By Samuel T. Barber
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
California State University, Fullerton

Sarah Parramore, MSIDT, MLS
Director of Teaching, Learning and Research Support
Interim Director of Special Collections and College Archives
Occidental College

Introduction

This article reports events experienced by the department of faculty at Pollak Library, California State University, Fullerton (CSUF), between 2018 and 2024. This period was marked by notable changes and challenges, and in particular several that directly impacted probationary tenure-track faculty. This article focuses on the efforts and attempts made to mentor, support, and guide colleagues as they began their Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) journeys at CSUF.

During a single academic year, the library experienced the unprecedented hiring of six new probationary tenure-track faculty. This significant change is contextualized and described, along with the subsequent challenge these developments posed for the library and its new faculty department chair. The introduction of these new faculty members required consideration of the support systems already in place in addition to the implementation of fresh initiatives to aid their professional growth and smooth integration to the library.

The creation of a Retention Tenure and Promotion Mentorship Group (RTPMG) was designed to address the unique challenges posed by this rapid expansion of probationary tenure-track faculty. The group’s methods and activities are thoroughly analyzed, highlighting the strategies employed to navigate the complexities of the RTP process.

The conclusions emphasize the value of emotionally intelligent leadership within this context. By describing an application of the ripple effect leadership theory, this article explores the importance of strategic, empathetic leadership in supporting faculty development, which may be useful to other academic library faculty and leaders seeking to assist and support newly hired library employees.

1. The Context

This report must inevitably begin on a negative note, with the sudden and traumatic removal of a library dean in Spring 2018. In the weeks and months following this transition, an interim dean with a wealth of institutional and leadership experience was appointed, and a thorough review of the library and its operations was conducted via a 360^o External Review (Curzon, 2018) at the instigation of this new administrative leader.

Amongst its numerous observations, the Review identified significant library staff shortages, including a stark and problematic lack of tenure density among faculty ranks. At that time, faculty numbers when compared with a student population of 40,439 equated to a ratio of 3,111 students per librarian. By comparison, a sister campus with a closely comparable student enrollment of 39,816 students provided a librarian per 1,991 students (Curzon, 2018, p.22).

The new library dean leveraged their institutional experience and campus gravitas, with clear reference to the Review’s recommendations, to successfully lobby for an expedited high-priority faculty hiring project. The recruitment of six new probationary tenure-track faculty during the following academic year was unprecedented, and is not likely to be repeated. Four external applicants were hired and welcomed to the library, with the other two recruits being internal appointments with their existing contract librarian rank (lecturer equivalent) upgraded to probationary tenure-track status. This group of new probationary tenure-track faculty became informally known as the 2019/2020 Cohort.

During this particular academic year, a long-serving senior faculty librarian announced their intention to cease their six-year term of service as the library’s department chair. University policy outlines the nomination and eligibility requirements for department chairs: “Only current department faculty unit employees may nominate a tenured or tenure-track faculty member, including themselves, for Chair. Candidates shall normally hold the rank of tenured Associate Professor or Professor” (UPS 211.100, II D.1, p.2). Although department chairs, therefore, are “normally” tenured faculty, no such candidate obtained or submitted a nomination. The election committee received a single self-nomination from an untenured probationary member of library faculty, who was duly elected by departmental vote. Fully aware of the scale of the challenge to support an unusually large cohort of probationary tenure-track faculty in their quest for success, the new chair immediately identified that positive proactive measures were required.

2. The Plan

Following a thorough consultation to gain support and approval from the Dean of the Library, the new department chair began work to establish a dedicated Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Mentorship Group (RTPMG).

To understand the subsequent work, and indeed the need, for this RTPMG, one may first benefit from considering both the size of the newly-hired cohort outlined above and also typical departmental practices in probationary tenure-track faculty mentorship. First, university policy states the responsibilities for department chairs in this area:

“All department chairs shall meet responsibilities below:

1. To communicate the standards and criteria for RTP to all department faculty members at the beginning of the academic year.

1. To inform each new faculty member within two weeks after the assumption of official duties at the University of all personnel procedures including those covered by this document.

1. To provide guidance, advice, and support to assist probationary faculty in preparing the WPAF [Working Personnel Action File, or Portfolio, which includes self-evaluation narratives with corresponding evidence, submitted by faculty and used to evaluate their performance and progress towards tenure and promotion]” (UPS 210.000, III D, p.14).

The first two responsibilities may be seen to require thorough knowledge and experience of faculty evaluation policies, standards and procedures. The third adds to these skills a number of additional requirements: sufficient understanding of interpersonal perception theory and application of emotional intelligence to observe, understand, and empathize with probationary tenure-track faculty, their anxieties, and their thinking toward the challenges they face; consistent approachability and an open willingness to share wisdom, advice, and mentorship to others; and the energy, motivation, and time to devote this support.

One might be hopeful that most, if not all, pre-2019/2020 Cohort faculty would appreciate the efforts made by previous department chairs to support them. Such undertakings were typically well intentioned and attentive. Nevertheless, the majority of actions relating to the chair’s third responsibility outlined above would tend to be ad hoc and reactive in nature, as assistive intervention typically required initiative first from probationary faculty to approach their chair to seek advice.

As at many campuses, even excellent general faculty support provided by campus-wide services are of limited utility for librarian faculty (ranked at this university as non-instructional faculty). Similarly, RTP workshops conducted in partnership with Faculty Affairs and Records (FAR) tend to reflect relative numbers by prioritizing support for instructional faculty rather than the relatively unique responsibilities and requirements of library faculty. For example, during the Spring 2024 semester, out of a CSUF total of 2,186 faculty, 81 (3.7%) were ranked as non-instructional faculty, with just 25 (1.14%) of these being librarian faculty (CSUF 2024b).

The 360^o External Review also observed that the library faced challenges owing to the retention rate of employees, with 39 faculty and staff having left their positions between June 2013 and July 2018. In response, the Review author recommended that the library “Develop a retention plan which creates a formal and continuous plan for training and mentoring”, and that this plan should include “a welcoming plan for onboarding all new employees” (Curzon, 2018, p.24).

Whilst fully respectful of both library and university efforts to support faculty, therefore, the incoming chair noted the retention concerns expressed in the 360^o External Review and its recommendations for dedicated welcoming and mentoring initiatives. When viewed in conjunction with the unique circumstances presented by the new arrival of such a large cohort of probationary tenure-track faculty, it seems clear the library was faced with a significant challenge that fully warranted a substantial response. These considerations, therefore, essentially formed the rationale for the creation of the RTPMG: an institutionally novel response to an institutionally unprecedented situation.

3. The Formation of the RTPMG

From the outset, the department chair recognized that a mentee group of this size would benefit from multiple mentorship perspectives. A fellow probationary faculty colleague – themselves working in a leadership position as library instruction coordinator – was approached to gauge interest and duly appointed as RTPMG co-leader alongside the department chair. One senior tenured faculty member was also invited to participate but politely declined. Ultimately, the RTPMG designed to assist probationary tenure-track faculty was co-led by two probationary tenure-track faculty peers.

4. The Work of the RTPMG

4.1 RTPMG Scheduled Sessions

To further augment general mentorship support, it was deemed essential to schedule formal RTP mentorship sessions. Ostensibly, these were designed to facilitate group-based concentration on specific designated topics. There was, however, an additional nuanced factor in mind, drawing upon the mentor’s required emotional intelligent leadership. Namely, by scheduling such sessions, those mentees perhaps less motivated, or minded, to approach the mentor would be engaged. Any anxiety, distraction, or lack of focus on probationary faculty tenure-track responsibilities could then be brought to the foreground and positively acted upon in a timely and proactive fashion. The sessions were highly recommended for the 2019/2020 Cohort members, but were not made mandatory.

4.1.1 The Prospectus

The inaugural RTPMG session focused on the mandated requirement to produce a Prospectus document during the first year of employment. This document presents a plan for achieving retention, tenure, and promotion, outlined via narratives not exceeding 500 words for each of three areas of review. Unlike almost all other university departments, library faculty hiring cycles are not necessarily aligned with the academic calendar. As university policies designate a consistent due date for the Prospectus of February 28 (see UPS 210.000), some members of the 2019/2020 Cohort were required to meet this requirement within just a few months of their hire, adding deadline pressure to their challenge.

The Prospectus session, in keeping with those that followed, consisted of a slide-based presentation, with several pauses for questions, prior to a standard Q&A and discussion period towards the end. Care was taken to ensure audience engagement and interaction by including slides that asked questions of the attendees.

The presentation began by introducing various definitions of the Prospectus. These were provided from the Department of the Library Personnel Standards (DPS): “All probationary librarians shall create a prospectus: their plan for achieving retention, tenure, and promotion to Associate Librarian” (DPS, 2019, p.1). And from the university policy statement UPS 210.000 (in this context,  UPS documents form overarching principles and policies forming boundaries within which departmental standards must conform): “[the Prospectus] shall describe the faculty member’s professional goals, areas of interest, resources required and accomplishments [they] expect to achieve in each of the three areas evaluated in order to meet the approved Department Personnel Standards … for retention, tenure and promotion” (UPS 210.000, p.7). In addition, an advisory definition was provided by the RTPMG leadership: an aspirational, forward-thinking plan defining the positive impact you intend to make for the benefit of the library, our students, the university and the wider local and professional communities in order to achieve retention, tenure, and promotion.

Next, suggested keywords were sequentially read out by the two co-presenters. These terms were typically action verbs reflecting terms used in position descriptions and the university strategic plan. Examples include “innovation”, “engagement”, “forward thinking”, “critical thinking”, “initiative”, “inaugural”, “inspirational”, “inclusive”. These terms were then presented in sample set-up phrases designed to introduce more substantive narrative content. For example, “My aim is to become widely recognized as an innovative, inspirational, reliable, and successful librarian.” At this juncture, the audience was asked whether such a statement seemed ambitious. The general response was “yes”. The RTPMG co-leaders then affirmed that was the point. Though care should be taken to remain realistic and set achievable goals, the Prospectus should be ambitious and aspirational, and if faculty’s subsequent plans (and indeed actions) are framed in such a way, the outline of what follows in the prospectus narrative will demonstrate genuine promise and potential for impactful success.

The presentation concluded with a summary. When introducing future plans in aspirational terms, it is then necessary to provide a clear, convincing, and structured outline of intended action to meet this aspiration. The Prospectus was then defined in an additional way, with this final framing placed very deliberately at the end of the session. This definition explained that though indeed a plan for future success, the entire exercise is also designed to provide probationary tenure-track faculty librarians the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of what is required of them. For instance, if the DPS requires two achievements of a particular type, and a Prospectus includes a plan to achieve only one, the clear misunderstanding is highlighted and may be corrected at this early stage.

Finally, an attempt was made to reassure and affirm attendees. Confirmation was communicated that indeed, mapping and expressing such an ambitious and long-term plan can seem daunting. However, when broken down into smaller sections (semesters, academic years, etc.) the whole becomes more manageable. And, of course, help was at hand. A shared online RTPMG folder was created containing sample Prospectus documents from several faculty, including the two RTPMG co-leaders. The 2019/2020 Cohort expressed an interest in a follow-up group writing session, where specific advice and suggestions were offered in person. All probationary faculty in the RTPMG then accepted the invitation to share draft Prospectuses with the RTPMG co-leaders, who offered feedback, suggested edits, and – crucially – much affirmation and encouragement.

4.1.2 The Portfolio (three presentation sessions)

4.1.2.1 The Portfolio: introduction and vita

The Portfolio¹ formed the centerpiece of faculty evaluations, and throughout the majority² of the 2019/2020 Cohort’s probationary tenure-track experience consisted of three 1,000-word narratives describing achievements and performance in each area of review: Performance as a Librarian; Scholarly/Creative Activities; Library, University, Professional, and Community Service. Each narrative must be thoroughly augmented with supporting evidence, and evaluations were conducted with direct reference to the Department Personnel Standards (DPS) to determine a rating for each area (Outstanding, Good, Needs Improvement, Unsatisfactory). Evaluators then submitted a formal recommendation based on these ratings. Available recommendations included retention for an additional probationary year with abbreviated review, retention for an additional probationary year with full review, and – at the end of the six-year tenure-track – recommendation for tenure and promotion, or recommendation for a terminal year.

Session one provided an introductory overview of the evaluation Portfolio, more detailed coverage of one of its elements, the vita, and communication of important RTP dates. Citing the Library DPS, the 2019/2020 Cohort were reminded that the Portfolio and its contents were at that time “the sole basis for RTP evaluations, recommendations, and actions” and that the Portfolio is cumulative, “covering the period from the beginning of the probationary period to the last day before the due date in the fall semester of the academic year during which RTP action is to be taken” (Library DPS, p.1). Clear confirmation was also communicated that the content of the Portfolio remains the sole responsibility of the candidate under review.

The content and structure of the Portfolio vita was shown to be governed by university policy. The document “… covers the faculty member’s entire academic career and professional employment history and … lists accomplishments in all three areas of review ([Performance as a Librarian], Scholarly and Creative Activity, and Service). Peer-reviewed activities shall be listed separately from non-peer-reviewed activities. Activities should be listed in reverse chronological order.” (UPS 210.000, p.8). A real-world example of such a vita was then presented and discussed, and subsequently other sample vitas were added to the shared online RTPMG folder.

The session concluded with an overview of important upcoming dates. Each academic year, evaluation timetables were issued by the University Provost outlining deadlines for submissions, and dates for the various steps of the evaluation process. Pertinent deadlines and dates for the upcoming 2019/2020 Cohort submissions were highlighted, and, reflecting the fact that this session was conducted in 2020, faculty were advised of their right to request an extension to their probationary period owing to the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 pandemic.

4.1.2.2 The Portfolio: narratives

The second presentation meeting was in many ways the most important, and the most extensive. A full one-hour session dedicated to the topic of evaluation narratives. Firstly, some fundamentals were communicated:

• Narratives report and describe the activities undertaken and achievements made during the review period.
• Narratives should build an argument and make a case.
• Cases are strengthened by citing the impact and importance of the work you are reporting.
• Arguments make assertions, and these require corroborating evidence to support your case.

An example was then presented, with the narrative statement improving in quality with each incremental step:

Standard	Example Statement	Corroborating evidence
Minimal	In 2019 I presented at ALA Midwinter on the topic of crowdsourcing metadata.	Presentation slides.
Good	In 2019 I presented to 77 professional peers at ALA Midwinter on the innovative and experimental topic of crowdsourcing metadata. This contribution to the professional community was warmly received and positively represented the university.	Conference meeting minutes, the presentation slides, follow-up emails from moderator and attendees.
Optimal	In 2019 I presented to 77 professional peers at ALA Midwinter on the innovative and experimental topic of crowdsourcing metadata. This contribution to the professional community was warmly received and positively represented the university. This important refereed presentation at a major conference clearly represents a Second-Level activity.	Conference meeting minutes, the presentation slides, follow-up emails from moderator and attendees, statement from the moderator outlining the proposal peer-review/refereeing procedures.

The example was designed to meet the primary requirements of the narrative. A clear and concise statement describes the activity, an argumentative assertion is made that the activity topic is innovative, the size and nature of the audience is specified to speak to the magnitude and impact of the activity, and its refereed/peer-reviewed nature is confirmed. All narrative statements are corroborated with accompanying evidence, and ultimately a convincing case is made that the work is deserving of a particular grade (in this case, a Second-Level activity, awarded for refereed presentations at major conferences), with direct reference to the DPS.

Next, the topic of evidence was addressed, with reference to examples specified in the Library DPS. One particular example, peer-provided letters, was afforded particular attention. A recommendation was made for faculty to attempt to write a draft narrative prior to requesting letters. The rationale offered was that this helps a candidate to identify gaps in their evidence that might only be covered by such letters, and that this approach clarifies exactly what the candidate might need their letters to speak to. It was also noted that letters that request the addressing of specific aspects of faculty performance and activities is also mutually beneficial. As the presentation slides suggest:

• There is a huge difference between receiving an RTP letter request that asks:
  • Dear colleague, please can you write a letter for my Portfolio?
• And one that asks:
  • Dear colleague, please can you write a letter for my Portfolio that specifically speaks to activities x, y and z?

4.1.2.3 The Portfolio: arrangement and submission  

The final set-piece session covered best practices and recommendations for the arrangement of narratives and evidence within the Portfolio. By definition, therefore, the content was somewhat dry and matter-of-fact. Its value, however, remained clear, and the advice shared included various methods to enumerate and name evidence files, along with how these might be cited by the narrative text.

A live demonstration of an online portal used by the university, Interfolio, was also included. Interfolio is the tool used for all RTP evaluation document submissions, and its best practices, do’s and do nots, and top tips from past experience were shared with the group. To cite an illustrative example: when it was necessary to highlight text in a document for submission, a best practice was recommended to use Microsoft Word to highlight the text, before saving as a PDF. This is because Interfolio’s processing of PDFs highlighted in Adobe Acrobat tended to obliterate the highlighted text – an important cautionary tale to share with the 2019/2020 Cohort.

4.1.3 The RTPMG Slack Channel

Creating a dedicated communications channel for the RTPMG may seem an obvious idea, yet it is easy to underestimate its impact. With membership limited to the 2019/2020 Cohort and the RTPMG co-leaders, the private messaging Slack channel #rtp2020 generated several multi-faceted benefits. First, it provided a safe space for probationary faculty to communicate. Anxieties and concerns tended to be easier to express in the context of a small group containing immediate peers and mentors. Faculty also seemed comfortable to ask questions in this forum, regardless of whether or not they deemed the query ‘stupid’ or ‘obvious’. Typical questions included which area of review might be the most suitable for a particular activity to be reported; how much evidence is required to corroborate a particular claim in the narrative; and how strictly the narrative word-count is normally enforced.

By design, #rtp2020 also exemplified the RTPMG co-leader’s attempts to instill a sense of the 2019/2020 Cohort members belonging to a team, with a common experience and a shared goal. As time passed, probationary faculty increasingly answered questions asked by their immediate peers, indicating increasing levels of self-confidence and understanding of RTP requirements, while extending the sense that the Cohort was indeed developing as a mutually-supportive group. Although not intended to represent an example of a true ‘train the trainers’ model, some similarities may be identified whereby initial guidance or advice offered by a mentor may subsequently be communicated and shared by a mentee to other mentees.

The Slack initiative proved to be a popular and highly efficient mechanism to pose and respond to queries promptly. Created on July 6, 2020, the channel witnessed 164 messages by August 31. As the deadline for the cohort’s first full evaluation submissions approached, 249 messages were exchanged between September 1 and October 31. At the present time of writing, #rtp2020 is still live and active, with newly hired faculty receiving invitations to join, and messages peaking during periods containing evaluation submission deadlines.

4.1.4 Additional Support

In addition to the extended RTPMG leadership role, the department chair naturally continued supportive duties as normal to all faculty. Such tasks included ad hoc support of all faculty in keeping with university policy and past practices. This may seem to be a minor point, but it remains important to note that faculty evaluation-related mentorship was not necessarily confined to the context of the RTPMG and its members.

The sharing of past RTP-related documents, drafts, and submissions also represented a continuation of past practices. It may be stressed, however, that the scheduled set piece sessions and the sense of team generated by the efforts of the RTPMG provided a communal forum for analysis and discussion of specific points that all members might actively contribute to and benefit from. Finally, again indicating the historical provenance of the RTPMG, the department chair offered full support to probationary faculty seeking to benefit from further campus-wide efforts to address the negative impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on probationary tenure-track faculty. Perhaps most notably, this included an option to apply for the granting of release time from regular duties totaling three weighted time units (WTUs) – the equivalent of one day per week – allowing library faculty the opportunity to instead focus on scholarly/creative activities essential for success on the tenure-track.

5. Probationary Tenure-Track Library Faculty Questionnaire Feedback

In August 2020 basic feedback was sought via a Qualtrics survey to measure the 2019/2020 Cohort’s satisfaction with the RTPMG set piece sessions. 5 of the 6 cohort members responded, indicating all 5 had attended the complete set of sessions. 4 faculty found the sessions “extremely useful”, with 1 indicating they were “very useful”. All 5 respondents “strongly agreed” with the statements “As a result of the RTPMG sessions, I feel more confident and informed about the RTP process” and “The RTPMG was inaugurated in AY2019/2020. In your view, should this initiative be continued for newly hired tenure-track Library faculty in the future?” In response to a free-text question seeking suggestions for how future RTPMG sessions might be improved, the responses were:

• “Maybe add some workshop time – so we can go through some of the processes with our own materials, but still in a setting where we can ask questions and receive guidance.”
• “Multiple examples of table of contents and appendix numbering would be helpful.”
• “I can’t think of anything now. Perhaps another session to address final questions that the group would like to hear as a whole.”
• “Not that I can think of.”

6. The Theoretical Foundations of the RTPMG’s Work

Before drawing conclusions on the degree to which the RTPMG succeeded, it is important to note an additional dimension to its operations. The work of the RTPMG leadership was founded on theoretical bases, designed to achieve corresponding practical results. Laing, Phillipson, and Lee’s theory of interpersonal perception (Laing, 1972) represented a clear and consistent foundation for the approach taken. As Littlejohn summarizes: “Laing’s thesis is that a person’s communicative behavior is affected by [their] perception of the relationship with the other communicator” (Littlejohn, 1996, p. 255). When we communicate with others, our experience of this act relies on interpretation of the other’s words and behavior. Whereas an other’s behavior is in Laing’s view public and open for interpretation by us, their experience is private and hence unseen. Therefore, Laing concludes “I see you, and you see me. I experience you, and you experience me. I see your behavior. You see my behavior. But I do not and never have and never will see your experience of me. Just as you cannot ‘see’ my experience of you.” (Laing, 1967, p. 17-18).

Once this understanding of the social phenomenological basis of interpersonal perception was established, the next challenge for the RTPMG leadership was to respond to the privacy of others’ experience. Here, an application of Goleman’s concept of emotional intelligence was utilized (Goleman, 2006). At all times, clear and distinct empathic support was extended toward the 2019/2020 Cohort. When synthesizing these two concepts, we may for example consider a simple conversation between mentor and mentee. “Are you feeling OK with the tenure-track?” asks the mentor, to which the mentee replies “Yes”. Though these words and behavior are public and observable, the mentee’s experience is private. Therefore, “yes” may mean “yes”. However, it may mean “Not really, but I don’t want to admit it”. And, yet again, it may mean that indeed the mentee does feel OK, but they are in fact not wholly justified in doing so, perhaps due to overconfidence, complacency, or due to an incomplete understanding of RTP requirements. Empathy, therefore, is required to extend full awareness of these possibilities, and to gently investigate further so as to ensure the mentee is really feeling OK with the tenure-track.

If this approach demonstrated a lightness of touch, it was by design. And it was, in large part, symbiotic with a broader goal of the RTPMG: to instigate a ripple effect of change leadership in the department’s RTP practices. Though several research-based scholarly treatments exist in the literature (see, for example, Moerer (2004), Bukko (2019), O’Conner (2013), and Burhan (2023)), perhaps the clearest definition of this theory is provided by a non-academic source: “grand gestures or monumental decisions only sometimes steer the course. Usually, it’s the small, seemingly insignificant actions that create the most significant waves. This phenomenon is known as the ripple effect” (Aurora Training Advantage, 2024). The RTPMG leaders believed that positive change was necessary. However, cognizant of the anxiety inherent in RTP processes, the uniqueness of such a large probationary faculty cohort, the stresses of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the sheer scale of the challenge these elements combined to produce, smaller, gentler actions were deemed to be required to ultimately make the most significant waves.

7. Results, Reflection, and Conclusions

Owing to the fact that supporting faculty success was in many ways the raison d’être for the RTPMG, any reflection on how it fared must begin here. At the time of writing, three members of the 2019/2020 Cohort faculty successfully applied for early tenure and promotion and currently serve as Associate Librarians. The remaining three are well on course to succeed on the probationary tenure-track on schedule. Clearly, these achievements belong to the faculty members themselves. The positive assistance contributed by the formation and leadership of the RTPMG has, however, been expressed by cohort members. And, notably, the student to faculty ratio has improved from 3,111 students per librarian in 2018 to a present measure of 1,916 (CSUF 2024b).

As advocates and actuators of ripple effect leadership theory, these authors are thankful that several ripples instigated by the RTPMG continue to influence the department. A strong sense of collegiality remains throughout probationary tenure-track faculty ranks, with consistent instances of RTP-related support being provided to peers. Proposed revisions to the Library DPS were strongly and successfully opposed in 2022, with objections led by probationary faculty citing the negative impact of proposals on their own tenure-track prospects, and for those of their peers. Collegiality and consideration for others formed a cornerstone of the RTPMG philosophy. A far more collaborative, inclusive, and transparent revisions process succeeded in producing a near-unanimously supported DPS update in 2024.

Though at times a subtlety expressed phenomenon, these aspects tend to suggest the RTPMG leadership’s attempts to change departmental culture were at least partially successful. The continued use of the #rtp2020 Slack channel, both by 2019/2020 Cohort members and subsequently hired probationary faculty also indicates enduring ripples. When one considers that the department chair responsible for forming the RTPMG ended their service as chair and RTPMG co-leader in December 2021, perhaps this perpetuation of ongoing ripples indicates that the broader aspiration for positive change with longevity was at least to some extent achieved.

Notes

^[1] During Academic Year 2021/2022, the Portfolio was renamed as the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF).

^[2] During Academic Year 2023/2024, the narrative word limit was increased to 1,500 words.

References

Bukko, D., Cardenas, J.M.M., Coletto, R. (2019). Ripple effects: multifaceted mentoring of educational leadership doctoral students. Journal of Transformative Leadership & Policy Studies, 8(1), 8-32. Available: https://doi.org/10.36851/jtlps.v8i1.1919 Last accessed: September 6, 2024

Burhan, Q.A., Khan, M. (2024). Empowering leadership ripple effect: improving employee engagement, performance and knowledge sharing through relational energy and autonomy. European Business Review, 36(3), 392-409. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-08-2023-0239 Last accessed: September 6, 2024

CSUF (2019). Official Departmental Personnel Standards for the Pollak Library Department of Technical Services. Available: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e87tjbdciecfsex2wrvda/libr2019.pdf?rlkey=j1424i0eslrrl5fw83ubin4ij&dl=0 Last accessed: September 6, 2024

CSUF (2024). Faculty Development Center. Available: https://fdc.fullerton.edu/ Last accessed: September 6, 2024

CSUF (2024b). Office Of Institutional Planning and Effectiveness. Available: https://www.fullerton.edu/data/ Last accessed: September 6, 2024

CSUF University Policy Statement 211.100 (2023). Appointment of Department Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Available: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zmm3v08dhe34mc0v82y2t/UPS-211.100.pdf?rlkey=lgcfi8m5zbakub7zetbpanj6a&dl=0 Last accessed: September 6, 2024

CSUF University Policy Statement 210.000 (2024). Tenure and Promotion Personnel Standards. Available: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e3j7falnacgy2ahf2hyre/UPS-210.000.pdf?rlkey=9c67og2hvjq7x1zg6q4vyyebz&dl=0

Last accessed: September 6, 2024

Curzon, S. (2018). 360^o external review in preparation for the California State University, Fullerton Pollak Library’s 2018-2023 Strategic Plan.

Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence. (New York : Bantam)

Laing, R.D. (1967). The politics of experience. (New York : Pantheon)

Laing, R.D., Phillipson, H., Lee, A.R. (1972). Interpersonal perception: a theory and a method of research. (New York : Harper & Row)

Littlejohn, S.W. (1996). Theories of human communication. (Belmont : Wadsworth)

Moerer-Urdahl, T. and Creswell, J.W.  (2004). Using Transcendental Phenomenology to Explore the “Ripple Effect” in a Leadership Mentoring Program. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 19-35. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300202  Last accessed: September 6, 2024

O’Conner, S., Cavanagh, M. (2013). The coaching ripple effect: the effects of developmental coaching on wellbeing across organisational networks. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 3(2). Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/2211-1522-3-2 Last accessed: September 6, 2024