Kenan-Flagler Business School: Endowed Chair Consideration Policy

This document establishes the process and criteria for nominating, evaluating, and awarding Endowed Chairs at the Kenan-Flagler Business School. It outlines how candidates are assessed across research, teaching, and service, and describes the review timeline, data requirements, and use of external referees.

Unit Policy

Title

Kenan-Flagler Business School: Endowed Chair Consideration Policy

Introduction

Purpose

Scope

Policy

At the Kenan-Flagler Business School this process document for Endowed Chair nomination and evaluation is in four parts: (1) Objectives, (2) General Criteria, (3) Process Timetable/Design, and (4) Proposed Data to be Evaluated.

1. Objectives

1. To match internal chair openings with the best Candidates on a school-wide basis;
2. To ensure that Internal Chairs are awarded to individuals who could achieve this level at peer or better schools;
3. To incentivize, recognize, and reward high levels and quality of research, teaching, and service performance from all faculty members who may aspire to earn an Endowed Chair during their academic career;
4. To increase the ability of KFBS to attract and retain faculty members who are indisputably research leaders in their respective fields;
5. To ensure equal access to Chair-consideration by all individuals whose records match data-driven criteria;
6. To ensure that faculty perceive the Chair-consideration process as fair and will maintain the positive work-attitudes and behaviors that tend to accompany perceived fairness;
7. To incentivize, recognize, and reward institution-building that helps Kenan-Flagler thrive in a changing business education environment.

2. General Criteria

a. Comprehensive Assessment

Chairs will be awarded based on a comprehensive assessment of research, teaching, and service contributions to the school. Candidates should have a distinguished record of contributions on two of the three dimensions and have at least an excellent record of contributions on the third 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.

b. Distinguished Research Record

The assessment of Candidate’s research contributions looks for substantial external evidence exists 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). A research evaluation will include a sustained portfolio of research impact including but not limited to the following criteria:

• Count of publications in the school’s list of journals
• Quality of publications
• Number of Citations
• Trajectory of publications and citations
• Mentorship of Doctoral students (e.g., publications with PhD students)
• Journal editorship
• Special Issue editorship
• Journal board/department editorships
• Fellow of professional societies
• Keynotes delivered to academic societies
• Major research awards (e.g., best paper recognition, impact awards) from professional societies
• Research grants from government agencies/private sector
• 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)
• 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 at this stage of the candidate's career.

Solid evidence exists that the Candidate would likely receive an Endowed Chair at a number of other peer business schools listed at the end of this document should that person be considered there.

This can be achieved by comparing research records of chaired professors (at time of granting distinguished professorship) at peer schools using the criteria specified above.

c. Distinguished Teaching Record

The assessment of the Candidate’s teaching contributions looks for substantial evidence exists that candidate has been consistently making outstanding contributions to the teaching mission of the school. A 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 MBA 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 teaching innovations
• 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 adjacent domains (e.g., data science, healthcare, public policy)
• 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
• Presenting teaching innovations at conferences or through publications, expanding Kenan-Flagler’s influence

d. Distinguished Service Record

Candidates under consideration for endowed chair 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. Gauging the service record will include, but is not limited to, examining the following elements:

• 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, etc.
• Participating in activities that lead to external partnerships/engagement

e. Eligibility

Only tenured professors at the full professor rank are eligible for promotion to the Distinguished Professor rank. If a Distinguished Professor goes into phased retirement, their chair may remain with them through full retirement at the discretion of the Senior Associate Dean for Faculty and Research and may be dependent upon the chair agreement. Fixed term faculty may receive a chair for additional research funds, but would remain at their fixed-term rank. For more information on this process, please refer to the Term Promotion Committee Guidelines.

3. Process Timetable/Design

Process to be conducted every year in conjunction with the regular promotion and tenure process.

If there are fewer than three Chaired Professors on the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Dean will appoint enough additional ad hoc members to bring the total to at least three Chaired Professors. If a candidate is being considered for a Chair and there is not a Chaired Professor from the candidate’s Area on the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Dean will appoint an ad hoc member who is a Chaired Professor in the candidate’s Area. All ad hoc members will serve on all Chair cases in a given year for consistency across cases.

Phase 1: Start of Process

• Send list of full professors without Chairs to the Chaired faculty along with a list of available unfilled chairs to solicit “names to look at.”
• Area Chairs, Chaired Professors, and Dean’s office can make nominations.
• All nominations are confidential. (Nominees are not aware that they have been nominated at this stage.)
• Individuals may not nominate themselves.

Phase 2: Preliminary Round of Data Compiling

• Data that evaluates the scholarly record of the nominee as specified in section 2 General criteria should be collected.
• Chaired Professors on the Promotion and Tenure Committee summarize data on names suggested based on all information specified in General criteria.

Phase 3: First Chaired Professors Evaluation Meeting for Preliminary Nominees

• Data compiled in Phase 2 discussed at meeting of the Chaired Professors.
• Chaired Professors take confidential advisory vote for Deans’ Office on who will be moved forward to the next phase of the process.

Phase 4: Vetting of Letter Writers and Preparation of Packet

If the Dean’s office decides to move forward with the case, candidate is informed of intention to proceed and prepares packet for submission. Candidate and candidate’s area chair compile lists of potential reviewers in accordance with “Selection of External Referees for Promotion and Tenure” document (attached).

• Chaired Professors who are currently serving on the Promotion and Tenure Committee review the list of proposed letter writers, may add or delete names, and approve the final list.
• Letters and packets are sent to referees

Phase 5: Final Round of Data Gathering

Chaired professors on Promotion and Tenure Committee gather final data. See Section 4 below for suggested data to be gathered. Chaired Promotion and Tenure Committee members write a report summarizing the case and recording votes (distinguished, excellent, effective or ineffective) on research, teaching and service.

Phase 6: Chaired Professors Advisory Vote: Included in the Promotion and Tenure Meeting or a Separate Meeting

Chaired Professors meet to discuss data and to take advisory vote for Deans with response-options on the ballot being favor, oppose, 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.

4. Information and Data to be Evaluated

1. Comparison of Candidate’s record to the record of Chaired-Professors (at the time of Chair-conferral) at peer- or better institutions in the Candidate’s Discipline/Area;
2. Impact of Candidate’s research and scholarship evidenced empirically by citation-counts of candidate’s publications in academic journals and candidates quotes or citations in the national and international press;
3. Editor- and/or Associate Editor-positions held by the candidate;
4. Research awards and grants received by the Candidate;
5. Publications by the Candidate;
6. Letters received from external reviewers who are Chaired Professors and who meet the criteria in the Selection of External Referees document. Letters received from Chaired Professors at peer- or better institutions should explicitly state, minimally, that the Candidate meets the general Chair-related criteria (listed earlier in this document) and would likely receive an Endowed Chair at the letter writer’s institution (with recognition of letter writer’s business school ranking);
7. Candidate’s teaching- and institution-building-contributions (evidenced by a summary of teaching record and institutional service).
8. Other criteria as specified in section 2 General criteria specified in this document.
9. Other updates to information specified in section 2 as deemed appropriate by the Chaired Professors on candidates put forward.

Selection of External Referees in the Tenure and Promotion Process

In Spring, 2003, the faculty of the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill voted to create a school-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee and elected a group of faculty peers to serve on it. The Committee recommends the following guidelines concerning external reviewers.

Premise and Objective

Evaluation of each candidate for tenure or promotion should include inputs from a panel of external reviewers who are recognized thought leaders in the candidate’s discipline and who have scholarly expertise to judge the candidate’s research contributions. The goal is to be systematic and rigorous in collecting information that helps to benchmark each candidate’s research record against high external standards.

Procedures

Each candidate for promotion or tenure will supply the Senior Associate Dean for Faculty and Research 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. Prosspective 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:

1. Hold a full-time tenured appointment as a faculty member at a peer school (see attached list in Appendix B).
2. Hold a full-time tenured appointment in a department externally recognized for leadership in the candidate’s sub-specialty.
3. Have served or currently serves as an Editor or Associate Editor of a leading scholarly Journal in the candidate’s general field.
4. 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 the Guidelines for Reappointment and Tenure, 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 for Faculty and Research.

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.

Current List of Peer Business 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