[Ssphrfaculty] FW: Recommendations for Faculty Performance reviews and upcoming process

[Ian Milligan]

Dear colleagues,

I swear they do not pay me by the e-mail (if they did! One of those omnipresent Co-Pilot boxes tells me that this will be my 202nd email sent this week). But I did want to provide some context to this memo from the Dean, which I do encourage you to read in detail.

As you'll see from the memo, the joint FAUW/University working group found that FPR ratings across campus were compressed at the high end, with Arts among the highest. While the MOA defines 1.0 as Satisfactory ("meeting expectations"), in practice we in Arts (and, to be honest, the other Faculties too, to varying degrees) have tended to use scores such as 1.5 and especially 1.75 as the norm for doing our (demanding and complicated!) jobs well. The recommendations, reached jointly by our colleagues in the Faculty Association and the administration, ask us to use the full range of ratings.

I think clearer standards will serve us well, both in giving colleagues meaningful feedback and in making sure our ratings carry weight across the University.

What does all this mean for SSPHR?

First, you have hopefully been discussing with your area heads how we need language defining what we mean by less-than-satisfactory (i.e. below 1.0) and outstanding (i.e. 2.0) performance. We will be aiming to firm up all that language by October 15th. It may look different for each area.

Second, money. As the Dean notes, the merit pool for Arts is set by formula before the FPR process unfolds. So there is a set pot of money, and the scores determine how it is allocated. The most important thing is to make sure that SSPHR's ratings are commensurate with those of the other five Schools. The Dean has committed to equitable distribution across the Schools, and I'll be working closely with the other five Directors and the Dean's team to support that, so that SSPHR colleagues are treated equitably alongside their peers in the other Schools.

Third, tenure and promotion. The Dean takes this seriously and so do I. If ratings change in a coming cycle, it will be important to make clear that this reflects a change in how the scale is being used, rather than a change in your performance. This will be stated in our own letters so that it forms part of the documentary record.

My commitment is to be fair and transparent throughout this process. If you have any questions about this, please let me know.

And with that, I really do hope I do not e-mail this list again until next week.

Ian

Ian Milligan
Director, School of Social, Political, and Historical Research
Professor of History
[image.png]

From: Artsfac <artsfac-bounces at artsservices.uwaterloo.ca> on behalf of UWaterloo Dean of Arts <doa-admin at uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2026 at 2:40 PM
To: 'artsfac at watarts.uwaterloo.ca' <artsfac at watarts.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Recommendations for Faculty Performance reviews and upcoming process

Please see the attached memo from Alexie Tcheuyap, Dean of Arts.


Andrea



Andrea Charette
Director of Faculty Relations and Planning

Faculty of Arts<https://uwaterloo.ca/arts/>

University of Waterloo
519.888.4567 X42218


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://artsservices.uwaterloo.ca/pipermail/ssphrfaculty/attachments/20261001/e4540e66/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19979 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://artsservices.uwaterloo.ca/pipermail/ssphrfaculty/attachments/20261001/e4540e66/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Recommendations for FPR and upcoming FPR process.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 901625 bytes
Desc: Recommendations for FPR and upcoming FPR process.pdf
URL: <http://artsservices.uwaterloo.ca/pipermail/ssphrfaculty/attachments/20261001/e4540e66/attachment-0001.pdf>