Annual Faculty Evaluation Form and Rubric

All faculty members in IANR, regardless of position title or rank, are to be evaluated annually (see Board of Regents Bylaws 4.6). The primary purpose of annual evaluation is to provide faculty members with the feedback and coaching that they need to a) align their contributions expectations, b) develop their talents and expertise, and c) maximize their outcomes and impacts.

The annual evaluation must be documented in writing. IANR uses the IANR Academic Performance Evaluation and Professional Development of Faculty form for documenting accomplishments, outcomes, and impacts. This form is designed for the unit administrator to provide feedback to the faculty member striving towards excellence in all aspects of the academic appointment, and to the faculty member’s professional development. It is designed to reinforce a consistent evaluation philosophy – that the unit administrator provides meaningful and actionable written feedback, praising excellence and offering constructive suggestions to improve performance. Evaluation feedback should predominantly focus on three areas: 1) Accomplishments, 2) Impacts, and 3) Organizational, Team, and Communication Competencies. Accomplishments and Impacts are the result of effective programmatic planning. The most significant parts of each annual evaluation are the written comments on this form, and subsequent discussions throughout the year between the faculty member and the unit administrator. The final evaluation rating is the unit administrator’s assessment of the faculty member’s overall performance for the year being evaluated. This form includes descriptions of the standards within three performance areas and a rubric for summarizing the evaluation.

Performance Areas


The faculty member documents:

  • Accomplishments focused on meeting goals and objectives related to unit, IANR, and/or UNL vision and strategic plans.
  • Accomplishments consistent with responsibilities and expected outcomes described in the position description.
  • Establishment of and/or contribution to teams necessary to accomplish goals.
  • Creativity/flexibility in meeting goals/objectives.
  • Accomplishments that meet relevant scholarly criteria for excellence.
  • Sustained excellent performance expected of rank.


The faculty member documents:

  • Meaningful impacts related to goals, objectives, and outcomes that reflect unit, IANR, and/or UNL vision and strategic priorities.
  • Impacts that are reflected in research, teaching, extension, and/or service in the discipline, across disciplines, and for Nebraska stakeholders and other relevant clientele.
  • Potential future impacts.

Organizational, Team, & Communication Competencies

The faculty member demonstrates:

  • Intentional contributions to culture and climate within the unit that encourages belongingness, inclusivity, and others' achievement.
  • Appropriate contributions to the development and sustainability of teams/sub-teams and collaborations for the advancement of research, extension, and/or teaching outcomes
  • Decision-making and problem-solving skills to sustain excellent performance.
  • The ability to adapt to changing conditions and developments.
  • Fiscal management skills to ensure effective/efficient use of funds and resources.
  • Positive/professional relationships and communication.
  • Mentoring as appropriate.
  • Positive and engaged unit, college/division/institute, and university citizenship.
  • Contributions to professional societies that are relevant to the unit and consistent with position expectations and rank.
  • Unit, university, national, and international leadership expected of rank.

Performance Evaluation Rubric Categories

Good Work - is the performance rating that is the accepted standard of excellence in the IANR and is the rating that most faculty members are likely to receive.

Outstanding Work - defines performance in a year in which a faculty member clearly has significant successes beyond the normal expectations, but not in all programmatic areas. The unit administrator should clearly state how the accomplishments of the faculty member exceed the accepted standard of excellence for the rating

Extraordinary Year - is reserved for an occasional year when the typical faculty member can identify extraordinary impacts, accomplishments, and organizational achievements across all program areas, or for those very few faculty members whose level of performance is consistently outstanding across all apportioned mission areas and who have meaningful programmatic impacts and accomplishments far above their peers. The unit administrator should clearly state the accomplishments of the faculty member that made it an Extraordinary Year.

Needs Improvement - is not to be used in consecutive years. Guidance in the form of specific recommendations should be provided by the unit administrator to the faculty member so significant improvements can realistically be achieved (reaching at least Good Work performance within one year). Failure to meaningfully improve will result in an Unsatisfactory rating during the next evaluation period. This rating should not be used for faculty members who have performance levels representing a substantial and chronic deficiency that deserve an Unsatisfactory performance rating.

Unsatisfactory - performance represents a substantial and chronic deficiency. Guidance for significant improvement should be provided by the unit administrator to the faculty member. If the faculty member does not make substantial, acceptable progress toward remedying the deficiency by the next annual evaluation, a post-tenure review will be initiated. An overall evaluation of either Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory during the next annual evaluation represents a failure to make substantial acceptable progress towards remedying the deficiency.