From mandate to co-create: leading the development of inclusive performance evaluation criteria

Purpose: Annual performance evaluations of faculty are a routine, yet essential, task in higher education. Creating (or revising) performance criteria presents an opportunity for leaders to work with their teams to co-create evaluation metrics that broaden participation and minimise inequity. The purpose of this study was to support organisational leaders in developing equitable performance criteria. Design/methodology/approach: We adopted the “dual-agenda” dialogues training that draws on concepts of collective self-efficacy and intersectionality for department leaders to co-create annual review criteria with their faculty members at one university. We used qualitative and quantitative data to assess the training and conducted an equity audit of the resulting annual review criteria. Findings: Survey results from faculty members and departmental leaders (n = 166) demonstrated general satisfaction with the process used to create new criteria, perceptions that their criteria were inclusive and optimism about future reviews. Those with greater familiarity with the dialogues process had more positive perceptions of the inclusivity of their department’s criteria and more positive expectations of future reviews. The examination of eight indicators of equity illustrated that the resultant criteria were transparent and holistic. Originality/value: This study builds on the relatively little research on faculty members’ annual performance evaluations, focussing on inclusive dialogues that centre equity and diversity. Results highlight the value of providing department leaders with evidence-based tools to foster system-level change through equitable evaluation policies. A toolkit is available for adaptation of the “dual-agenda” leadership training to both co-create annual review criteria and improve equity and inclusion.