A ticking clock, outdated naming criteria, and redundant clerical work are among the difficulties faced by faculty in the current promotions process at the University of Colorado School of Medicine (CU SOM). But the Office for Faculty Affairs seeks to address these challenges through proposed rules changes which are now available for faculty vote.

All executive faculty — those with 0.5 or greater FTE — are encouraged to vote today. Deadline to vote is 5 p.m. Friday, May 16, 2025.

“Either you have been through the process and know it needs improvement, or you're about to go through the process and you'll wish it was improved,” said Joshua Johnson, PhD, Associate Professor, Division of Reproductive Sciences, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. “Either way, take the time to vote.”

Added Lindsey Westbrook, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, “This is going to make the process of promotions less time-consuming. It’s worth your two minutes to vote.”

The proposed changes are based on recommendations from the CU SOM Promotion Task Force convened by Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, Senior Associate Dean for Faculty & Chief Well-being Officer, as well as feedback from the 2024 CU SOM Faculty Survey highlighting the need to reduce administrative burden and increase clarity in the promotion process.

The Promotion Task Force, led by Sunita Sharma, MD, MPH, Associate Professor, Division of Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine, aimed to identify opportunities to streamline the dossier, suggest new nomenclature used for faculty tracks, and address concerns related to the promotion time clock.  They reviewed the current process both at CU and other institutions, and provided formal recommendations.

“Our task force proposed a number of thoughtful changes which aim to improve the faculty experience through streamlining and clarifying the promotions process,” Dyrbye said. 

Many of the concerns and issues outlined by members of the Promotion Task Force were echoed by faculty who responded to the 2024 survey.

Current Promotions Process Described as Inefficient

The 2024 faculty survey revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the current promotions process. Faculty comments regarding promotion and annual review spanned 14 pages, with 215 separate comments. While faculty praised promotions criteria as comprehensive and robust, they described the promotions process as daunting, excessively time-consuming, redundant, and inefficient.

“It is a waste of my time to repeat my accomplishments in three different sections — on my [curriculum vitae] (CV), in a promotions matrix, and in narrative form,” wrote one faculty member. “This process can and should be simplified.”

Added another, “The byzantine promotions process […] is outdated and represents untold hours of uncompensated time that [would] be better used actually fulfilling our research, education, and clinical missions.”

Overview: Changes to Promotions Process

Proposed changes call for the replacement of the term “Regular Series” with “Tenure and Tenure-Eligible Track,” removal of the time clock within the Clinical Practice and Research Professor tracks, along with clearer language on switching between tracks, as well as adding new ranks (Instructor, Senior Instructor, Assistant Professor) to the Clinical Practice track. While the title modifier “of Clinical Practice” must be used in all official appointments, promotions, HR communications, and in faculty members’ CVs, the shorter working title (e.g., Associate Professor) may be used in routine communications such as e-mail, patient correspondence, and scholarly work.

The updates also consolidate four portfolios into a single cover letter and Personalized Promotions Matrix, and remove the requirement for a CV Abstract except in applications for award of tenure. 

Volunteer faculty and faculty who are less than 0.5 FTE will be renamed Adjoint Faculty, with ranks available from Instructor through Distinguished Professor. This will clarify the distinction between faculty in the clinical practice track and volunteer or part-time faculty.

The changes further include new requirements for ongoing career development and mentoring for all faculty at all ranks.

Positive Impacts on Faculty

For Westbrook, the proposed changes would greatly benefit faculty, particularly regarding clarity and the excessive time required to complete the current promotions process.

Westbrook said that the process can require more than 50 hours to complete, time which faculty could better spend completing clinical work.

“It was very stressful and very time consuming,” Westbrook said. “The process was very repetitive. Condensing it would be of great benefit to all faculty.”

Describing the process as onerous, Johnson said improvements to the promotions process would reduce administrative load for faculty.

“[The current process] requires a significant amount of time to complete,” Johnson said. “There were sections that weren't clear on how things should be formatted or provided. Much of it was repetitive, and the requirements had a lot of overlap.”

While the wording of the promotion criteria has been condensed for clarity, the criteria themselves are unchanged, explained Miriam Post, MD, Assistant Dean for Faculty Affairs, and Professor of Pathology.

“We have been very thoughtful about adhering to principles that reflect our institutional values, support faculty success, and foster a transparent and equitable academic environment,” Post said. “We aimed to create an efficient and faculty-friendly system which reduces confusion and ensures that faculty are supported in their professional growth, while maintaining excellence in education, scholarship, clinical care, and service.”

The updates, Post said, are not intended to make it easier or harder to achieve various academic ranks, but rather, to ensure that the process is clear, fair, and aligned with the realities of modern academic careers, while upholding the high standards of excellence that define CU SOM.

“As of right now, it's hard to know as a faculty member what exactly you need to do to advance your career,” said Tyler Anstett, DO, Faculty Senate President and Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine. “Going forward with these proposed changes, when you're making the choice of doing something or not doing something, this will provide more clarity of whether a decision will benefit your promotion, or whether it’s worth doing for another reason.”

Enhancing Faculty Well-being

Streamlining and clarifying the promotions process will contribute to enhanced well-being for faculty, according to Dyrbye.

“Administrative burden takes a significant toll on the well-being of our faculty,” Dyrbye said. “We remain, as a leading school of medicine, focused on how we can best improve faculty well-being in tangible ways. Reducing administrative burden and improving the promotions process achieves this in a very meaningful way.”

Anstett added, “There is widespread agreement that the current promotions process is quite cumbersome. The proposed changes provide clarity and alignment. When faculty are better able to understand their own terms and processes, we are more likely to keep the excellent, talented people in whom we have invested. This ultimately benefits the patients we serve.”

Guided by Shared Governance

One of the guiding principles of CU SOM is that of shared governance, whereby administration and faculty collaborate on major decisions affecting the academic welfare of the university.

Amending the CU SOM Rules exemplifies shared governance, as the process requires extensive communication between various stakeholders to develop proposed changes.

Before implementation, a thorough review and approval is required from stakeholders, including the Rules and Governance Committee, the Faculty Senate, the Executive Committee (comprised of department chairs), full-time faculty, the Dean, and the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs.

“This is a great example of shared governance,” Anstett said. “For example, removing the time clock policies which are traditionally associated with tenure-track systems is an employment and financial decision, while promotion is an academic endeavor. Changing the processes for promotion specifically speaks to both of those areas, and is very much in line with shared governance.”

Taking feedback into account throughout the amendment development process, Anstett worked to ensure that the proposed changes adequately address faculty concerns.

“There was initially a lot of fear that removing the time clock would create a second class of citizens, that non-tenure-eligible tracks without a time clock would be held to different standards or would languish or not receive departmental support,” Anstett said. “But we have explicitly specified that departments are still very much expected to provide mentorship and support to faculty at all levels.”

Voting Process

The proposed rules changes have thus far been approved by the Rules and Governance Committee, the Faculty Senate, and the Executive Committee. Now, the changes are put forth for a vote by executive faculty — all faculty with 0.5 or greater FTE.

Faculty who have already voted in the process as members of the Rules and Governance Committee, Faculty Senate, or Executive Committee are not eligible to vote during Executive Faculty voting.

Upon passage, the amendments are then presented for approval to the Dean and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, after which the rules are officially changed and become effective July 1, 2025. During the first year, either new or legacy dossier formats will be accepted.

Some faculty have expressed concern that the timeline of voting seems rushed.

“The overarching goal has been to provide the opportunity for submission of the new dossier format for the current promotion cycle for dossiers submitted in calendar year 2025, and to remove the pressure of the time clock from a subset of faculty,” Post said.

Voting Information

All executive faculty — those with 0.5 or greater FTE — are encouraged to vote today. Deadline to vote is 5 p.m. Friday, May 16, 2025.

Additional Information

For updates and to learn more, visit the Offices for the Faculty Experience Promotion Updates website.

Dossier preparation resources are available at the Dossier Preparation website, updated continually.