Policy, procedure and general comments on the promotions process

Communication related to promotion processes generally working well.

To remain as is with some improvement to the overall presentation of the Academic Promotions webpages.

Actioned – web page updates completed.

Promotions workshops are well regarded, including Making the Case for Research Quality and Evidencing Scholarship of Teaching. However, a workshop on providing evidence of academic leadership and service is not currently offered.

To remain as is, with the addition of a workshop on Leadership and Service.

Leadership and Service workshops introduced in 2022.

Availability of exemplar applications is helpful, but greater variety of examples would be useful.

Keep existing exemplars and grow the library to reflect all academic career pathways and levels (where available).

Additional exemplars added following each round.

The process of applying was ‘overwhelming,’ ‘overkill,’ ‘insanely time consuming’ and ‘exhausting.’

Changes have been proposed to address these concerns, some for introduction in 2022 and others require further consideration before introduction in 2023. Revisions for 2022 include:

• revision of the policy to a simplified, principles-based approach
• refining and reduction of applicant documentation by:
• including instructions about the steps in the application process in the Procedures and removing the Guidelines
• The Procedures will be supported by information sheets so applicants can focus on information relevant to their application. Information sheets cover topics including making a case for promotion, the role of the supervisor, providing evidence for major academic activities, referee and assessor selection and material evidence for assessment.
• Removal of the exceptional merit requirement for applicants not at the top increment.

Revisions were implemented and further changes to simplify the process of applying are being considered.

Feedback was provided that the evidence period is too restrictive.

The promotions application period has remained as five years (or since the applicant’s appointment to ACU or their last promotion, whichever is the shortest). Applicants continue to be able to include a brief summary of achievements in Part B Case for Promotion (noting page limitations) that demonstrates their career trajectory but the focus of the case for promotion continues to be on achievements during the promotion application period.

No further changes planned.

Criteria for Outstanding, Major and Satisfactory were ‘very generic’ and ‘not specific enough’ in order to guide an applicant.

This will remain as it is for the 2022 promotions round.
Working parties have been formed to revise criteria for each area of academic activity. This process is expected to result in revised criteria for implementation in 2023. The process will include consultation with the academic community.

Criteria has been redesigned and is available for staff consultation here.

Criteria are much more specific.

Rather than needing to create their own evidence summaries, each applicant will be provided with a summary report of relevant data held in university systems (e.g., SELT scores, research metrics). In their application, staff will be able to add other relevant data and provide a narrative to contextualise the evidence.

Interviews – feedback indicated applicants found them very stressful for staff and that their purpose was not clear.

Interviews will be removed from the process and a post-success celebration event will be introduced.

No further changes

Consider including in the procedures a process that verifies that the behavioural standards of applicants for promotion is aligned with the university’s Code of Conduct for staff and mission, identity and values. This is consistent with procedures at other universities.

This will be considered for introduction into Procedures from 2023. Broad consultation across the university will inform this process.

Refer to the Criteria document – drafted Code of Conduct and Mission threshold criteria is included as part of this consultation.

The application process

Templates for application – there were varied responses. Some thought the structure was appropriate, others wanted more structure.

Revisions to the application templates based on feedback provided include:

• instructions have been revised to align with changes to the Procedures that simplify guidance provided to applicants
• the Application and Case for Promotion Form has been reformatted for ease of use and re-ordered so that the primary purpose (i.e., the case for promotion) is central
• new sections have been added in Part B – Case for Promotion where applicants can list their current appointments and professional awards/distinctions within the promotion application period
• Achievement Relative to Opportunity (ARtO) section replaces Equity Considerations and links to the ARtO Guide (length of the statement has been increased from 250 words to maximum one page).

2022 proposed changes have been implemented and further changes to streamline the application process are under consideration for 2023.

Achievement relative to opportunity is not given sufficient weight in decision making.

An Achievement Relative to Opportunity (ARtO) Guide has been developed for applicants and decision makers. The Application and Case for Promotion Form has been amended to include this reference.
If an unsuccessful applicant has included a statement regarding Achievement Relative to Opportunity, the feedback will outline how that statement was considered in the decision-making process.

The ARtO guide was introduced in 2022. A review of the process will determine if any changes are required for future rounds.

Supervisor’s report – some feedback indicated it made a limited contribution to decision making in its current form.

The supervisor’s report has been reduced from a maximum of four pages to a maximum of two pages in length and will require the supervisor to provide more structured commentary. Refer to the information sheet, “The role of the supervisor in academic promotions.”

No further changes planned at this time.

Referees and Assessors – some difficulty sourcing and restrictions exacerbated this difficulty.

Proposing up to two referees for applicants to Level B (internal or external) and level C (external preferred).
Proposing to remove the requirement for referee reports for applicants to Level D and E.
Assessors will remain for applications to Levels D and E.

Reduced requirements for referees were adopted in 2022 and will remain.
A proposal to remove or alter the requirement for material evidence for assessment for Level D / E applicants will be considered for 2023.

Mentors – a challenge for some supervisors to provide this level of support, but beneficial when it could be sourced elsewhere.

Procedures encourage applicants to seek support and feedback from an academic peer (within School/Faculty/discipline) and a critical friend (outside discipline/School) who has achieved promotion.

No further changes planned.

Varied perspectives regarding the availability and effectiveness of supervisor’s support of applicants.

This requires further investigation to clarify key issues and supports that could be of assistance for supervisors and staff. This could include enhancing development offerings and the resources provided to supervisors and staff that focus on career development and progression and having challenging conversations.

‘Leadership capability’ and ’Professional growth and outstanding careers’ are two pillars of the ACU People Plan 2022–2025. These include actions to support supervisors to develop feedback and coaching skills.

Decision making /Promotions Committee Processes

Transparency and independence of committee decision-making processes could be improved

The decision-making process has been revised substantially. Independent, anonymous committee member voting will be included as part of the process. Greater transparency and more detailed feedback for unsuccessful applicants will also be included.

A summary of the decision-making process is provided below:
1.        Staff will submit their Application and Case for Promotion Form, including the supervisor report.
2.        HR will gather referee / assessor reports for all applicants.
3.        Committee members will review each application and case for promotion, plus reports, then complete ratings independently prior to the meeting.
4.        HR will compile ratings for presentation to the committee.
5.        The committee will ordinarily meet only once to:

• confirm decisions where members have independently and unanimously provided ratings prior to the meeting that meet the threshold for the applicant to be promoted
• discuss applications and make a decision where there is not a unanimous, pre-meeting recommendation to promote the applicant.

Changes to the decision-making process were implemented in 2022 and will be reviewed following the 2022 round.

Feedback from committee members about considerable time requirements for multiple meetings in the current process.

Changes to the decision-making process (see above) will mean that the committee will ordinarily meet only once to:

• confirm decisions where members have independently and unanimously provided ratings prior to the meeting that meet the threshold for the applicant to be promoted
• discuss applications and make a decision where there is not a unanimous, pre-meeting recommendation to promote the applicant.

Changes were implemented in 2022 and will be reviewed following the 2022 round.

Feedback after an unsuccessful application was ‘not very helpful,’ was ‘very generic.’

Greater written feedback will be provided to unsuccessful applicants via the Self-Rating Form. Feedback will provide a justification for the decision and will highlight the strongest aspects of the application and those aspects where improvement is suggested. If an unsuccessful applicant has included a statement regarding Achievement Relative to Opportunity, feedback will specifically outline how that statement was considered in the decision-making process.

Changes are being implemented in the 2022 promotions process and will be reviewed following the 2022 round.

Simplified discipline-related decision making for promotions applications should be considered.

Introduction of Faculty-based Promotions Committees for Level B / C applications is planned for 2023. This is consistent with many Australian universities and will allow decision making closer to the applicant’s work area after development of procedure and consultation.
Level D / E remain with a university-level Promotions Committee

Work is in progress to support the implementation of faculty-based committees in 2023.