As I indicated in the email that I sent earlier this month to the members of the department, many faculty will be reviewed in Fall 2011 (for the 2011 Career Development Report). You are receiving this email because you are scheduled to be reviewed. Attached please find the list of the people in the department who need to be reviewed by December 31, 2011 along with the name of the person responsible for their in-person review (referred to as the evaluator in the report).
Please remember, this process is designed to support you professionally, offer you guidance, and help with your career advancement. It is also an opportunity for you to share with a member of the Executive Committee what you have accomplished, talk about your goals for the future, and ask for resources that you need to enhance your functioning. While we recognize that the prospect of a review can raise people’s anxiety level, the expectation of these reviews is that they be conducted in a collegial fashion, without intimidation. As such, hopefully this should limit your level of concern and increase the chances that you and your mentor(s) find this to be a valuable experience.
In this email, I will briefly describe the Conference Report process. The 2011 Career Development Conference Report is available online at: https://secure.web.emory.edu/med/prod/database/fes/index.cfm. Once you go to the website, you will need to sign in using your Emory ID and password that you use for other Emory business. Once you do so, you will be redirected to a secure Emory server (https) and need to enter your login and password again.
The 2011 Career Development Conference Report is divided into four parts. There are instructions that will guide you through the completion of the report.
Part I is completed by the faculty member. It is comprehensive, yet relatively simple to complete, as it allows one to cut and paste publications and grants from the curriculum vitae directly into the form. It should take approximately 30-60 minutes to complete. It asks for demographic information and time allocation, as well as details about scholarship, teaching, courses attended service, awards and notable achievements, and goals (previous, current year, long-term). I recommend that you discuss Part I with your mentor(s) before sending it to the evaluator. List as the evaluator the person on the attached sheet who is the designated reviewer. Once Part I of the report is finished, click save Part I and the click the send to evaluator button.
Part II is completed by the reviewer (evaluator). This should be discussed in a face-to-face meeting between the individual responsible for conducting the review and the faculty member being reviewed. Whenever possible, I recommend that the mentor(s) for the person being reviewed be included in these meetings. As noted above, these reviews should be conducted in a collegial fashion and designed to provide useful input and feedback to the person being reviewed and his/her mentor(s). In addition, the reviews should offer an opportunity for the faculty member being reviewed to make requests about things that they need to assist them in more effectively carrying out their roles and responsibilities. These meetings should be scheduled for approximately 45-60 minutes in the next six weeks.
Part III should be done after the in-person meeting is held and after Part II is completed. Part III affords the person being reviewed the opportunity to comment on the Part II feedback and make any comments that they would like (optional). Once Part III is completed, you must click ‘Faculty’s signature and notify your Chair’ button to complete.
Part IV is completed by the Chair, who may provide additional comments. Afterwards, the file becomes a read-only and can be printed out at any stage. Since it will take Dr. Rapaport, Chair, some time to review all of these reports, make comments on them, and sign off on them prior to December 31, 2011, I recommend that the teams listed in the attached file complete this process by mid December if at all possible.
In closing, we recognize that this is a new process for our department. Thus, we all have a lot to learn. I welcome your feedback about how to improve the process. We want to optimize our procedures to ensure that a collaborative review process takes place that offers guidance to faculty, supports mentorship teams, and enhances the quality of life in the department for each faculty member.
For questions about completing the forms and the review process, please contact me at email@example.com or (404)547-1957.