Brickyard building, which houses the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering

Academic personnel actions


Academic personnel processes are essential to faculty and academic professional’s academic careers. This page provides an overview of college-level administration of policy and procedures affecting academic personnel. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Maggie Olson.

Vice Provost for Academic Personnel hosted site which provides forms, detailed information and instructions for each process:

2021-2022 Engineering promotion and tenure workshops
Download Spring 2022 workshop slides
Download Spring 2022 workshop slides

Mon 3/21/2022
2:00 – 4:00 p.m.
In-person @ BY 660, Tempe campus and Zoom
Zoom link will be emailed to registrants.
Light refreshments will be served.

Thu 3/31/2022
9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
In-person @ SANCA 151, Poly Campus and Zoom
Zoom link will be emailed to registrants.
Light refreshments will be served.

Past workshops

2020-2021 Engineering promotion and tenure workshops

Monday, March 22, 2021
10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Meetings held via Zoom

Thursday, April 1, 2021
2:30 – 4:30 pm
Meetings held via Zoom

Academic Affairs Manual (ACD) policies governing sabbatical leave: ACD705

Office of the University Provost Process Guide for Sabbatical Leave

The applicant will submit to the academic unit director a sabbatical application, a curriculum vitae, and any supporting data the academic unit or college requires:

  1. Sabbatical Application
  2. Curriculum Vitae
  3. Proposed Sabbatical Project (no more than 2-pages)
  4. Evaluation Letter(s) (if required by unit procedures)
  5. Resource Support Letter(s) (if required by unit procedures)
  6. Unit Director Letter
    For candidates proposing to use sponsored funding for compensation on the Application for Sabbatical Leave form, a comment shall be included in the director’s letter confirming that the research advancement staff of the unit has met with the candidate to discuss availability and appropriateness of use of those funds.
  7. Personnel Committee Letter (if required by unit procedures)

It is the responsibility of the applicant to notify of their leave the funding agencies that require it.

Engineering conducts evaluation of sabbatical proposals according to college procedures. The application will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

  1. value to the teaching program of the unit
  2. enhancement of the applicant’s effectiveness as a researcher and as an educator
  3. value to the reputation of the institution
  4. contribution to knowledge
  5. provision of outstanding public or professional service at a local or national level.

Internal letters should explicitly address but not be limited to the following:

  1. the application is judged worthwhile
  2. there is a high probability that the applicant will succeed as proposed
  3. the department’s program of teaching and advisement will be maintained during the applicant’s absence. (College level letter does not address this)
Faculty evaluations

ACD 506–10: Annual Evaluations of Faculty

Guidelines for annual performance evaluation – Please note that clarification noted with “*” are Engineering specific

Key points:

  • Should be done for all Faculty appointed at 50 percent FTE and greater, regardless of appointment category.
  • Annual evaluations for faculty should be completed each year by the end of March.
    *This includes a summary page with your faculty scores along with signed top sheets.
  • The review should cover the previous 36 months, with substantial emphasis on the current year.
    *This includes faculty who have taken leave during the previous 36 months. Please adjust the weighted averages appropriately.

Director role –

  1. notify faculty of what performance evaluation material is needed and the deadline for submission
  2. provide work load assignments and individual faculty evaluation material to the peer review committee and establish a deadline for submission of the evaluation recommendation back to the Director
  3. provide a written evaluation to each faculty member that comments on strengths, weaknesses, needed improvement, opportunities for growth, and expectations for future distribution of effort and performance
  4. include in evaluations of tenure-eligible and those not yet at professor rank a statement indicating that the procedures for annual evaluation are not the same as those for a tenure or promotion review
  5. assure that all work load/flexible performance arrangements are specified for the next year after each evaluation
  6. provide the evaluations of individual faculty to the Dean as may be required by college bylaws.
Annual feedback on progress toward tenure

Refer to ACD 506–03: Faculty Probationary Appointments (

In addition to the meeting you have with the TT faculty member, and the performance evaluation that you normally write, you should provide written feedback about the “progress toward tenure”. This feedback can be contained in the same document of the performance evaluation, but it must be “distinct” from the performance evaluation language. For example, you can use a section heading or a subtitle differentiating the performance evaluation from the “progress toward tenure” feedback.

In terms of content, the assessment of “progress towards tenure” should be evaluating the progress of the candidate toward a balanced set of achievements contributing as a whole to the development of her/his professional personality. In other words, beyond the usual quantitative analysis of the individual activities (papers, proposals, student evaluations, etc.), the whole package needs to be well balanced.

Performance evaluation of directors in Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering (PDF)

The University Office of Evaluation and Educational Effectiveness (UOEEE) administers the director evaluation surveys to all faculty, academic professionals and staff in the unit. The results of the evaluation will be discussed with the supervising administrator and a summary will be shared with the unit. Data from the survey are aggregated and responses to open-ended items will be shared verbatim with the supervising administrator, though no names will be attached to responses.

When (rough timeframe, approximate length)

Every other year, faculty, academic professionals and staff input will be requested concerning their directors. The engineering dean’s office will administer 2-3 director surveys every academic year during the fall semester, so directors are being evaluated every two years (specific timeline follows).

  1. Beginning of fall semester – Directors to be evaluated in the current academic year will be asked to:
    1. Assess the survey questions and communicate any suggested changes.
    2. Prepare a brief optional statement to be included in the survey. This statement should explain the individual’s vision for the unit and outline recent accomplishments and goals so as to provide a background for the evaluation.
    3. Send the distribution list for faculty, academic professionals and staff in their unit to the Engineering Dean’s Office.
      1. Include any shared faculty
      2. Include 50% FTE staff and above
      3. Do not include any temporary faculty (faculty associate, adjuncts, postdocs)
  2. September – The UOEEE will release the director evaluation surveys to all associated faculty, academic professionals and staff in the unit. The assessment must be completed in two weeks.
  3. October – Feedback on the results of the evaluation will be provided to the director in an oral report from the supervising administrator who conducted the evaluation.
Why (why this is important for Engineering to do)

In addition to supporting an ongoing commitment to positive and productive leadership, Engineering is aligned with policies set forth in ASU’s Academic Affairs Policies and Procedures Manual – ACD 111–03: Faculty and Academic Professional Participation in Evaluation of Academic Administrators

Director evaluation survey

Answers choices range from Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly disagree; Not enough information/Not applicable/No opinion:

Q1  Our director has a long-range and forward-looking vision for our school.
Q2  Our director communicates the mission, vision, and priorities of our school, the Fulton Schools, and ASU to faculty, staff, and other unit personnel.
Q3  Our director values and promotes a culture of creativity and innovation in research and education.
Q4  Our director addresses problems and communicates information directly and in a timely way.
Q5  Our director makes decisions based on transparent values and principles.
Q6  Our director promotes a diverse and inclusive work environment.
Q7  Our director demonstrates an availability and willingness to receive and act on input from faculty, staff, and other unit personnel.
Q8  Our director’s leadership has helped advance our school in constructive ways.
Q9  Our director’s leadership has contributed to my professional growth.
Q10  Our school, the Fulton Schools, and ASU would be well-served by maintaining the current leadership in our school.
Boxes available for comprehensive answer:
Q11  What do you believe your director does exceptionally well?
Q12  What constructive feedback can you offer to help your director improve a specific area of leadership?