Docstoc

The Annual Review Process for QUFA and GFT _clinical_ Faculty

Document Sample
The Annual Review Process for QUFA and GFT _clinical_ Faculty Powered By Docstoc
					                                    Iain Young
Executive Vice-Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences
                     Medical Director, SEAMO
                                   August 2012
Introduction
My personal experience at Queens:
   Faculty member
   Department Head
   Vice-Dean, FHS and Medical Director, SEAMO


In this session, you will be introduced to:
    The annual review process and its relationship to
     Queen’s and SEAMO
    The reappointment/promotion/tenure application
     processes
Purposes of the Annual Review
Provide an annual performance assessment that will:
   Recognize faculty contributions and achievement
   Enable monitoring of professional growth, professional
    development and career planning
Provide an opportunity to adjust professional role
descriptions as appropriate to individual faculty
member’s circumstances
Report professional activity that is relevant to the
SEAMO Accountability Management System and the
determination of departmental funding
Basis for the Annual Review
 Annual report
    Completed on a standardized electronic form
    Covers calendar year
    Submission to Department Head required by-March
     (may be earlier this year)

 Any other documents in Official File that are relevant
  to the assessment and evaluation of performance in
  teaching, research and service
Components of the Annual Report
 Teaching

 Research/scholarship/creative activity

 Service
    Internal administration
    Clinical service
    External (administrative, leadership, community
     service)
Annual Review Process:
Overview
 Written review by Department Head, taking into account
  the information provided on the Annual Report
 Faculty member meets with Head to discuss performance
  and activity, objectives for the upcoming year, any
  potential changes to role description and career planning
 Copies of the annual report and review are maintained in
  the member’s Official File and the Dean’s office
Annual Review Process:
Relation to Compensation
 The annual review process is not linked to a Queen’s
  merit allocation system that affects compensation
 Compensation is determined by departmental
  practice plans that are established by departments
  within a SEAMO framework
 Each department’s SEAMO funding is determined by
  the clinical and academic activity of its members;
  therefore, complete reporting of individual activity is
  critically important
                                                       Professor

                                     Associate Prof    Variable timing

                                     Tenure
                                     Variable timing

                  Assistant Prof
                  Renewal appt
                  3-year duration

Assistant Prof
Initial appt
3-year duration
                         Tenure & Promotion
 Promotion, Reappointment and
 Tenure Committees
 Elected departmental committees are the initial level of
  review of applications for reappointment, promotion and
  tenure
 PRT Committee makes recommendation to the
  Department Head who makes a separate evaluation and
  recommendation to the Dean who in turn makes a
  recommendation to the Provost
 Applications for reappointment must follow established
  timelines but application for promotion/tenure is at
  discretion of candidate
 The process is governed by the Queen’s Senate document
Reappointment of Clinical Faculty
 The first reappointment is for three years.
 Subsequent applications for reappointment may be
  for five years or more, depending on performance.
 If performance is not meeting expectations then
  reappointment may be for less than three years.
Applications for Tenure by
Clinical Faculty
 Timing of application is at candidate’s discretion.
 Criteria for tenure are similar to those for promotion
  to Associate Professor.
 The benefits:
    Sense of professional accomplishment and prestige
    Reputational benefit to the Department and University
    Obviates need for subsequent reappointment processes
    Potential financial benefit that is limited to that part
     of income originating from Queen’s base budget
 The risk:
    Denial results in a one-year terminal appointment
Approaching Your Professional
Growth and Development
 “Process of assessing where you are in your work
  life, deciding where you want to be and then
  making the changes necessary to get there”

 A process of personal and professional growth is
  most effective when it is actively managed
The Traditional Academic
Pyramid
The Modern AHSC Paradigm
Mentors are Enablers of Growth
 Self-made successes are very rare
 A mentor provides experience, knowledge, views and
  wisdom in order to encourage and facilitate an
  individual’s growth and development
 Mentoring relationships vary in type and duration
  depending on their purpose, eg:
    Informal long term source of advice and support
    Structured, short term coaching around establishing a
     research program
Identifying Mentors
 The Department Head has an integral role in
  identifying mentors
 Defining the purpose of the mentoring relationship is
  the critical first step
 Match the assets of potential mentors to your needs
  from the relationship
 The most effective mentoring relationships are
  mutually beneficial

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:5/11/2014
language:English
pages:16