PURPOSE

Peer evaluations are a mandated part of faculty evaluation in the UNC system. Separate from post-tenure review and the five-year contract review of librarians in Randall Library, the peer review serves as an instrument to assist the University Librarian in his or her annual evaluation of library faculty. The peer evaluation, along with the supervisor's evaluation and the self-evaluation submitted by each library faculty member, will be used in the University Librarian's overall evaluation and decision on merit raises and will also serve as an instrument in the five-year contract review.

FACULTY TO BE REVIEWED

All library faculty members will be reviewed by the elected Library Faculty Personnel Committee (hereafter called the Personnel Committee). The University Librarian is reviewed in a separate process developed by the University.

PROCEDURE

PREPARATION AND SCHEDULE

Each year by March 1, the University Librarian will send a reminder to each library faculty member to prepare his or her annual self-evaluation. The content should include a statement of accomplishments achieved and awards earned during the past year. The format of the self-evaluation should be modeled after the template supplied by the Personnel Committee. Typically, the statement should not exceed two pages.

The self-evaluation will be sent to all members of the Personnel Committee by March 21. Position descriptions will be made available on the library’s Intranet. The UNCW Office of Institutional Research (hereafter called OIR) will post and provide results for a peer review evaluation. By April 8, each Personnel Committee member will complete the peer evaluation instrument for each colleague. By April 20, OIR will send the results to the University Librarian. The above dates may be adjusted slightly each year to accommodate weekends. However, by April 30, the University Librarian will distribute the results to each library faculty member and his or her supervisor. The supervisor will complete annual evaluations by May 31.  

EVALUATION SURVEY

After reading the self-evaluations, each Personnel Committee member will fill out an evaluation survey on every other library faculty member. The survey instrument will be provided by OIR and will include ratings (“Exceeds Expectations,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement,” “No Opinion/No Opportunity to Observe”) in categories based on the Performance Criteria for Library Faculty.

If a library faculty member is scored as “Needs Improvement” in any category, comments must be provided. There is also a comment section for optional additional comments.

As a general rule, Personnel Committee members should make minimal use of the “No Opinion/No Opportunity to Observe” rating when the self-evaluation provides appropriate information for the purposes of evaluation.

GENERAL PARAMETERS FOR COMMENTS

Comments must be specific; that is, they should not address departments or the library in general, but must address individuals and their specific accomplishments. Comments should be consistent with and relevant to the assigned ratings.

The evaluating Personnel Committee member does not have to be an "expert" in a field outside of his or her department, but may address achievements and accomplishments from those in other departments that have particularly affected his or her work. If the evaluating Personnel Committee member does not have direct interaction with a library faculty member, that could be noted in this section.

The evaluation should speak constructively to the evaluated library faculty member’s specific achievements, accomplishments and impact on the services of the library. The Personnel Committee member may consider his or her own experiences with the library faculty member in addition to the self-evaluation and job description.

Appendix A provides additional guidelines for evaluating colleagues.

CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY

To ensure anonymity, evaluations will be conducted through a secure web-based survey instrument hosted by OIR, who will also compile the responses.

The individual peer evaluation responses are to be read only by the University Librarian, the library faculty member being evaluated, and the librarian's supervisor. The original copy of the summary responses will be filed in library faculty member's confidential personnel folder.

SUPERVISOR EVALUATION

The University Librarian will provide each library faculty member with a copy of the peer evaluation report.  A copy will also be provided to the library faculty member's supervisor. This feedback is intended to provide an opportunity for the library faculty member to know what practices and behaviors need improvement and to be commended for excellent work. It also provides additional documentation of performance for the supervisor to use in writing his or her annual evaluation of the library faculty member's performance. In accordance with the UNCW Faculty Handbook (“Annual Review”), the faculty member shall have the opportunity to reply in writing to the evaluation. A copy of this reply will be added to his or her personnel file. Library faculty members also have access to the UNCW Faculty Professional Relations Committee for grievance procedures not related to non-reappointment, suspension, discharge, or termination.

APPENDIX A

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EVALUATION

The following suggestions are adapted from the UNC INTERCAMPUS DIALOGUE ON PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING

CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE EVALUATORS

A good evaluator:

1. Has sensitivity; can empathize with the person being evaluated.

2. Sees library services as an important objective of the evaluation process.

3. Is reflective about his/her own work.

4. Is a good listener.

5. Has the ability to give advice; gives constructive feedback.

6. Takes the evaluation process seriously and carefully prepares the evaluation.

7. Accepts the validity of different working methods and styles, even when they differ from his/her own.

These characteristics consistently appear in the literature on peer evaluation, and successful programs emphasize the necessity of keeping them constantly in mind when performing evaluations.

THINGS TO AVOID

By contrast, poor evaluators may fall into one or more of the errors listed below:

1. The Halo effect [i.e., every librarian is great].

2. Allowing one positive factor to outweigh all other aspects of the assessment.

3. Allowing one negative factor to outweigh all others.

4. Allowing personality conflict to outweigh objective assessment.

5. Leniency.

6. Being uncritical to avoid controversy.

7. Evaluating everyone as average because it is less trouble.

8. Tunnel vision [i.e., not seeing the evaluated librarian in terms of the library's mission].

9. Not taking the evaluation seriously.

10. Making up your mind in advance of reviewing the self-evaluation.

11. Using your own performance as criteria for judgment rather than agreed-upon standards.

12. Using the evaluation for political purposes

Essential Elements of Constructive Criticism

1. Positive phrasing provides a positive framework for the message.

2. Concrete  examples grounded in specific, observable behavior

3. Action-oriented feedback gives the individual a specific plan of action to follow

4. Focus on behavior that the individual can change.

Constructive criticism is descriptive and specific; it focuses on the behavior rather than the person and is directed toward behavior that a person can change. It is also affirming in the sense that achievements and efforts toward change should be acknowledged, and suggestions for change should be made in a positive way.

Examples of Constructive Criticism:

She/he acknowledges patron's presence promptly by making eye contact and speaking in a friendly manner, but does not always provide satisfactory responses.

She/he is excellent at developing and executing search strategies, but does not accompany patrons to their computer workstation to explain the rationale of the search.

She/he rarely shows initiative in suggesting ways to improve services, and just waits to be told what to do.

She/he reviews own work and corrects mistakes, but does not take responsibility for learning policies and procedures.

Approved by Library Faculty Development Committee: May 15, 2001

Last Policy Updates:

January 28, 2002

August 26, 2002

April 27, 2005

May 21, 2007

Last Update: May 21, 2008