Stanford University is making it faster and simpler to appoint, reappoint, and promote faculty by reducing paperwork and decision points in a process that many say has become overly cumbersome.
Each year, about 300 Stanford faculty are considered for roles ranging from fixed-term and temporary appointments to longer-lasting decisions, as when granting tenure.
These decisions shape careers and Stanford’s academic future, but preparing review files has grown increasingly complex. What once spanned a few dozen pages in the 1960s can now top 100 pages, with rare cases exceeding 400. Much of that growth stems from well-intentioned checks and balances, but also includes documentation that’s now easily verifiable online or redundant.
“The appointment and promotion process takes too long and has become frustrating and bureaucratic,” said former President Richard Saller. “To land and retain top scholars, we need an easier, simpler process for candidates, decision-makers, and the administrative staff who support this crucial work.”
Rethinking the appointments and promotions process is a component of the university’s simplification initiative, which Saller is leading with former Provost John Etchemendy and Vice President for University Affairs Megan Pierson at the request of President Jonathan Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez.
The review, which Etchemendy began during Saller’s presidency, included extensive consultations across campus, feedback that showed the appointments and promotions process to be one of the leading sources of frustration among faculty, and a close look at how the current system functions.
Their recommended changes, approved by the provost, take effect in June 2025 and are designed to:
- Maintain decision-making for tenure and continuing terms with the Advisory Board of the Academic Council and provost.
- Speed other decisions by shifting about 150 cases per year – primarily fixed-term appointments and promotions – from the provost to deans, potentially saving two to three months per case for a final decision.
- Reduce required material in review files.
- Improve staff software tools for producing, compiling, and processing those files.
In discussions and feedback sessions with Saller and Etchemendy that included the quarterly department chairs meeting, faculty and staff described an increasingly burdensome process:
- Simple decisions bogged down by bureaucracy.
- Multi-page requirements for details once covered in a few paragraphs.
- Well-intentioned requirements that were overreactions to isolated incidents.
- Tedious documentation about referees, the outside sources who evaluate a candidate’s expertise, that duplicates information available elsewhere.
- Time-consuming reviews that lack flexibility when candidates face tight deadlines from competing offers.
“A thoughtful redesign could save many thousands of hours of faculty and staff time, and make Stanford more nimble without sacrificing quality in the least,” said Etchemendy.
