|Title||Post-Tenure Review As If It Mattered|
|Author(s)||Jayne W. Barnard|
|Abstract||This Article explore changing markets and changing customer expectations, good workers- diligent, responsible, but badly-led workers-performing well but not well enough in a changing world, and failure of managers to identify meaningful performance metrics and to incentivize their employees to adapt to their firms' most important strategic goals all in the law school context. That is, I ask how can law professors be incentivized to improve their performance and adapt to a changing marketplace over the course of their careers? How can law school "managers" identify performance metrics that make sense in this changing marketplace, and create an environment in which change and adaptation are recognized are rewarded?
This Article imagines how post-tenure review might work if we took the process seriously for all faculty members and used it as a management strategy to foster institutional change. It draws on previous work about the value and mechanics of post-tenure review generally, and the value specifically of post-tenure review in a law school setting. It also draws on recent work aimed at redesigning the traditional human resources function within the business corporation. Whereas the HR function was once characterized by cost-containment and often meaningless paperwork, the HR function and the performance assessment process are toady increasingly seen as critical contributors to achieving a company's strategic objectives.