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, this document outlines the procedure for the annual, in-house peer review, which serves as an instrument to assist the University Librarian in his/her annual evaluation of library faculty.  This peer evaluation, along with the supervisor's letter and the self-evaluation submitted by each librarian, 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 will be reviewed by the elected Library Faculty Personnel Committee (hereafter called the Presonnel 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 to prepare his or her annual self-evaluation.The self-evaluation and position description should be sent to all members of the Personnel Committee by March 21. The UNCW Office of Institutional Research will post and provide results for a peer review evaluation instrument. By April 8, each Personnel Committee member should have completed the peer evaluation instrument for each colleague. By April 20, the Office of Institutional Research 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 the librarian and his or her supervisor.  This should allow enough time for the supervisor to complete evaluations during the month of May. 

Each librarian will prepare his or her self-evaluation.  The content should include a statement of accomplishments achieved and awards earned during the past year, as well as goals for the next 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.

EVALUATION SURVEY

A. After reading the self-evaluation reports of other librarians, each Personnel Committee member will fill out an evaluation survey on all other librarians provided by the Office of Institutional Research.

Each survey has a comment section.  If the librarian is scored as "needs improvement,"  comments should be provided; otherwise, they are optional.

GENERAL PARAMETERS OF THE LETTER SECTION OF THE SURVEY

Comments must be specific; that is, they should not address specific departments and the library in general, but they must address individuals and their specific accomplishments.

The evaluating librarian does not have to be an "expert" in a field foreign to his/her department, but may address achievements and accomplishments from those departments that have particularly affected his/her work. If the evaluating librarian does not have direct interaction with that librarian, that could be noted in this section.

The evaluation should speak constructively to the evaluated librarian's specific achievements, accomplishments and, impact on the services of the library.

The annual report and job description of the librarian does not have to be the sole basis for the evaluation, but the evaluating comments should validate and enhance the peer review.

E. 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 the Office of Institutional Research.  The Office of Institutional Research will also compile the responses.

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

FEEDBACK TO THE EVALUATED LIBRARIAN

The University Librarian will provide each librarian a copy of the peer evaluation report.  A copy will also be provided to the librarian's supervisor.  This feedback is intended to provide an opportunity for the librarian 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 librarian'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

II. Essential Elements of Constructive Criticism

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

2. Concrete  examples grounded in specific, observable behavior

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

4. Focus B provides feedback 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

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

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

She/he reviews own work and corrects mistakes; takes responsibility for

learning policies and procedures and, if unsure, makes a point to get

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