The “Bob Pierleoni Spirit of POD Award” is the highest honor that POD bestows on a member. It recognizes long-standing members who have made selfless contributions through their service to the organization and to the field of educational development. The award is presented at the Annual Conference.

Bob was an early member of the POD Network in Higher Education. He contributed actively to its conferences, served on the Core Committee, and co-chaired the 1985 POD Conference located in Lake Lawn Wisconsin conference.

Bob always contributed meaningfully to any endeavor he undertook. But he brought more than expertise and organizational skills to POD. His spirit pervaded the organization. His gentle humor, personal warmth, caring, helpfulness, and commitment to sharing ideas helped make collegial networking a key element of the POD Network.

2022 deadline: Friday, October 14
Invitation for nominations

The “Bob Pierleoni Spirit of POD Award” is POD’s highest honor. It recognizes members who:

  • Exemplify the philosophy, principles, and practices of POD, such as generosity of spirit, kindness, compassion, sincerity, inclusiveness, and civility.
  • Have served the organization and its members for at least five years in more than routine ways, such as: sharing knowledge, experience, materials, ideas, and support freely with other POD members; mentoring or helping colleagues enter the field and engage in the work; and/or exercising innovative or equity-minded leadership in the organization.
  • Contribute to the profession of faculty, instructional, and organizational development in ways that help the POD Network enact its mission and values.
  • As recently affirmed in the strategic plan, key values include collaboration, equity, and evidence.
What is the process for nominating someone?
  • Reflect on your experiences with the POD Network. Has someone made a significant difference for you personally or professionally, as well as to our organization?
  • Review the nomination form and fill it out if you’d like to make a nomination.
  • Encourage others to fill out a nomination form for this POD member to offer additional examples to support the nomination.
What makes a nomination successful?

Successful nominations are typically 1000–1,500 words, and directly address the SPOD award criteria and speak to the ways this person embodies the ‘spirit of POD’. They address both the interpersonal and the professional contributions of the nominee to educational development. We are especially interested in receiving proposals for POD members who identify as Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian, and/or as a member of other groups that are minoritized in higher education, including LGBTQIA+ colleagues and colleagues with disabilities.

Successful nominations also include concrete examples to help the selection committee understand the ways the nominee has demonstrated the award criteria. This award is about quality more than quantity so be sure to emphasize the depth of the nominee’s contributions and ‘spirit’, rather than simply listing formal roles and years in POD.

*Nominees often do not receive the award the first time they are nominated, so nominators should not be discouraged if their initial attempt is unsuccessful.

Would you consider nominating a POD member who has made a significant difference for you personally or professionally, as well as to our organization?

Nominators should note that POD’s President, immediate Past President, President-Elect, and members of the Spirit of POD subcommittee are not eligible to receive this award.  SPOD sub-committee members are not eligible to serve as nominators. Please contact the SPOD sub-committee Chair if you are unsure who is serving in these roles.

Please direct any questions to the SPOD sub-committee Chair at spod@podnetwork.org.

Rubric Guidelines

Committee members should primarily use the evidence and case made in submitted nominations (rather than their own knowledge apart from the case made in the submission) to rate the candidate. Caveat: If, however, the committee is aware of information that would disqualify a candidate (e.g. a pattern of poor collegiality), members may discuss this information and take it into consideration in their ranking.

It does not seem meaningful to offer a strict numerical ranking system for the rubric, as many of the elements below will—and must—interact and overlap if a candidate is eventually to rise to the level of recipient of the award. Nevertheless, to give the committee some shared rankings to discuss, we will provide some descriptive categories. The chair would tally descriptive rankings for each item (that could be represented numerically or not).

Successful nominees will vary in the nature and depth of contributions or involvement in the 2nd and 3rd categories below, though all recipients must demonstrate significant contributions. Without high marks in item 1—elements of the ethos or spirit of POD—a candidate cannot rise to the top. To be awarded the SPOD award, a nominee must thus rank highly in spirit and at least significantly (ideally high) in the other areas.

Rubric Categories (for reference)
  1. How does the nominee exemplify the philosophy, principles, and practices of the POD Network, such as generosity of spirit, kindness, compassion, sincerity, inclusiveness and civility?
    Very strong evidence and case
    Significant/moderate evidence and case
    Little to no evidence
  2. How has the nominee served the organization and its members in more than routine ways? Please provide examples of the ways the nominee has demonstrated any or all of the following criteria:
    1. Sharing knowledge, experience, materials, ideas, and support freely with other POD members.
      Very strong evidence and case
      Significant/moderate evidence and case
      Little to no evidence
    2. Mentoring or helping colleagues enter the field and engage in the work.
      Very strong evidence and case
      Significant/moderate evidence and case
      Little to no evidence
    3. Exercising innovative or equity-minded leadership in the organization.
      Very strong evidence and case
      Significant/moderate evidence and case
      Little to no evidence
  3. How has the nominee contributed to the profession of faculty, instructional, and organizational development in substantial ways?
    Very strong evidence and case
    Significant/moderate evidence and case
    Little to no evidence
  4. Has the nominee been actively involved in POD for at least 5 years?
    Very strong evidence and case
    Significant/moderate evidence and case
    Little to no evidence
Glossary/Explanation of Terms

“philosophy, principles, and practices of POD, such as generosity of spirit, kindness, compassion, sincerity, and civility”
The philosophy, principles, and practices that embody the best spirit of Bob Pierlioni, for whom the award was named, and also the POD Network at its best as an organization, are at the heart of the award, and recipients must score highly on this item to qualify the candidate for the award. While individuals may be more characterized by one or two items among the examples (and more not provided), no candidate who committee members know has demonstrated a pattern of their opposites (unkindness, lack of generosity, compassion, sincerity, civility, etc.) should be considered for the award.

“established history of serving the organization”
While there is no set target length of service to the organization, the SPOD award is the highest award made by the organization—akin to the lifetime achievement award of other organizations—and should represent a substantial time period (note: in the past, 10 years was chosen as an arbitrary target, but the current committee agrees that such a number might be too confining and artificial). Ideally, nominations should demonstrate that the service over time did not simply cluster at one moment but represented a consistency of commitment. The best nominations will not just claim that there was a history of service, but will substantiate the claim by showing what the service involved.

“sustained participation in POD above and beyond routine ways”
To qualify for the SPOD award, a nominee should have maintained participation over time (that is, not drop in and out of the organization over a period of time), and that involvement must go beyond the activity of typical involvement of a conference goer (e.g. conference presentations, publication in TIA, etc.) to include some significant activity, whether inside or outside of official leadership of committees or the organization (e.g. sustained participation could include organizational work for programs, contribution to charting the organization’s history, etc.). The best nominations will not just claim that there was a history of sustained participation above and beyond routine, but will substantiate the claim by showing what that participation involved, and perhaps characterizing the nature of the participation.

“innovative leadership”
There are many ways to participate in leadership in the organization. Though one prominent way is through committee service and leadership, including Core participation and service on the Executive Committee, one need not have been a positional leader to qualify. The strongest nominations will characterize the nature of the leadership and l substantiate the claim by showing what that leadership involved.

“substantial contributions to the profession”
While one’s contributions to the profession of faculty, instructional, and organizational development may have been primarily linked to the POD Network, they need not have been. Successful candidates are as likely to have contributed in other venues, nationally and internationally, and to have published and/or presented and/or facilitated professional work widely. The strongest nominations will characterize the nature of the contributions and substantiate the claim by enumerating or providing examples of the contributions and possibly also characterizing or assessing what makes them substantial.

2022 deadline: Friday, October 14
Recipients*

2022  Christine Rener

2019   Deandra Little

2018   Peter Felten, Allison Pingree, Kathryn Plank, and Laurel Willingham-McLain

(Summary of 2018 SPOD Recipient Peer Nomination Statements)

2015   Michele DiPietro and Phyllis Worthy Dawkins

2013   Laura Border and Connie Cook

2012   Mathew Ouellett

2011   Mike Theall

2010   Wayne Jacobson and Lynn Sorensen

2009   Sally Kuhlenschmidt

2006   Mary Dean Sorcinelli

2004   Christine Stanley

2003   Peter Frederick and Delivee Wright

2002   Don Wulff

2001   Kay Herr Gillespie

2000   Joan North

1999   Linc. Fisch

1998   Nancy Chism

1997   Karron G. Lewis and Dan Wheeler

1995   Bob Diamond

1994   Marilla D. Svinicki

* The award is not necessarily presented every year.