Aspects of faculty evaluation that directly affect employment decisions are considered to assist faculty members, and especially faculty leaders. Advantages and disadvantages of the following five methods of evaluating faculty are examined: self-evaluation, student rating, administrator observation and visitation, colleague review, and evidence of student learning. It is suggested that (1) a combination of methods provides a check-and-balance system, and (2) as faculty members participate in developing an institutional evaluation system, they should aim at a balance between the institution's need for competent and productive faculty and the reasonable demands of faculty for job security and due process. Thirteen standards to ensure fair treatment or due process that may be established through collective bargaining or other mechanisms include: an individual should receive specific, valid reasons for an adverse decision; the individual should receive prompt notice if an evaluator views his performance as deficient in some respect; and the individual should be given a reasonable length of time to correct noted deficiencies prior to the adverse decision. It is suggested that there is a need for an evaluation system to reflect the nature of the institution (e.g., 2-year and 4-year) and the actual work of each individual evaluated. Activities pertaining to teaching, scholarship, and service are outlined. Some evaluation approaches permit the faculty member to select the weights to be given to various general duties. Political aspects of evaluation design, development, and implementation are addressed, and descriptive summaries of common evaluation methods and an annotated bibliography are appended. (SW)