Kenan-Flagler Business School: Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Policy

Unit Policy

Title

Kenan-Flagler Business School: Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Policy

Introduction

Purpose

This document establishes the criteria, standards, and procedures that govern reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions for tenure-track faculty at the Kenan-Flagler Business School. Its purpose is to define expectations for faculty performance across research, teaching, and service, and to outline the multi-level evaluation process through which promotion and tenure decisions are made.

Scope

This policy applies to tenure-track faculty at the Kenan-Flagler Business School, as well as the tenured faculty, Promotion and Tenure Committee members, Associate Deans, and the Dean who participate in evaluating reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions.

All procedures and policies relating to decisions affecting tenure-track faculty in the Kenan-Flagler Business School are intended to conform to University policies and procedures. In case of conflict, University policies and procedures takes precedent. The following criteria and guidelines do not repeat these policies and procedures; they are intended to conform to them. Each faculty member has a responsibility to become familiar with the provisions of these guidelines in addition to University policies and procedures.

It is an important responsibility of the tenured faculty at the Kenan-Flagler Business School to provide advice on tenure and promotion decisions within the school. Faculty members who participate in this process must maintain high standards of responsibility in ethical behavior. Responsibility includes the obligation to give careful attention to the materials of a promotion or tenure case. Ethical behavior includes a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings in the documents, such as external letters associated with the process since confidentiality makes possible open and honest discussion.

These guidelines govern tenure and promotion decisions at the Kenan-Flagler Business School. The philosophy motivating the guidelines is reviewed below, as our key criteria and procedures on which decisions are to be based.

Objectives and Process Goals

The Kenan-Flagler Business School must be strong in the present and prepared to meet future challenges. This requires high standards for faculty performance - and that all faculty continue to grow professionally and make contributions towards the work, the intellectual life, and the mission of the school. Individual faculty members contribute to the mission of the school through effective performance in research, teaching, and service.

Process Goals: Both the school and individual faculty member are served well by a process of personal and institutional planning and feedback that leads to an allocation of effort and skill to valued activities and areas. Thus, these guidelines should help establish a process and reward system that do the following:

• Indicate what faculty activities are valuable and contribute to the school
• Provide regular feedback during annual reviews to individual faculty members about the extent of their contributions
• Reward activities that contribute to the school's mission
• Explicitly acknowledge individual faculty members who agree to perform duties that are important for the school, but that involve some opportunity costs with respect to individual external reputation.

No one should construe performance appraisal feedback as an untenured faculty member in the school as implying a set of preconditions that will ensure a positive tenure decision. Performance feedback is part of a constructive process to help guide development of individual faculty members and the school. It is intended to help a tenure candidate identify ways of contributing to the school, thereby increasing the probability of being offered a tenured faculty position at the school. In that sense, the ongoing performance appraisal process is designed to serve the school and the candidate - and to recognize and communicate the concerns in interest of both. In contrast, the tenure process in the school is designed to generate informed discussion in feedback from a broad group of stakeholders, including internal and external reviewers, on the total contribution of the candidate; that contribution is considered in the context of the needs and objectives of the school. Following a recommendation from the school, the case proceeds to the University and Board of Trustees for consideration before the University grants the candidate tenure.

Tenure decisions are by their very nature different from any other personnel action. Tenure reviews are the most important personnel decisions made in the school. They represent a commitment of the school to employ a faculty member for the remainder of his or her professional career, subject to satisfactory periodic post-tenure reviews. Organizationally, tenure decisions limit flexibility because they represent a willingness on the part of the school to forgo hiring of alternative faculty in the future. As a consequence, faculty members must understand that tenure is granted, not merely earned. Accomplishments by themselves do not justify tenure.

A basic obligation of the University is the development and dissemination of new knowledge. As a major unit within the broader University, the Kenan-Flagler Business School has as a central mission the development of new knowledge relevant to the study and practice of disciplines related to management. This includes (but is not limited to) the discovery of new principles, tools, theories, and insights that relate to the environment in which managers operate as well as evaluation of current management practice and mentoring of other scholars. Hence, strong performance on the research dimension is a necessary precondition to a positive tenure or promotion decision.

Teaching, which includes the transfer of relevant knowledge and expertise from the faculty to various student groups, is a fundamental responsibility of the school. Hence, a faculty member must demonstrate strong teaching performance in the school's degree programs to receive further consideration for a favorable promotion or tenure recommendation.

Accomplishment of the school's missions requires a number of essential and significant activities beyond the areas of teaching and research. There should be sufficient evidence that the candidate's contribution to service enhances the school's effectiveness and functioning to receive consideration for a favorable tenure or promotion recommendation.

General Guidelines for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Decisions

Personnel decisions related to reappointment, tenure, or promotion must be guided by evaluation of performance of the individual faculty member. In all cases, the overriding factor should be the individual's total contribution to the school's mission. Ultimately, sustained faculty accomplishment should be the hallmark of readiness for promotion and tenure at Kenan-Flagler Business School.

Reappointment

The reappointment evaluation affords an opportunity to assess a candidate's trajectory towards tenure. While the reappointment review occurs relatively early in a candidate's career, a positive outcome requires concrete evidence of progress towards tenure and is not automatic. In terms of research, candidates should be reappointed only if it seems reasonably likely that they will ultimately have a tenurable research record, recognizing the relatively short time between the reappointment and tenure decision, and the long lags typical in a publication process. One example of evidence of solid progress towards tenure would be one or more publications in recognized, high-quality refereed journals, as well as a pipeline of papers under review, and working papers. However, a publication is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for reappointment.

In addition, candidates for reappointment should have demonstrated, or demonstrate, the potential for effective teaching and be on a trajectory towards a tenurable teaching record. Working with the Area Chair, candidates should have a teaching plan at the time of the appointment that will allow the candidate to demonstrate an ability to contribute to the school's current and future teaching needs.

While service requirements at reappointment are expected to be minimal, candidates are expected to have at least an effective rating on the service dimension.

Tenure

A tenure recommendation should only be made when the trade-off between the flexibility of future hiring and the expectation of on-going significant contributions to the school is in the best long-term interest of the school.

More specifically, a positive tenure recommendation should only be made when there is reasonable confidence that a faculty candidate is one of the best obtainable individuals now or in the foreseeable future to meet the long-term needs of the school. For example, one indicator of this would be if this person was applying for a new tenured position at the school, they would be among the top candidates applying.

Only an individual who has already made significant contributions to knowledge should be considered as a serious candidate for tenure; a tenure recommendation should not be made solely on the presumption that an individual will ultimately make contributions in the future. On the other hand, the candidate's potential for long-term contributions to the school must be significant, and the likelihood for the candidate to realize that potential must be high for a favorable tenure decision.

Promotion

Associate Professor

A promotion to associate professor from assistant professor within the school is intertwined with a tenured decision. That is, it is not possible to promote a faculty candidate within the school from assistant professor to associate professor unless tenure is granted. Promotion at this level must be based on the tenure criteria. These criteria should also apply to promotion decisions for full or chaired professors when the promotion is accompanied by tenure.

Full Professor

Promotion to full professor formally recognizes accomplishments in and contributions to research, teaching, and service - in furthering the study and practice in the individual's chosen discipline and enhancing the ability of the school as a whole to contribute in these areas. Promotion to a higher rank is a symbol both inside and outside the school of professional stature. On-going professional growth, development, and contributions to the school are expected of all faculty. Beyond that, a positive promotion recommendation should only be made when a faculty member has demonstrated significant growth, development, and commitment since appointment to his or her currently held rank. Relative to tenure, promotion to full professor generally entails higher expectations on research, teaching, and service dimensions. Candidates for full professor are expected to have made significant contributions in research, teaching, and service following promotion to their current rank. Candidates for full professor are expected to have at least a national and possibly an international reputation in their chosen field of research.

Chaired Professor

Criteria for awarding chairs will be governed by the document "Process for Endowed Chair Consideration at the Kenan-Flagler Business School".

General Guidelines for Appraisal of Research, Teaching, and Service

Research

The focus of appraisal on the research dimension is the significance of the contribution to knowledge made by the individual faculty member. Gauging this contribution may include, but is not limited to, examining the following elements:

• Demonstrated individual ability to do effective research on topics judged to be significant.
• Demonstrated individual ability to publish one's research in a high-quality forum that will further the potential acceptance, diffusion, and impact of the research.
• Demonstrated contribution to the research effectiveness of other faculty and doctoral students in the school or other colleagues in the profession (i.e. "research leadership").
• Consistent evidence of ability and motivation to maintain and enhance a high level of research productivity

An appraisal of an individual's research contribution includes consideration of the significance of the questions and topics of study as well as the extent and quality of the work itself. For tenure or promotion, a candidate must have demonstrated significant contribution to the research literature in the candidate's chosen discipline. One potential indicator of research contribution is that the faculty member is recognized as being among the leading researchers in a topic area so that the candidate is identified with that area, although faculty may also contribute by having an impact on the research literature in a particular discipline more generally. Although collaboration in co-authorship with internal and external colleagues is encouraged, the individual faculty member's contributions are central to this research appraisal.

Both the quality of individual contributions and the quantity of those contributions are relevant. Simple "line counts" of the number of research projects in publications are to be avoided. A large quantity of research may not result in a significant contribution if the quality is not good. On the other hand, the quantity of high-quality contributions affects the likely impact of a faculty member's research.

The potential contribution of an individual research project is sometimes difficult to assess - in part because the impact of a research topic may be long term and cumulative. Moreover, the nature of the contribution to different audiences may vary.

These are, however, several relevant indicators of the likely impact of the faculty members research. These include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Evaluations of the likely impact of the research by senior faculty members in the school and faculty at other research institutions who have established records for scholarship and expertise in the area of the research.
• The extent and nature of references to the work in other published materials, when sufficient time has passed for this to have occurred as reflected in, for example, citation counts.
• The reputation of the publication in which the research appears, including consideration of the procedures used in selecting manuscripts for publication, and the competition for space.
• The breadth and depth of the research contribution and the significance of the research.
• Evidence that the research has had a significant impact on managerial practice or how scholars view an area of research inquiry.
• Cohort analyses of productivity in leading journals relative to the candidate's peer group.

National and possibly international reputation on the research dimension can be demonstrated through the following service activities:

• Participation in and leadership of professional associations involving significant contributions to external constituencies of the school.
• Service as an editorial board member, Associate Editor, Department Editor, or Editor of high-quality publication outlets; frequent or notable service as a referee for such outlets.

It is not the intent of these guidelines to suggest that any of these indicators be used in isolation or as a sole surrogate measure of the quality of their research, but rather that the school evaluate the quality and likely impact of the candidate's total research performance in as complete a fashion as is possible.

Other features relevant to the assessment of an individual's research contributions are as follows:

First, the refereed Journal is the traditional publication vehicle for research contributions targeted to the scholarly community. Publication in high-quality refereed journals that reach relevant scholarly audiences is important and necessary. Given the various disciplines in which research occurs inside of a Business School, the school has developed a list of top scholarly outlets in each of the areas within the school, including top core disciplinary journals, top field journals, in other high-quality outlets. This list is included in Appendix A of this document. The purpose of this list is to provide untenured faculty members guidance around high-quality publication outlets, as well as aid faculty members who work in other disciplines an assessment of the quality of the work in another area. As with the other indicators mentioned above, this journal list is not intended to imply that a simple count of articles in this, or any, set of outlets is sufficient to evaluate an individual's research record.

Second, it is important to acknowledge that management professionals are and must continue to be an important audience for the school. Thus, articles that appear in outlets which target important professional audiences are positive elements of a faculty member's research portfolio, and positive contributions to the school's mission.

Third, the school values interdisciplinary research. Interdisciplinary research provides opportunities for creating knowledge in new and unanticipated ways, and can constitute cutting-edge scholarship. A faculty member whose research is interdisciplinary can declare that his or her work is interdisciplinary and formally request that the promotion and tenure evaluation process take this into account. At the discretion of the school, this may include seeking input from outside evaluators from the major disciplines in which the faculty member's work touches, to ensure that the breadth of their work is represented. In some cases, it might be advisable to seek additional external reviewers. Faculty members whose research does not include interdisciplinary research will not be penalized or denied tenure or promotion on these grounds.

Fourth, the school is open to new forms of communicating scholarly contributions, such as the creation of databases, blogs, websites, and other online scholarly resources. The school encourages research innovation and experimentation, and acknowledges that digitally communicated work may not always be peer reviewed prior to publication and dissemination. However, as with all forms of scholarly contributions, the impact of online scholarly work must be considered. As appropriate, measures of the quality and impact in digital contributions may be determined through feedback from faculty at peer institutions, end users, and other audiences. As with articles targeted to management practitioners, significant and relevant online scholarly contributions are viewed as a positive aspect of a faculty members research portfolio, but do not substitute for research in high-quality refereed journals.

In accordance with University policies, the school also considers "engaged scholarship" in the tenure and promotion process. In the school, "engaged scholarship" refers to scholarly efforts that are directed towards persons or groups outside the University, which addresses business and management issues of public and policy importance. Examples of engaged scholarship may include research papers published based on work conducted during an engaged activity, and publications of articles or books on issues of societal, public, and policy importance whose contributions can be assessed using accepted measures of impact. As with all research activities, the quality of engaged contribution is important and will be assessed by metrics that measure external impact using publications in high-quality journals and external funding.

Teaching and Teaching-Related Activities

In addition, faculty members seeking promotion and tenure are expected to have demonstrated teaching competence that indicates an ability to contribute to the school's current and future teaching needs. Faculty members should work with their area chair and Associate Deans of individual programs to demonstrate successful contributions to the school's teaching mission. These successful contributions could include the design and delivery of content in either asynchronous or synchronous forms, deep investment into one of our key programs, teaching across multiple programs, or demonstrations of contributions to key teaching needs.

As with research, appraisal of teaching is complex. However, the school will evaluate a number of different elements of teaching contributions in assessing this dimension of a faculty member's performance. Major elements to consider are as follows:

• Course content and design, including development of new courses.
• Development of effective new teaching materials - including those which are used by other faculty at this and other institutions.
• Personal contributions to the development of teaching by other faculty (i.e. building the teaching skills of other faculty members).
• Skills in classroom presentation and discussion, as based both on student assessment and peer evaluations.
• Contributions to the development of individual students outside of the classroom.
• Consistent evidence of motivation and ability to maintain and enhance these factors.

Teaching in executive development programs is also an important part of the school's mission. Faculty members are encouraged to share their research and teaching expertise with non-degree constituencies throughout the school's ongoing non-degree programs or through a management program designed for a specialized market. Successful contributions in this area can enhance the assessment of a faculty member on the teaching dimension and can therefore enhance the overall assessment of a faculty member's performance.

Executive development teaching is an example of an "engaged activity," defined as work that influences, enriches, and improves the lives of people in the community beyond the University. Other examples of engaged teaching are corporate teaching or training provided outside of UNC's Executive Development program, community teaching (e.g. public schools, nonprofits), advising a student team consulting project, teaching a course or supervising a project in which students work to benefit a community group or organization. This list is designed to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. Any teaching endeavor whose primary beneficiary is outside of the UNC community could be a potential form of engaged teaching. As with executive development teaching, successful examples of engaged teaching can enhance the assessment of a faculty member's teaching performance. However, successful engaged teaching does not substitute for effective teaching in a degree program within the school.

As with interdisciplinary research, the school values interdisciplinary teaching. Interdisciplinary teaching crosses boundaries and brings together perspectives from new and traditional disciplines. However, lack of interdisciplinary teaching should not be a reason for a low assessment in teaching.

It is not necessary for an individual to be an effective teaching contributor to all of the school's degree programs to receive a favorable assessment on the teaching dimension. However, the ability and willingness to make versatile contributions across programs or formats is encouraged and valued, particularly as one advances in rank from Assistant to Associate and to Full Professor. This versatility among the tenured portion of the faculty adds to the long-term flexibility of the school to meet the challenges and needs of future teaching environments. Such successful diversity can reflect favorably on the potential of the faculty member to meet the long-term teaching needs that may arise in the school.

C. Service Contributions to the School and University

Important aspects of this citizenship dimension include the following:

• Service within the school on individual assignments, committee assignments, and administrative positions.
• Contributions to a positive culture of collegiality within the school, including mentoring of junior faculty and students, and professional behavior consistent with the core values of the school.
• Work representing the school in the University and to other significant external constituencies.
• Consistent evidence of ability and motivation to maintain and enhance these aspects of service.

Each tenured faculty member should expect to be asked to perform a variety of support activities ranging through committee assignments, special assignments, and administrative posts. Moreover, each tenured faculty member is expected to share meaningfully in the load of day-to-day and special activities that are necessary to the maintenance and development of quality in the school. Except in extraordinary situations, untenured faculty will not be expected to take on more than minor service roles. Consequently, the weighting of service contributions in the promotion decision to Associate Professor with tenure should be relatively low. However, a failure to contribute equitably to the citizenship dimension may result in an unfavorable overall assessment of performance of a faculty member at any level.

As with teaching, service can take the form of "engaged activities" which are business related activities furthering the mission of the school and benefiting the public outside the traditional scholarly community. Examples of engaged service include, but are not limited to, advising government officials and testifying before governmental bodies, serving in non-academic professional associations, speaking to non-academic audiences, assisting not-for-profit organizations with business issues. Engagement may play a more prominent role in different phases of a faculty member's career and would typically be more common among senior faculty than junior faculty.

Consulting with, or teaching for, external constituencies on a compensated basis within limits specified by University policy is acceptable and encouraged, provided that such consulting and external teaching does not have a negative impact on a faculty member's obligations to the school. However, such consulting and teaching will not be considered as part of the citizenship dimension or as part of the overall performance evaluation of an individual within the school, except of course as it results in other desired benefits which accrue directly to the school - such as through more effective teaching and more significant research output.

Ratings Assessment of Candidate's Contributions to Research, Teaching, and Service

Ratings assessments of research, teaching, and service components of a candidate's contributions will consist of one of four levels of evaluation: Distinguished, Excellent, Effective, or Inadequate. This section describes the criteria used to generate the ratings of the candidate's contributions and its connection to the promotion decision.

Promotion to Full professor will be based on a comprehensive assessment of research, teaching, and service contributions to the school. A candidate should generally be considered as having a distinguished research record or judged to have excellent performance in both teaching and research. In addition, candidates should have at least an excellent rating on the service dimension. A sustained record of pedagogical excellence and a proven commitment to institution-building are expected; the absence of which will likely disqualify the candidate.

Promotion to Associate professor with tenure will be based on a comprehensive assessment of research, teaching, and service contributions to the school. For promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, the candidate should be judged as having at least an excellent research record. In addition, candidates should have at least an excellent rating on the teaching dimension and an effective rating on the service dimension.

Research Record

The assessment of the Candidate's research contributions is specified below:

Research contributions can be demonstrated in various ways, with different research contributions holding more impact and weight than others depending on the promotion being considered. Thus, a portfolio of contributions is to be considered. While the count of publications in the school's list of journals and citation counts relative to the candidate's cohort are considered for every candidate, candidates should have a sustained portfolio of research impact. The impact of the candidate's research on the academic field and managerial practice will carry more weight than a simple count of publications.

The expectation for research contributions will be greater for candidates going up for promotion to Full professor compared to candidates going up for promotion to Associate professor (with tenure). Candidates for Full professor are expected to have at least a national and possibly an international reputation in their chosen field of research.

For a distinguished research rating, substantial external evidence should exist that the candidate is a demonstrated leader in his/her field and has had a major impact on this field (e.g., the individual's publications are frequently cited in the scholarly literature, and/or the candidate is regularly quoted in the national and international media pursuant to his/her scholarly work). An excellent research rating should only be made when the faculty member has demonstrated significant growth, development, and commitment on the research dimension since appointment to his or her currently held rank.

Distinguished Research Record

In addition to the criteria listed in the Excellent research evaluation listed below, a Distinguished research evaluation will include a sustained portfolio of research impact including but not limited to the following criteria:

• Journal editorship
• Special Issue editorship
• Journal board/department editorships
• Fellow of professional societies
• Senior/Associate editorships at multiple journals on Kenan-Flagler list
• Leadership of major academic or professional associations involving significant contributions (e.g., chair/president of academic society, president of a professional association, publication board member of academic society, chair of a major academic conference, etc.)
• Keynotes delivered to academic societies
• Major research awards from professional societies
• Research grants from government agencies/private sector
• Demonstrated impact on managerial practice/ research with private/public sector agencies (e.g., research publications with evidence of managerial impact, recognition by professional societies, etc.)
• Impact on public policy (e.g., papers cited in policy decisions/publications, engagement with policy commissions, keynote addresses to professional societies/organizations)
• Frequent Citations/articles in national media/news outlets
• Translational articles/books for disseminating research (e.g., articles, podcasts, social media contributions in well-read/disseminated outlets such as Kenan-Flagler outlets)

The impact of the candidate's research on the academic field and managerial practice will carry more weight than a simple count of publications for a distinguished evaluation.

Excellent Research Record

An excellent research evaluation will include a portfolio of research impact including but not limited to the following criteria:

• Count of publications in the school's list of journals relative to the candidate's cohort
• Quality of publications
• Number of citations relative to the candidate's cohort
• A sustained and positive current and future trajectory of publications and citations
• Mentorship of doctoral students (e.g., publications with PhD students, serving as chair or committee member of PhD students)
• Research awards (e.g., best paper recognition, impact awards) from professional societies
• Citations/articles in national media/news outlets
• Potential impact on managerial practice/ research with private/public sector agencies (e.g., research publications with potential of managerial impact, research sponsored by private/public agencies, etc.)

Teaching Record

The assessment of the Candidate's teaching contributions is specified below:

Teaching contributions can be demonstrated in various ways, with different teaching contributions holding more impact and weight than others depending on the promotion being considered. Thus, a portfolio of contributions is to be considered.

The expectation for teaching contributions will be greater for candidates going up for promotion to full professor compared to candidates going up for promotion to Associate professor. For a distinguished teaching evaluation, substantial evidence should exist that the candidate has a portfolio of forward looking curricular and teaching impact in terms of school needs and has been consistently making outstanding contributions to the teaching mission of the school. For an excellent teaching evaluation, substantial evidence should exist that the candidate has made excellent contributions to meeting the teaching needs of the school. The overall teaching contributions towards student/program success will determine the teaching rating.

Distinguished Teaching Record

In addition to the criteria listed in the Excellent teaching evaluation listed below, a distinguished teaching evaluation will include a portfolio of teaching impact including but not limited to the following criteria:

• Major Teaching awards, such as the Weatherspoon award, KFBS graduation awards, UNC campus-wide awards, and major external awards for teaching.
• Consistent and ongoing recognition as Teaching All-Star over one's teaching career
• Teaching several successful courses within a concentration/area of emphasis (or similar structure) that are critical for students' career outcomes
• Consistently teaching a large number of students annually across programs (counting both inload and overload teaching)
• Consistently traveling to offsite locations to teach in Kenan-Flagler programs
• Introducing new (to Kenan-Flagler) courses to the curriculum that are proven to be successful
• Writing and disseminating several new cases and/or books that capture the modern business environment and are valued by students and industry
• Introducing new teaching methods/technology (e.g., AI) that are adopted by other faculty members
• Teaching successfully in Executive Development over many program offerings across several years
• Leading interdisciplinary or co-taught courses that bridge different facets of business or connect business with other schools at the university (e.g., data science, healthcare, public policy)
• Consistently designing hands-on/experiential learning experiences such as simulations, live cases, global immersions, or consulting projects
• Creating scalable learning models, such as online, hybrid, or modular materials with proven reuse across programs and with broad teaching impact
• Presenting teaching innovations at conferences or through publications, expanding Kenan-Flagler's influence

Excellent Teaching Record

An excellent teaching evaluation will include a portfolio of forward looking curricular and teaching impact in terms of school needs, including but not limited to the following criteria:

• Recognition as Teaching All-Star multiple times
• Consistent instructor and course teaching ratings in the top 25% in format/program taught
• Developing new course(s) within a concentration/area of emphasis (or similar structure) that are critical for students' career outcomes
• Traveling to offsite locations to teach in Kenan-Flagler programs
• Introducing new teaching methods/technology (e.g., AI)
• Designing hands-on learning experiences such as simulations
• Introducing curricular innovations that have demonstrated student impact
• Introducing new (to Kenan-Flagler) innovation or courses to the curriculum that have the potential to be successful
• Writing and disseminating new cases and/or books that capture the modern business environment and are valued by students and industry
• Teaching successfully in Executive Development
• Leading interdisciplinary or co-taught courses that bridge different facets of business across different areas in the business school
• Designing hands-on learning experiences such as simulations, live cases, global immersions, or consulting projects
• Creating scalable learning models, such as online, hybrid, or modular materials that can be reused across programs and broaden access

Service Record

The assessment of the Candidate's service contributions is specified below:

We recognize that different service roles require different levels of engagement, and the candidate's service rating depends on the overall impact on program/student success. The expectation for service contributions will be greater for candidates going up for promotion to Full professor compared to candidates going up for promotion to Associate professor. Service contributions can be demonstrated in various ways, depending on the promotion being considered, with different service responsibilities holding more impact and weight than others and thus a portfolio of contributions are considered.

To receive a distinguished rating on service, candidates should have a consistent service record of institution-building that makes a sustained contribution to the school expected to last beyond the person's tenure in the role. To receive an excellent rating on service, candidates should have an excellent service record of institution-building that makes a sustained contribution to the school. To have an effective service rating, a candidate needs to have demonstrated good citizenship in their area and the school.

Distinguished Service Record

In addition to the criteria listed in the Excellent service evaluation listed below, a distinguished service evaluation will include a portfolio of institution-building activities including but not limited to the following criteria:

• Service as a Program Dean for several years with demonstrated program success
• Serving as an area chair for several years with demonstrated area success
• Engaging in activities that lead to the establishment of a new center or programs, consistent with school strategy
• Serving as Director of a center with demonstrated growth in impact, engagement, and financial sustainability — including increases in student participation and career outcomes, thought leadership and visibility, programmatic reach, and external funding.
• Major contributions to important school and university committees. Examples include heading a school-wide strategy or emerging technology committee, service on the University APT committee, serving on P&T and/or post-tenure committee for multiple years, etc.
• Participating in activities that lead to external partnerships/engagement

Excellent Service Record

An excellent service record will include, but is not limited to, examining the following elements with demonstrated impact and/or student success:

• Service as a Program Dean for one-two years
• Serving as an area chair for one-two years
• Serving as Director of a center for one-two years.
• Serving in a leadership role at a center for multiple years
• Serving as an Area of emphasis/concentration leader for multiple years
• Serving as an area PhD coordinator for multiple years
• Serving as a director of a research laboratory for multiple years
• Service contributions that enhance the teaching mission of the school (e.g., Faculty advisor of academic student clubs; leadership of student career pathways, etc.)
• Important contributions to school committees. Examples include membership of school-wide strategy, emerging technology committee, KF research editorial board, academic program/syllabus committee, representation on Faculty Advisory Board (FAB), program leadership committee, Program Academic ineligibility committee, academic program syllabus/curriculum committee, etc.
• Important contributions to university committees. Examples include Dean's search committee, Athletics committee, Educational Policy Committee, Faculty Assembly Delegation, Faculty Executive Committee, University curriculum committee, administrative board, scholarship committees, other University committees, etc.
• Important contributions to program or area-specific committees. Examples include leadership of area conference and workshop planning and organization, leadership of area PhD committee, leadership of faculty search committee, faculty sponsor for area led student organizations, etc.
• Participating in activities that lead to external partnerships/engagement (e.g., speaking and/or panel membership at school events/conferences, speaking at external events and or professional conferences, consistently serving as a judge at industry-sponsored case competitions, etc.)

The roles listed above may not be weighted equally in assessing a candidate's service contribution rating. A high level of engagement through roles listed above can also qualify a candidate for a distinguished service rating based on the overall impact on program/student success.

Effective Service Record

For an effective service rating, substantial evidence should exist that the candidate makes contributions to the area and school effectiveness and functioning. This can be demonstrated by participating in area and school activities such as graduation ceremonies, research seminars, speaker series, area meetings, school town halls, PhD dissertation defense, faculty and PhD recruiting, area cultural activities, etc. This can also be demonstrated by participation in some of the activities listed in the excellent service record described above. There should be sufficient evidence that the candidate's contribution to service will increase over time to meet the school's needs.

Timing of Promotion Decisions

It has been a rare event for promotion to occur in less than four years after achieving one's current rank (packet submitted before the fourth year). Historically at Kenan-Flagler, the typical amount of time in rank has been six years (packet submitted during the sixth year).

However, unusually high levels of accomplishment may be considered in the timing of promotion or tenure review at any time. For example, a candidate who has been at Kenan-Flagler the entire time of their current rank and where their record justifies promotion. Examples of this would be a research record justifying promotion and tenure in the faculty member's 5th instead of 6th year, or promotion to Full Professor in less than six years at the Associate rank. Competitive external offers that convey higher rank or tenure might be a rationale for a promotion or tenure review.

When a faculty member joins Kenan-Flagler after first being employed as a faculty member at another institution, and where their research record justifies promotion, they may be considered for promotion review at any time. An example of this would be a faculty member who served on the faculty of another university for three years prior to joining Kenan-Flagler (at their current rank).

In all promotion cases irrespective of timing, the same criteria will be applied as a normally timed promotion decision. In other words, the criteria for promotion are the same for all promotion cases.

Overall Evaluation Process

The reappointment, promotion and tenure process within the school consists of a multi-level process of evaluation, including:

• Within the disciplinary area (i.e. academic area within the school)
• By independent external evaluators
• By the school's Promotion and Tenure committee
• By the Associate Deans of the programs in which the candidate has taught
• By a full faculty meeting consisting of all voting eligible faculty (those faculty at or above the rank to which the candidate seeks promotion)
• And finally, by the Dean

Cases that receive the Dean's recommendation are then forwarded to the Provost. This section describes the stages of the process which are internal to the school.

Reappointment

Candidates for reappointment must submit a packet for review that consists of the following materials:

• The candidate's most recent curriculum vitae
• Copies of all publications and any working papers that the candidate wishes the school to consider
• A set of all teaching evaluations from classes conducted in the school
• A Research, Teaching, and Service statement

The school does not seek external evaluations of a candidate's scholarly work at reappointment prior to consideration for promotion and tenure.

Tenure and Promotion

Candidates for promotion or tenure must submit a packet for review that consists of the following materials:

• The candidate's most recent curriculum vitae
• Copies of all publications and any working papers that the candidate wishes the school to consider
• A set of all teaching evaluations from classes conducted in the school
• A Research, Teaching, and Service statement

In addition to these materials, promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, promotion to Full Professor, and promotion to Distinguished Professor requires solicitation of input from external reviewers.

The school seeks letters from external reviewers who are recognized thought leaders in the candidate's discipline and who have scholarly expertise to judge the candidate's research contributions. These external evaluations provide insight into the depth and breadth of the research contribution made by the candidate over and above the internal assessment made by the eligible faculty in the school. Each of these letters is not considered in isolation; rather, faculty in the school consider the collective information that they provide as one input into their assessment. The goal is to be systematic and rigorous in collecting information that helps to benchmark each candidate's research record against high external standards

Procedure for External Reviewers

Each candidate for promotion or tenure will supply the Senior Associate Dean with a list of 12 potential external reviewers. The candidate may also request that specific individuals not be asked to serve as a reviewer. The candidate's area chair will also supply a list of 12 names, at least five of which do not overlap with the candidate's list. Perspective external reviewers are not to be contacted in advance, or during the process, by either the candidate or the area.

Any individual nominated to serve as an outside reviewer must not have a conflict of interest in providing an evaluation. Examples of such a conflict include co-authorship with the candidate, serving as a mentor to the candidate (including serving on a dissertation committee of the candidate), sharing a grant with the candidate, etc. in addition, outside reviewers should meet one or more of the following criteria:

• Hold a full-time tenured appointment as a faculty member at a peer school (see attached list in Appendix B).
• Hold a full-time tenured appointment in a department externally recognized for leadership in the candidate's sub-specialty.
• Have served or currently serves as an Editor or Associate Editor of a leading scholarly Journal in the candidate's general field.
• Have been selected as a research fellow (or similar major career research recognition) by a major professional association in the candidate's field.

At least nine reviewers on the candidate's list and nine reviewers on the area list should be from peer institutions.

In addition, outside reviewers must be individuals at rank equal to or higher than the rank for which the candidate is being considered.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee, whose composition and function are described in section XI, has the responsibility of ensuring that the list of outside reviewers received from the area chair and the candidate meet these criteria. The committee has the discretion to ask for additional names from either the candidate or the area chair.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee then submits the list of external reviewers to the Senior Associate Dean.

The Senior Associate Dean's office will contact 10-12 potential letter writers (taken from the list provided by the candidate in the area) by email to request a response, positive or negative, on their willingness to participate. If less than 10 indicate a willingness to write a letter, additional names from the list will be added until 10 indicate a willingness to write. The goal is to receive at least 8 letters, recognizing that unforeseen circumstances may prevent some previously committed letter writers from providing letters.

Report from Area

For any faculty members seeking reappointment, promotion or tenure, faculty who work in the candidate's area are an important source of expertise for the evaluation of the quality of the candidate's scholarly work (based on the portfolio of work as well as the letters from external reviewers), the assessment of the rigor and quality of the candidates teaching assignment and judgment on the candidate's contribution to the school's intellectual life and service to the discipline. As a consequence, one of the inputs to the process is a report from the area that evaluates the candidate on three dimensions of performance: research, teaching, and service. In addition to a narrative description of the contributions that the candidate has made, each eligible faculty member in the area will rate each candidate on each dimension (Distinguished, Excellent, Effective, or Inadequate). Faculty members may abstain, but abstentions on any of the dimensions should occur only rarely, and it must be explained. Eligible faculty members in the candidate's area will submit a confidential vote on the candidate in the full faculty meeting along with all other faculty at the meeting.

Report from Associate Dean

The Associate Deans of the programs in which the candidate has taught are asked to provide additional detail on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates teaching to supplement course evaluations in peer evaluations conducted by the Promotion and Tenure Committee.

Report from Promotion and Tenure Committee

The Promotion and Tenure Committee is comprised of Full or Chaired Professors from multiple disciplinary areas in the school and serves several important roles in the promotion and tenure process. First, the committee serves as an independent check on processes inside the disciplinary areas. Second, the committee members conduct peer evaluations of the candidates' teaching performance through classroom visits, to supplement the course evaluations in the report from the Associate Deans of the programs in which the candidate has taught. Third, the committee ensures that the materials collected for each candidate are complete, and that the guidelines have been met in a consistent manner across candidates. As a consequence, the Promotion and Tenure Committee gathers all pertinent information, including letters from external reviewers, area reports, and reports from the Associate Deans, and prepares a report for the eligible faculty members. Finally, the committee advises the voting-eligible faculty by carefully evaluating all of the evidence assembled about a candidate in each of the three categories of research, teaching, and service, and then provides summary ratings in these categories.

Specifically, each committee member will rate each candidate on each dimension (research, teaching, service) with one of four levels of evaluation: Distinguished, Excellent, Effective, or Inadequate. Abstentions on any of the dimensions should occur only rarely and must be explained. For example, a faculty member may abstain if they have a conflict of interest with the candidate.

These inputs are advisory in nature: it remains the responsibility of the Dean to synthesize the inputs and make a recommendation to University officials. Faculty members on the committee will submit a confidential vote on the candidate in the full faculty meeting along with all other faculty members at the meeting.

Full Faculty Meeting

Once all materials for the candidate have been assembled, they are available for eligible faculty to review. Following the review period, eligible faculty members assemble to discuss the case.

This meeting allows for a discussion of the candidate's existing record among eligible faculty members inside and outside of the candidate's discipline, including the nature and impact of the scholarly work, the quality of the teaching record, service to the school and to the discipline, and an assessment of the likely future contributions of the individual to the school's long-term needs. Eligible faculty members who do not have the benefit of this discussion may wish to abstain from voting, although they are not required to do so if they have sufficient knowledge of the candidate's qualifications to cast an informed vote. Eligible faculty members may also abstain if they have a conflict of interest with the candidate.

Following this discussion, eligible faculty members will vote on the candidate, including assessments of each of the three components of performance, as well as an overall vote. Assessments of each component will consist of one of four levels of evaluation: Distinguish, Excellent, Effective, or Inadequate. Overall votes should be either yes, no, or abstain. Votes of 'no' or 'abstain' should be accompanied by a reason for that vote. It is encouraged that an explanation accompany positive votes, but it is not required.

Voting via a secure, electronic medium with restricted access will be encouraged.

Several points concerning the overall assessment should be emphasized. First, a rating of "Inadequate" on any individual performance dimension should generally result in an unfavorable overall assessment. Moreover, merely achieving an effective performance across the board on each of the three dimensions should generally result in an unfavorable overall assessment for a candidate seeking tenure. Section IV of this document describes the specific ratings expectations for each level of promotion.

A similar evaluation will be conducted for an external candidate who is being considered for a new faculty position. In particular, any candidate being considered for an appointment which confers tenure or an advanced rank will be expected to meet the same performance criteria as faculty whose previous service has been at the school.

XIV. Conclusion – Integration of Various Inputs

In making the school's recommendation, the Dean shall consider all of the internal and external evaluations of research, teaching, and service, the discussion in the full faculty meeting, the overall faculty vote and associated ballot comments, the likely future contributions of the faculty member relative to the longer-term needs and mission of the school, and any other relevant information. Thus, as noted above, decisions involving a tenure commitment are based not only on an evaluation of the performance of the faculty member in isolation; rather, the decision is also dependent on strategic considerations at the school level, such as the importance of the research area to the school, changes in the external environment faced by our students, and other changes in the focus and direction of the school's mission, and is of necessity a matter of discretion.

Appendix A – Top-Tier Journal List

Journals Dropped from List

Appendix B – Current List of Peer Schools

• Carnegie Mellon University - Tepper School of Business
• Columbia University - Columbia Business School
• Cornell University - Johnson Graduate School of Business
• Dartmouth College - Tuck School of Business
• Duke University - The Fuqua School of Business
• Harvard University - Harvard Business School
• INSEAD
• New York University - NYU Stern School of Business
• Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Sloan School of Management
• Stanford University - Stanford Graduate School of Business
• The University of California, Berkeley - Haas School of Business
• The University of California, Los Angeles - Anderson School of Management
• The University of Chicago - Booth School of Business
• The University of London - London Business School
• The University of Maryland - Robert H. Smith School of Business
• The University of Michigan - Ross School of Business
• The University of Texas at Austin - McCombs School of Business
• The University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School of Business
• The University of Southern California, Los Angeles - Marshall Business School
• The University of Toronto - Rotman School of Management
• The University of Washington - Foster School of Business
• Yale University - Yale School of Management

Contact Information

Primary Contact

Name: Mary Margaret Frank

Telephone: 919-962-3232

Email: myersmm@unc.edu