TERM FACULTY PROMOTION DOCUMENT Adopted April 14, 2020

TERM FACULTY PROMOTION DOCUMENT

Adopted April 14, 2020

PREAMBLE

Inasmuch as this document portrays a key operating policy of the School of

Business (hereafter referred to the School or “SBUS”) of George Mason University

(hereafter referred to as the University or “GMU”) it reflects the missions of both the

University and the School. Moreover, it is consistent with the established procedures of the

University (GMU Faculty Handbook) and the School (School of Business By-Laws). The

overarching structure and process for Term faculty promotion consideration are determined

for the School by the University, so the purpose of this document is to set forth what a

Term faculty member must accomplish to qualify for advancement to higher professorial

rank. It is understood that promotion is not an entitlement. Rather, it is earned through an

appropriate record of accomplishments as delineated in this document and by personifying

the ethos of the School faculty. The University confers them on deserving faculty only

when institutional capacity and resources warrant.

This document sets out the process and criteria by which candidates of the Term

faculty, who are eligible for promotion as per University policy, are evaluated for

promotion. This process occurs within the School but, unless a candidate voluntarily halts

the proceedings, the ultimate decision regarding promotion is not reached until the central

university administration acts on the recommendations submitted. The responsibility for

the timeliness and contents of dossiers is solely that of each candidate—tardy, incomplete

or incorrect information is not the burden of any other person, committee, or evaluative

agency. Further, it is their responsibility to audit their dossier should any question arise

about its contents. They also have a concomitant right to privacy and expect that their

dossier will be perused by no one other than those with a need to know and be handled in

a secure fashion.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROCEDURE

A schedule for promotion is promulgated each academic year by the Office of the

Provost. An internal SBUS schedule, developed consistent with the Provost’s schedule,

will be made available to the candidate in a timely manner. The candidate is solely

responsible for completing the application dossier on a timely basis, except for external

letters of reference in cases of promotion to full, the responsibility for which is shared with

the SBUS Dean.

The application proceeds through two levels of faculty review within the School

after which it is reviewed by the SBUS Dean. All three reviews, accompanied by their

respective recommendations, are then forwarded to the University central administration,

and the Board of Visitors if required, for evaluation and final decision. The candidate is

informed of the recommendation made at each stage and may withdraw the application

after any stage in the process. In such cases, that focal recommendation and all previous

ones remain part of the candidate’s permanent file, but may not be used to prejudice any

future applications for promotion she/he might initiate. Candidates not recommended for

promotion may appeal the decision as specified in the GMU Faculty Handbook.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

As specified in the GMU Faculty Handbook, successful candidates are expected to

have achieved high competence in teaching and service for promotion to Term Associate

Professor, and genuine excellence in teaching for promotion to Term Full Professor. The

evaluation process places great emphasis on the candidate’s overall accomplishments as

teachers and/or practitioner scholars. A candidate’s service to their area, the School, and

the University is given substantial weight in their evaluation. Although not generally in the

scope of employment of SBUS Term faculty, any published research will be considered as

to its quality and impact on the mission of the school. Additionally, a candidate’s adherence

to norms of professional ethics and good citizenship is also given serious consideration in

evaluation.

Term Full Professors typically have more experience and accomplishments than

Term Associate Professors, but no one is granted promotion if there is any doubt of their

long-term value to the School and the University. Candidates considered for promotion in

the SBUS must demonstrate accomplishments not unlike those of term faculty at the rank

sought at comparable business schools. While identification of a set of comparable schools

is imprecise, the reality is that schools do not operate in isolation and evaluators are urged

to consider a judicious set of schools in making this comparison that reflects the SBUS’s

current status and aspirations. Although each SBUS promotion decision is unique, these

evaluations remain anchored implicitly in the equivalent assessments made at comparable

schools. Importantly, evaluation is not formulaic and is not performed with a checklist

mindset. The details of criteria and process that follow incorporate by reference the School

of Business Teaching Evaluation criteria adopted by the faculty, and the Provost’s

guidelines for judging high competence in teaching and genuine excellence in teaching.

The most recent versions are available in the School’s document library, and the University

Provost Office website, and are subject to periodic revision as the school’s and University’s

needs and objectives evolve.

Assessment of Teaching. Each candidate prepares a teaching portfolio whose

content and structure is as specified in the teaching section of the Required Promotion

Dossier Template provided by the Provost. Review by the candidate’s colleagues of their

teaching performance, including face to face, online or hybrid as appropriate, should be

included as part of that portfolio. Effective teaching is demonstrated by the clarity,

appropriateness, and efficacy of course materials, methods, and presentations, and by

successful learning outcomes. Contributions to teaching include the effective delivery of

existing courses, development and implementation of new courses and programs, the

writing of cases and other instructional materials (particularly those using new

technologies), teaching in executive education programs and in other lifelong learning

activities offered by the School.

Assessment of teaching is much more comprehensive than looking only, or

primarily, at student evaluations of teaching. The criteria for “High competence” and

“Genuine excellence” are set forth in the Provost’s guidelines and the School of Business

Teaching Evaluation Criteria. For cases of promotion to Full Professor, where “Genuine

excellence” in teaching is the required threshold, letters from a minimum of three external

reviewers must be obtained to assess the teaching portfolio. In making that assessment,

evaluators are expected to use the Provost’s guidelines for evaluating genuine excellence

in teaching, together with the School of Business Teaching Evaluation Criteria document.

A majority of the evaluators must be chosen by the first level committee, and evaluators

must be chosen for their reputation and standing in the profession.

Assessment of Service. Candidates prepare a service portfolio that documents their

service contributions to area, school, industry and the profession. Each SBUS term faculty

member is expected to perform institutional, industry and professional service and the

assessment of service takes all of them into account. The mix of institutional, industry and

professional service will vary, with candidates for promotion to Term Full Professor being

expected to carry more substantial service responsibilities compared to those being

considered for promotion to Term Associate Professor. Institutional service is important

because orderly and well-functioning university life depends on faculty for governance and

operational activities. SBUS term faculty are expected to attend all School faculty meetings

unless they are teaching, to participate as appropriate in SBUS’ curricular, governance and

personnel matters, and to serve effectively on committees to which they are appointed or

elected. Term faculty are expected to be accessible and respectful to students and

colleagues.

“High competence” in service is demonstrated by a combination of quality and

quantity of service accomplishments that help maintain institutional efficiency and

governance, and contribute to the professional life of the academy. “Genuine excellence”

is demonstrated by going above and beyond maintenance to include multiple instances of

leadership in institutional and professional service activities.

Assessment of Research. Original research, scholarship, and contributions to

practice are not generally within the scope of employment of SBUS Term faculty. Even

so, it is recognized that a Term faculty member may be engaged individually in any of

these activities. The extent to which their research, scholarship and practice contribute to

the reputation and teaching mission of the Area, the School, and the University is to be

determined on a case by case basis by the evaluation committees and factored in to the

assessment of teaching. If applicable, the candidate will prepare a research portfolio as

specified in the research section of the Required Promotion Dossier Template provided by

the Provost.

PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES

Each academic year, the Dean of the School announces the schedule for promotion

consideration based on a calendar provided by the Office of the Provost. Term faculty in

their sixth year, or later, of appointment at GMU, are notified by the Dean’s Office of their

eligibility for promotion in rank. Term faculty who start at SBUS with substantial relevant

teaching experience elsewhere may be considered for promotion prior to their sixth year at

SBUS. Those Term faculty members who decide to seek promotion will make those

intentions known to the Dean in writing. The Dean identifies all the candidates to be

evaluated and notifies the School’s Committee on Promotion, Tenure and Renewal, along

with the relevant area chairs. The composition of first and second level committees is stated

below, except that faculty with appointments as Deans may not serve, and a faculty

member may not serve on both first and second level committees.

First-Level Review Committee. Those eligible to serve on the first level review committee

consist of tenured or term faculty at rank higher than that of the candidate being considered

for promotion, with the exceptions noted above. The first-level committee will consist of at

least three, and at most five, Tenured, Term Associate or Term Full faculty members from

the candidate’s area and is appointed by the Area Chair. Two members must be Term

Associate or Term Full faculty. If the Area Chair is not eligible to serve, the Chair of the

SBUS Promotion & Tenure Committee will select the members from eligible faculty in the

candidate’s area. If the assessment concerns promotion to Term Full Professor then all

members of the first-level committee will be Full professors. If fewer than three faculty

members from the candidate’s area are eligible according to the above criteria, then the

SBUS P&T Chair appoints other eligible SBUS faculty to bring the size to at least three

members. The first-level review committee elects its chair

from among its members.

The committee shall carefully evaluate and address potential conflicts of interest

between committee members and the candidate in a manner consistent with conflict of

interest guidelines in the GMU Faculty Handbook. The committee’s assessment and

decision shall be documented in its letter.

The first-level committee reviews the candidate’s dossier along the established

dimensions of teaching and service—each according to whether “genuine excellence,”

“high competence,” or lesser levels of performance appear to have been achieved in line

with the criteria specified in this document. The committee’s evaluations will be

determined by two separate votes and its overall recommendation by a third vote. A simple-

majority decision rule will be used for each of the votes. All three votes will be included

in the committee’s report. This committee’s letter is transmitted by the committee chair to

the candidate and others, consistent with the GMU Faculty Handbook. Within seven days

from the date of this letter, the candidate must elect to discontinue or continue the process

and, in either case, is permitted to respond to the committee’s evaluation by adding a letter

to his/her application. Such a response does not change the committee’s vote, however,

and no “reply” is expected. If the candidate elects to withdraw the application at this stage

it is accepted without prejudice, although all materials become part of the candidate’s

personnel file. The SBUS Dean is informed at this point that the first-level committee has

completed its work, but is not made privy to the committee’s recommendation. The chair

of the first-level review committee is the sole spokesperson for that committee.

Second-Level Review Committee. A standing second-level Term Promotion committee

will be elected each year consisting of one faculty member from each of the six areas of

the school, at the rank of Associate Professor/Term Associate Professor or higher. At least

three members of this committee must be term faculty and the School Nominations

committee is charged with maintaining this composition. The preference is for the second

level committee to be composed entirely of term faculty. The second-level Term committee

elects its Chair from among its members. In cases of promotion to the rank of Term Full

Professor, all members of the second-level Term committee must be at the rank of Full

Professor. Committee members at the rank of Associate will be replaced by the chair of the

second level Term Promotion committee with eligible Full Professors from across the

School. If there is no Full Professor in a candidate’s area, an Associate Professor from that

area can serve as a non-voting resource.

The committee shall carefully evaluate and address potential conflicts of interest

between committee members and the candidate in a manner consistent with conflict of

interest guidelines in the GMU Faculty Handbook. The committee’s assessment and

decision shall be documented in its letter.

The second-level review committee considers the same dossier as the first-level

committee and, even though it has the benefit of the latter’s recommendation, it operates

independently of that committee and can reach conclusions different from it. In such cases,

however, substantive explanations are expected to accompany any major differences. The

committee’s evaluations will be determined by two separate votes and its overall

recommendation by a third vote. A simple-majority decision rule will be used for each of

the votes. All three votes will be included in the committee’s report. The second-level

committee’s letter is transmitted by its chair to the candidate and others, consistent with

the GMU Faculty Handbook. The candidate has seven days during which to have the

process continued or halted. In either case, the candidate may enter a response to his/her

evaluation by the second-level committee. Such a response does not change the

committee’s vote, and no “reply” is expected. If s/he elects to stop the process at this point,

the response letter becomes part of his/her personnel file, but no prejudice attaches to the

action. The chair of the second-level review committee is the sole spokesperson for that

committee.

Dean’s Review. The Dean of the School reviews each application after the two

levels of review have been completed. The evaluative criteria are not different at this level

but, as the School’s chief academic officer, the Dean may have a perspective not available

to faculty. In any case, the Dean makes a recommendation in each case, and forwards the

complete dossier to the Office of the Provost, so long as the candidate consents. As at

previous levels, a candidate may withdraw the application at this stage, without prejudice

or add to the dossier a response to the Dean’s recommendation, whether withdrawing the

application or having it forwarded. This forwarding process includes notifying the

candidate and such faculty as would be consistent with reporting procedures specified in

the GMU Faculty Handbook.

University Review. University review will be consistent with the procedures

specified in the current GMU faculty handbook.

SUMMARY

Although it is neither reasonable nor desirable to reduce promotion to a formulaic

exercise, this document attempts to set forth a clear, public, uniform, and fair set of

expectations to guide both evaluators and those whose accomplishments are to be

evaluated. Candidates are evaluated as individuals and all judgments proceed only from

the most deliberate consideration of all relevant information. While evaluators may not

substitute their personal criteria in contradiction of those provided herein, they certainly

have latitude within the guidelines of this document in deciding whether candidates satisfy

particular promotion standards. Successful SBUS candidates reflect accomplishments

equivalent to their counterparts at comparable business schools, but this does not imply

that all recommended candidates have identical profiles. Finally, promotion does not

happen by default or as a matter of entitlement. The School has a professional culture,

reflected in its mission statement, that permanent faculty are expected to display.

REVISION OF THIS DOCUMENT

Future revisions of this document may be made by simple majority vote of all Tenured

faculty and all Term faculty at the rank of Associate Professor or higher in the School.