Changing conditions in higher education have altered the attitudes of many participants in the academic evaluation process, as well as the process itself. The overall result has been a trade-off between more useful data gathering, more informed discussion by the participants, and some diffusion of the decision-making power on one hand; and a more complicated, formalized, and time-consuming evaluation process on the other hand. Some of the safeguards that are not a visible part of evaluation include written and publicized criteria for retention, promotion, and tenure decisions; a well-defined appeal procedure; and strict reliance on the rules of evidence in reaching personnel decisions. These characteristics of faculty evaluation relate primarily to procedural issues without clearly defining and measuring "performance." One way of including performance criteria in evaluation, while at the same time tailoring each professor's evaluation to the needs of the college and the specific strengths of the faculty member, is through the growth contract. Essential features of this approach are: (1) a conference to fashion an agreement between the faculty member and his/her peers which establishes a few key goals for the coming year as well as specifically defined performance measures; (2) agreement by the department chair to initiate frank and factual discussions if standards are not being met and to provide assistance and encouragement to faculty wishing to participate in development activities; (3) voluntary participation; and (4) peer feedback to alert the faculty member as to the effects of his/her performance. If growth contracts are built on the twin concepts of flexibility and individualization, the community college will grow along with its faculty members. (EJV)