.

Sample Indicators for Program Management: The following are a sample of indicators that might be
used by candidates to describe their role and its impact on program management.

    Show your role and how you made a difference on those aspects of program management to which
you contributed.

    1) Planning
       a) needs assessment and/or market research development and use
       b) program business planning



Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 12

    2) Organizing
       a) promotion of program
       b) selection of program sites
       c) registration
       d) finding sponsors or other funding
    3) Staffing
       a) recruiting volunteers or staff
       b) training volunteers or staff
       c) working with fellow REEs
    4) Implementing
       a) the teaching in the program
       b) other implementation tasks
    5) Evaluating
       a) evaluating the program
       b) sharing results with the team and others

F. Service

Definition: Service is professional assistance provided outside the regular realm of the position
description but that relates to the individual's professional training and experience.

Elements of Service: Service to the University includes activities such as serving on search and
governance committees. Service to the profession may include holding office or serving on committees
of professional associations. An educator’s professional service contributions should enhance but not
supersede their position responsibilities. In order for service to contribute to promotion, it should be in
the candidate’s areas of responsibility, field of expertise, and/or the organization of which he or she is a
part.

Sample Indicators for Service: The following are a sample of indicators that might be used by
candidates to describe their role and its impact on service. Show your role and how you made a
difference on those aspects of service to which you contributed.

              o   List search and governance committees in capacity area and Extension.
              o   List leadership roles in the University.
              o   List leadership roles in national professional organizations related to Extension or the
                  University.
              o   Explain special contributions in these roles.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 13

                                             II. Promotion Procedures

1. Roles and Responsibilities Regarding Performance Evaluation and Promotion in Rank

There are several systems in place to help support and ensure an academic professional’s success. These
systems include key responsibilities on the part of the academic professional, the supervisor, the program
area leadership, a mentor, and Extension as a whole. These systems and responsibilities are outlined
below.

A. Academic Professionals

The academic professional is responsible for:
    Providing information to keep their supervisor informed about their performance.
       accomplishments for both annual performance reviews and periodic promotion reviews.
    Having a current position description and seeking official changes to it when necessary due to
       system changes or role changes.
    Keeping informed about promotion criteria, timelines, processes, and consequences.
    If ranked above Assistant Extension Professor, being involved in and contributing to the
       promotion system in an advisory capacity.

The candidate’s dossier is composed of the following:
    the annual performance reviews for the candidate for the years since the last promotion (or hire
       date)
    The candidate’s documentation, which includes:
                -- the candidate’s position descriptions since the last promotion
                -- a current comprehensive curriculum vitae
                -- a narrative addressing contributions (since the last promotion or hire date) to program
                   leadership, Extension teaching, scholarship, engagement, program management, and
                   service
                -- addenda supporting the narrative
                -- candidate included letters of reference
                -- written input from external reviews
                -- written input from peer evaluation

B. Area Program Leaders

Area Program Leaders are responsible for:
    Staying informed about the performance of Extension academic professionals they supervise.
    Advising on and approving professional development opportunities on an annual basis.
    Providing support for academic professionals to enhance their performance, promote their growth
       as professionals, and further their ability to contribute to their field.
    Making and communicating performance judgments based on information provided by
       observation, by the educator, and from feedback from stakeholders and staff members as needed.
    Conducting and writing annual performance reviews and ensuring that a sound professional plan
       of work is developed and approved annually.
    Annually verifying that the current position description is accurate for the coming year, or
       initiating an official change in it as appropriate and according to established policies.
    Encouraging the academic professional to keep documentation current annually and to seek
       promotion in a timely manner.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 14

C. Extension Capacity Area Leaders

Extension capacity area leaders or their official designees are responsible for:
     Determining, in collaboration with the Associate Dean for Programs and the Dean and Director
        that new hires are granted the appropriate rank upon hiring. Only in rare cases will this be above
        the assistant Extension professor level.
     Establishing clear supervisory lines for all academic professionals and supporting the work of
        supervisors in executing their responsibilities.
     Ensuring the effective management and completion of the annual performance review and
        professional plan of work process for all members of their unit.
     Determining and recommending the annual merit salary increase to the Dean and Director
        consistent with Extension policies.
     Reviewing and approving any changes in position descriptions proposed by supervisors or
        requested by staff.
     Staying informed of the performance of the Extension academic professional and other staff
        members in their units.
     Making performance judgments based on information provided by observation, by supervisors,
        by the academic professional, and from feedback from stakeholders and staff members as needed
        and according to established Extension and University policies.
     Ensuring that each academic professional in their unit has a mentor to support them in the
        promotion process. APLs will work closely with these promotion mentors.
     Monitoring and advising eligible academic professionals related to the goal of qualifying for a
        promotion.
     Communicating about and implementing the promotion and review system as necessary for all
        academic professionals, including periodic reviews for those in Associate Extension Professor
        and Extension Professor ranks.
     Annually managing the capacity area’s Extension promotion process:
        --meet with each candidate, if the candidate requests to advise on how prepared the candidate is
          for promotion
        --appointing a promotion review committee for the capacity area and ensuring its work is
          completed in a timely and appropriate fashion
        --inviting peer evaluation of the documentation, collecting input, and forwarding the comments to
          the promotion review committee
        --inviting external review of the documentation, collecting input, and forwarding the comments to
          the promotion review committee
        --formulating a recommendation (letter of transmittal) and submitting with dossier to the
          Extension Associate Dean and Director for programs


Managing Peer Evaluation: Peer evaluations are entirely from the University. The capacity area leader
should get 2-3 peer evaluations from members of the candidate’s capacity area , including educators and
campus based faculty to review the candidate’s documentation and provide comments on their
achievement of significant or distinction in one of the primary criteria and sufficient performance in the
other five criteria. This can be done through a secure Web site or via hard copy of the documentation.
Reviewers submit their comments to the capacity area leader, who forwards them to the candidate’s
promotion review committee.

Managing External Review: The candidate’s documentation is reviewed by one to three persons in the
same field of study as the candidate but from other universities. These reviewers should have greater
experience than the candidate as evidenced through rank, experience, and recognition in the field. The
candidate may submit names of persons to be selected for external review.


Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 15

The capacity area leader may select names submitted by the candidate and may also request persons not
known to the candidate to review and comment on the documentation. The external reviewers will be
asked to comment on the candidate’s performance relative to achieving significant or distinction on one
of the primary criteria and sufficient in the other five. The external input will be forwarded to the
promotion review committee.

These letters will be posted on the portal for each individual candidate to see and for their promotion
committees.

Formulating the Recommendation: The capacity area leader evaluates each promotion application,
including external input, peer evaluation comments, and the recommendation of the promotion review
committee. Based on this review the Capacity Area Leader writes a recommendation to the Dean and
Director about the promotion (called a letter of transmittal). The Capacity Area Leader submits the letter
of transmittal with the dossier to the Extension Associate Dean and Director for Programs. This is posted
on the portal so that the individual candidate can see it.

D. Promotion Mentor/Coach

The APL advises the candidate as they develop and grow as an educator, leader, and scholar. The
promotion mentor supports the candidate through the promotion process, advising the candidate on the
promotion criteria and the documentation needed for promotion. The mentor must be familiar with the
promotion process, be recognized in the candidate’s field of work, and have greater experience as
evidenced by rank. The mentor is selected in consultation with the capacity area leader or area program
leader and the candidate. The mentor is identified annually for all Extension educators who apply for
promotion and will:
     If the mentor is not the candidates APL, work closely with the APL to ensure consistency of
        feedback to the candidates.
     Initiate contact with the candidate early and often through the promotion process.
     Review this and related documents with the candidate.
     Review the candidate’s documentation, providing feedback and suggestions to improve their
        documentation.
A mentor may serve on a promotion review committee but must not participate in the discussion of the
promotion of their own candidate.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 16

E. Promotion Review Committees

The promotion review committee reviews the candidate’s dossier and writes a two-page summary letter to
the capacity area leader with a recommendation for or against the promotion. One promotion review
committee in the capacity area reviews all of the promotion applications submitted in the particular
year/cycle. In years when there is a large number candidates, the Capacity Area Leader can seek approval
from the Associate Dean and Director for Programs for a second promotion committee.

The committee is appointed by the Capacity Area Leader and approved by the Associate Dean and
Director for Programs and the Dean and Director. The Committee will be composed of a minimum of
three REEs of higher Extension rank than the candidates applying for promotion that year. The
committee also includes at least one tenured/tenure track University faculty member with an Extension
appointment. It is not necessary for the committee members to know the candidates. The capacity area
leader selects one of the members to chair the committee.

Specifically the committee:
    See also Guidelines for Implementing Promotion in the Capacity Areas.
    Reviews the candidate’s dossier.
    Convenes and discusses the candidate’s materials.
    Votes for or against each promotion and prepares a two-page summary letter to the capacity area
        leader with a recommendation for or against promotion.

The committee votes for or against the promotion using a majority vote. The summary letter specifies
how many committee members voted for and against the promotion without specifying individual votes.

The summary letter should explain reasons for the negative votes even if the overall vote is positive so
that candidates and their supervisors can take steps to correct these areas.

If the promotion committee recommends a promotion, they should provide a clear statement on which of
the three primary criteria they see as meeting the “significant contribution” or the “distinguished
contribution” level.

If the promotion review committee or the capacity area leader is not in favor of promotion, the capacity
area leader will inform the candidate. However, the request for promotion (and the dossier) will continue
through the process unless the candidate chooses to stop the process. The decision to discontinue seeking
promotion during the current year is left to the candidate unless it is the final year, in which case the
recommendation will move forward.

F. Associate Dean and Director for Programs

The Associate Dean and Director for programs is responsible for:
    Overseeing the system of promotion and annual performance review described in this document.
    Reviewing dossiers and letters of transmittal from capacity area leaders and making a
       recommendation to the Dean and Director on whether a promotion should be granted.
    Revising this document, upon direction from the Dean and Director, after consulting with staff.
    Providing overall management of the promotion system in coordination with the Director of
       Human Resources and under the direction of the Dean and Director.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 17

G. Human Resources Director and Staff

The Human Resources director is responsible for:
    Implementing the annual promotion system and deadlines and communicating with eligible staff.
    Managing the associated human resources data and changes.
    Ensuring that staff applying for promotion are eligible under the policy.
    Interpreting the promotion policies in coordination with the Dean and Director, the Associate
      Dean and Director for Programs and the Capacity Area Leaders.

H. Dean and Director

The Dean and Director of Extension is responsible for:
    Preparing the annual academic pay plan and giving final approval to annual merit salary
       recommendations for academic staff members of the University of Minnesota Extension Service.
    Making final decisions regarding candidates seeking Extension promotion in accordance with
       University policy.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                                            Page 18

     2. Performance Expectations for Each Rank Level

     The following table describes the expectations related to each of the six promotion criteria for each rank.

     Table 1: Performance Expectations by Extension Rank
PROMOTION         Assistant Extension            Promotion to Associate        Promotion to Extension                Periodic Post-Promotion
CRITERIA /        Professor                      Extension Professor           Professor                             Review
RANK
PROGRAM           Potential for or contributes   Evidence of significant       Distinction in program leadership     Continued evidence of
LEADERSHIP        to program leadership.         program leadership            leading to program innovations in     contributions consistent
                                                 leading to program            two or more of the following          with academic rank.
                                                 innovations in one or more    ways: demand, centrality &
                                                 of the following ways:        comparative advantage, quality,
                                                 demand, centrality &          productivity & efficiency,
                                                 comparative advantage,        effectiveness, or growth and
                                                 quality, productivity &       leveraging resources.
                                                 efficiency, effectiveness,
                                                 or growth and leveraging
                                                 resources.
EXTENSION         Potential for or               Significant teaching          Distinction in teaching               Continued evidence of
TEACHING          demonstrated                   contributions as evidenced    contributions as evidenced by two     contributions consistent
                  effectiveness in teaching.     by evaluation evidence on     or more of the following: program     with academic rank.
                                                 one or more of the            content, pedagogy or andragogy,
                                                 following; program            professional competency, teaching
                                                 content, pedagogy or          materials and teaching
                                                 andragogy, professional       improvement, sustained
                                                 competency, teaching          effectiveness, and evidence of
                                                 materials and teaching        mentoring others.
                                                 improvement, and
                                                 potential for distinction.
SCHOLARSHIP       Potential for or               Significant contributions     Distinction in scholarship as         Continued evidence of
                  demonstrated achievement       to scholarship in the field   evidenced by wide recognition and     contributions consistent
                  that establishes the           or area of expertise with     sustained scholarship contributions   with academic rank.
                  individual as a contributor    potential for distinction.    to the field or area of expertise
                  to the field or profession.                                  (including regional and national
                                                                               visibility).

ENGAGEMENT        Demonstrated potential for     Evidence of significant       Distinction in co creating            Continued evidence of
                  or participation in            responsibility for co         resources of public value in          contributions consistent
                  engagement with                creating resources of         outreach education with               with academic rank.
                  community and campus           public value in outreach      community and campus partners.
                  partners.                      education with community
                                                 and campus partners.
PROGRAM           Potential for contribution     Evidence of significant       Distinguished contributions in        Continued evidence of
MANAGEMENT        or contribution to program     responsibility for program    program management and delivery       contributions consistent
                  management.                    management and delivery;      such as leading teams; evidence of    with academic rank.
                                                 evidence of working with      initiating coordination with new
                                                 partners.                     partners.
SERVICE           Potential for contribution     Evidence of expanded          Distinct and sustained national,      Continued evidence of
                  or contribution.               institutional, public, and    institutional, public and             contributions.
                                                 professional service.         professional service.




     Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 19

3. Annual Performance Review Forms


                                     Annual Performance Evaluation
                            Extension Educator With Extension Academic Rank

Name: __________________________________________________

Title: ___________________________________________________

Rank: ___________________                               Date of Last Promotion: _________

Area of Expertise/Capacity Area: ___________________________

Area Program Leader/Supervisor: __________________________

Performance Evaluation Period Covered: January 1, 2xxx through December 31, 2xxx



                                   Employee 2xxx Self-Evaluation
               To be completed by the Extension educator with Extension academic rank
                 Submit to your area program leader/supervisor by: January_1, 2xxx

2xxx Plan of Work and Position Description
   1. Please attach your 2xxx Professional Plan of Work (PPOW) and your current position
       description.
   2. Describe your accomplishments under each of the six criteria: program leadership, Extension
       teaching, scholarship, engagement, program management, and service. Specifically state
       outcomes and impacts related to each of the criteria.
   3. What were your accomplishments on each of the above criteria as a member of your work
       team(s)?
   4. What were your accomplishments in diversity and inclusion?
   5. If you supervise or mentor, what were your accomplishments in this area?

Professional Development

Please identify the professional development opportunities that you completed in 2xxx. Describe how
they strengthen your abilities to meet one or more of the six criteria listed in #2 above and will enhance
your promotion efforts. Be sure that the professional development is closely related to your
responsibilities as outlined in your position description.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 20

4. Annual Performance Review Summary


                                   Extension Educator With Rank
                               Annual Performance Review Summary
              To be prepared by the area program leader/supervisor by February Y, 2xxx

Part I. 2xxx PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
   1. For each of the six criteria, assess how well the Extension educator with rank fulfilled his/her
        20xx Professional Plan of Work. Please add comments if not everything was achieved.
        Specifically state outcomes and impacts related to each of the criteria.
   2. Describe how well the educator meets the responsibilities and performance expectations of the
        position (indicated in the up-to-date position description).
   3. Describe the educator’s progress toward Extension promotion. Is the educator making satisfactory
        progress given their timeline? Which of the six criteria would you encourage the educator to give
        additional attention?
   4. Does the educator supervise or mentor? If so, please comment on his/her supervisory or
        mentoring skills.
   5. Is the educator a productive team member?
   6. Draw a conclusion about the educator’s overall performance for this review period. Please
        ASSIGN ONE OF THESE NINE RATINGS:

             NEEDS IMPROVEMENT                         1                  2                 3

             MEETS EXPECTATIONS                        4                  5                 6

             EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS                      7                  8                 9

Part II. 2xxx PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Consider how you would like to see the educator develop professionally over the next few years and
identify areas for growth that will help him/her meet one or more of the six promotion criteria. What
would you like to see in the 2xxx PPOW? Review the proposed 2xxx PPOW and determine the additional
performance or professional development goals.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                       Page 21

5. Annual Performance & Professional Development Discussion Form

                            Performance & Professional Development Discussion
                                   Schedule for February/March 20xx

Supervisors (typically APLs) meet with the educator individually in the educator’s regular place of work
to discuss the educator's self-evaluation, the area program leader/supervisor’s performance evaluation
summary, and any anticipated changes in the position’s responsibilities; agree upon the 20xx Professional
Plan of Work, professional development, and any additional goals such as promotion in Extension rank.

Comments of the educator regarding the performance evaluation*




_________________________________________                                           ____________________

Signature of the educator                                                           Date
regarding the performance evaluation

Comments of the evaluator/supervisor regarding the performance evaluation




______________________________________                                              ____________________
Signature of the evaluator/supervisor                                               Date
regarding the performance evaluation


*The signature of the educator indicates that these performance evaluation documents have been
discussed and examined with his/her supervisor. It does not necessarily indicate agreement with the
comments.

Area program leader/supervisor: Retain a copy of the performance evaluation for your files and return the
original completed document by March 31, 2xxx to:
         Extension Human Resources
         Attention: Bobbie Roberts
         260 Coffey Hall – 1420 Eckles Avenue
         St. Paul, MN 55108

The original performance evaluation will be placed in the employee’s Extension personnel file, and a
copy will be sent to the University personnel file.



         The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 22

6. Annual Professional Plan of Work Template


                                 20xx Professional Plan of Work Template
                            Extension Educators With Extension Academic Rank

                       DUE TO YOUR AREA SUPERVISOR: _______________
              To be discussed at you performance evaluation meeting in February/March 20xx

NAME:__________________________________________________________

OFFICE:_________________________________________________________

EXTENSION RANK:______________________________________________

DATE OF LAST PROMOTION:____________________________________


In completing each of the following items, review Policies and Procedures for Promotion of Academic
Professionals with Extension Rank, section I-9, for a more detailed discussion and sample indicators.
This will make it much easier for you when you are ready to submit your promotion
documentation.

PROGRAM LEADERSHIP is the intentional creation, continuous improvement, and financial viability
of high-quality educational programs that have impacts on knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavior. It
involves the full cycle of deliberate processes from defining the need to evaluating its impact and making
adjustments.

Please describe this aspect of your work as a team and your specialized role in the team.

EXTENSION TEACHING is a complex function that happens in many ways. In all cases it creates
conditions for learning to take place so the learner might change knowledge, attitudes, and/or skills and
behaviors. It involves interaction between the teacher and learner.

Please describe the teaching of your program team and your specific role and responsibility in this
teaching. Explain what you plan to do to enhance these skills.

SCHOLARSHIP is creative intellectual work that contributes significantly to knowledge in the field, has
impact, is reviewed by peers, and is communicated and valued.

Please describe the scholarship in which you are engaged and what you plan to do to improve the
scholarly approach to your work. Often scholarship is done as part of a team. When this is the case,
explain the overall project and your specific contributions.

ENGAGEMENT is integral to the way we do our work. It is the process of connecting with communities
and stakeholders to better understand their needs, use their resources, and build their capacity.
Engagement can be demonstrated through the ways we do program leadership, Extension teaching, and
scholarship, as well as in how we manage programs and conduct service.

Please describe how your work is engaged.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 23

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT is about how Extension delivers effective and efficient programs. Once
programs and their curriculums are developed, they need to be managed and delivered in an effective and
efficient manner. There is some overlap between program leadership and program management.
Leadership focuses on doing the right programs at the right time, while program management focuses on
doing the program right.

Program management includes planning, organizing, staffing, implementing, and evaluating. Program
management is almost always done as a team effort with different members of the team handling different
aspects of the management. One effective and efficient means of describing the program team’s
management effort is to simply reference your program business plan and then to describe your role and
accomplishments as part of that program team.

SERVICE is the professional service performed outside the regular realm of the position description that
relates to the individual's professional training and experience.

Please describe your professional service activities, such as roles within a professional organization,
University groups, Extension groups, or community groups outside your Extension programs. Describe
how your area of expertise and program team benefited from these efforts.

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
Please describe your program team’s plans to involve diverse audiences that are represented in the
geographic area your team serves and your role in helping to better serve these audiences.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Please describe your plan (or need for assistance in making one) to develop or maintain cutting-edge
knowledge and credibility in your assigned area of expertise/focus or related skill areas required for your
work. Indicate your plans for investing your professional development funds.

BUSINESS PLAN
Please provide a Web site for your business plan and describe how your individual plans relate to the
business plan of your program(s). What specific roles do you plan on each of these team efforts?

QUESTIONS
If you have questions about doing the plan of work, please contact your area program leader or
supervisor.


The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 24

7. Promotion Documentation Guidelines

    The following hints will help you prepare your documentation.

1. Use the Web template on the Extension Service Human Resources Web site (URL to be added here
   shortly) to input your documentation using electronic hyperlinks for your supporting materials. Each
   staff member is responsible for preparing their documentation rather than assigning it to a support
   person to complete. Contact Bobbie Roberts with questions about the template, 612-624-4773 or
   bobbie@umn.edu.

2. Candidates should view the annual reports as building blocks for their promotion documentation.
   The annual reports cover the same six criteria and candidates should plan 2 or 3 years ahead on the
   areas in which they will focus to achieve “significant” or “distinguished” contributions.

3. The narrative should be 3,500 words or less (about 14 pages double spaced). The length of each
   criterion can vary provided the total is less than 3,500 words.

4. The narrative should be organized around the six criteria.

5. Up until the candidate officially submits the documentation for review, it is in the formative stage and
    can be revised. However, after it is submitted for promotion consideration only a very limited one
    page addition can be submitted. This one page addendum entitled “Additional Data for Name of
    Candidate” from ??? date to date. This one page can include – a) notification of acceptance of new
    grants which you authored or co-authored, b) new awards or other major recognitions, and c) new
    curriculum or publications accepted for publication. After the candidate submits the documentation
    for review the promotion committee is an evaluation team and not expected to coach the candidates
    on how to improve the documents.

6. Up to three different items can be provided as an attachment to illustrate your work. (If more are
   posted, they will be removed). A minimum of four actual copies should be provided to Extension HR
   even for materials scanned in.

7. Each item attached should have a 1 or 2 sentence description. This should describe why the piece was
   included and what role the candidate had in producing it. If submitted as evidence of scholarship the
   peer review process should be described.

8. Links can be put to evaluation summaries of programs. Note this is a “program” as defined by the
   program business plans and not individual events. Typically this will cover many events. Each
   summary should describe the sample size, the number of events and provide a summary of the data.
   Candidates should check with their capacity area for evaluation suggestions. These links are part of
   the narrative and do not contribute toward the three items in the addenda.


9. If at all possible, make use of hyperlinks for supporting materials such as teaching outlines,
   educational materials you have developed, research abstracts, and program evaluations. Avoid
   including information that does not relate directly to the criteria of program leadership, Extension
   teaching, scholarship, engagement, program management, and service. You may include evaluative
   comments about the impact of your work. However, put these hyperlinks in the resume and not the
   narrative.

10. If your supporting material cannot be transformed to an electronic format and cannot be hyperlinked,
    you can submit it in hard copy. In this case, you need to submit a copy for each member of the
    promotion review committee plus three additional copies.

Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 25

11. Your documentation should cover only relevant material. Do not include work that was considered in
    your last promotion.

12. The documentation should be very concise, well written, simple, clear, and direct. Organize it so
    reviewers who do not know you and your work can easily follow and understand it.

13. Clearly specify your particular role in team efforts.

14. Include at least one summarized evaluation from each Extension teaching example and a copy of the
    evaluation tool. The summary should include both a summary table and a short narrative description
    of the results.

15. Your documentation should provide a cumulative picture of your work. Your vita should describe the
    comprehensive work you have completed related to each criterion by selectively highlighting your
    accomplishments in the criteria areas.

16. Draft your responses in a Word document and then paste them into the document once you are
    pleased with them.

17. Ask a colleague or mentor to read your document before you submit it. It’s probably best to ask
    someone who will be willing to give you constructive criticism and advice.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 26

8. Submitting Your Promotion Documentation via the Web

Documentation for the promotion is submitted via the Web at the Extension Human Resource section of
the internal website (Url to be added soon). Use the following guidelines (or the guidelines on the Web,
if they are more current) as you complete the documentation for your request for promotion. You
probably will want to develop your document off-line and then cut and paste it into the web once it is
complete.

    1. Introduction:
        Name: _____________________________
        Position title:__________________________
        Present academic rank: _________________________
        Month____ and year ____ present rank received, or if you have not been promoted since
           being hired, your hire date. ______
        Total years in current rank: ___________
        Total years in Extension work at the University of Minnesota: __________
        Total years of University of Minnesota employment:_____________

    2. Table of contents:
       You do not need to do anything here. The table of contents is generated by the computer program
       and consists of what is included under each section below.

    3. Executive summary:
       This section will serve as a concise summary of your documentation. First present your
       background, educational philosophy, and approach. Then give an overview of your major
       contributions in program leadership, Extension teaching, scholarship, engagement, program
       management and service. This statement should be 500 words or less and hit the highlights. The
       details can come in the following sections. Be sure to specifically state your contributions to
       Extension’s outcomes and impacts. Although you will probably write this summary after you
       complete the full report, the summary goes here.

    4. Linked performance evaluation materials:
       You do not need to do anything here. The performance evaluations since last promotion or at
       least the prior three years will be inserted by Extension human resources office.

    5. Letters of transmittal and promotion review committee report:
       You do nothing here. These will be inserted by the capacity area or human resources office.

    6. All position descriptions since your last promotion:
       For each position you have held since the last promotion, include your job responsibilities
       information only. You do not need to include the sections of the position description on
       qualifications, administrative considerations, benefits, etc.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 27

    7. Current vita:
       Include an up-to-date vita. Be sure to include the following:

             Education—undergraduate, graduate, professional, continuing education, and, if applicable,
              postdoctoral education and experience with respective institutions, locations, dates, and
              degrees awarded
             Employment—former and present employment with years and dates of service at the
              University of Minnesota
             Professional growth and development—continuous learning, i.e., participation in
              conferences, staff development courses, and other means of learning
             Professional distinction—scholarly activities, participation in professional organizations,
              and awards, citations, and other recognitions
             Special contributions—to capacity area, departmental, collegiate, and university functions,
              such as major Extension or University committees and task forces

    8. Promotion criteria:
       In completing each of the following items, review document Policies and Procedures for
       Promotion of Academic Professionals with Extension Rank, Section I-9 and II-2, for more
       detailed discussion and sample indicators.

         For each criterion give a brief description of the Extension programs on which you have worked
         and its educational objectives. For brevity, you can hyperlink to your program business plan
         executive summary or to specific parts of your full business plan.

         The sample indicators provide a starting point for your report. In few cases will you use all of the
         indicators and in some cases you will add others that fit your program and your role.

         If you are seeking promotion to Associate Extension Professor, your task is to present evidence
         that you have made significant contributions with respect to one of the three primary criteria
         (program leadership, Extension teaching, and scholarship). If you are seeking promotion to
         Extension Professor, your task is to demonstrate that you have achieved distinction in one of the
         three primary areas. Both groups must also demonstrate solid contributions for all of the other
         criteria:
          Program Leadership
          Extension Teaching
          Scholarship
          Engagement
          Program Management
          Service

    9. Submission of 2-3 names for both internal and external reviewers
       Include a list of 4-6 individuals who may be contacted for evaluative statements related to your
       promotion. Your capacity area leader will select from this list and from others suggested by Area
       Program Leaders or selected by the Capacity Area Leader and solicit the letters. All people on the
       list should understand the criteria for the rank that you are pursuing. Capacity area leaders and
       area program leaders who supervise you and members of the promotion review committee cannot
       be on this list. NOTE: Reviewer name with title, complete address, and short reason for
       nomination, are due to the Human Resources office by the October 5th.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006
                                                                                                      Page 28

                                                 Acknowledgments


These promotion policies and procedures were the subject of a yearlong study by a campus and
field team that included: Dale Blyth, chair; Tim Arlt, Charlie Blinn, Phil Logos, Diana
Martenson, Kent Olson, Trish Olson, Ryan Peach, Cindy Petersen, Mike Reichenbach, Donna
Rae Scheffert, Jennifer Souza, Leslee Mason, and Bobbie Roberts. The task force was appointed
and charged by George Morse on June 17, 2005. The draft report was provided to Dean Beverly
Durgan on April 24, 2006, with a comment period until May 22, 2006. The dean and associate
dean met with the Minnesota Association of Extension Educators, the Extension Faculty
Consultative Committee, capacity area leaders, and Deans Leadership Council for reactions and
input. These policies have been reviewed and approved by Robert Jones, Senior Vice President
for System Administration and by Carol Carrier, Vice President for Human Resources.

During the promotion process for 2006-2007, there were a number of detailed questions from
candidates. As these came in, George Morse worked with the CALs and Dean to respond to
these and post the responses under the Human Resources section of the Employee Website. After
the completion of the cycle for 2006-2007, a meeting of the CALs and the Chairs of the five
promotion committees in each capacity area was held to debrief on the process and results.
Then George Morse and Diana Martenson used the Frequently Asked Questions and debriefing
results to revise the policy and timeline. A committee composed of Jean Bauer, Leslee Mason,
Carrie Olson, Kent Olson, Bruce Schwartau, and Bob Stine reviewed and revised this.




Promotion Policies and Procedures – University of Minnesota Extension Service – Adopted August 2006

								
To top