Search Options ETSU Faculty/Staff
ETSU Students
ETSU People Search
 
 PPP- 59 Periodic Review of Administrators

 PPP- 59 Periodic Review of Administrators pdf

 

Purpose

The purpose of a periodic review is to improve the performance of employees.  The review will ascertain the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement as they relate to administrative performance.  Annual (formative) evaluations are conducted on all positions at the University by the person's supervisor.  The periodic review is a summative evaluation and will be conducted by the supervisor every four years from the start of the individual's time in the particular position.  It will be carried out as part of the scheduled annual evaluation cycle.  The periodic review will include evaluations by subordinates at the next lowest level as a minimum and selected peers as well as departments served.

General Process and Calendar

By January 5th of each year, administrators will review the list of positions within their units and determine those persons who have recently completed or will complete during the current year, four years in service in the position the individual holds at ETSU as an administrator.  Administrators will notify those persons by January 12th who will undergo periodic review and invite them to do the following by January 26th:

  1. Prepare a brief narrative (maximum five pages) describing significant accomplishments during the past three years and work currently underway.
  2. Provide a list of persons who are "direct reports" of the next lower level in the organization structure.
  3. Suggest a list of five or six University peers knowledgeable about their work that might be invited to respond to an evaluation.
  4. Suggest a list of five or six unit heads served by the administrator who might be invited to respond to an evaluation.

Upon receipt of the aforementioned information, the administrator responsible for conducting the evaluation will schedule a meeting with the person to be evaluated.  This meeting will be held on or about February 1st.  The purpose of the meeting will be to review the evaluation process and achieve consensus on the persons to be included in the evaluation process as they relate to the categories listed above.  Please note that the categories vary between academic and administrative reviews.  However, during the meeting agreement will be reached on the groups and individuals to be invited to complete an evaluation.  The specific details are elaborated upon below-for-both-academic-and-administrative-categories.

Confidentiality

While the intention in all personnel evaluation matters is to maintain confidentiality, all parties must understand that records are subject to review in certain hearings and legal proceedings and may be open to disclosure under the Tennessee Open Records Law and therefore ability to maintain confidentiality may be limited.

Academic

In evaluating an academic officer, consideration will be given to growth, progress and academic achievements made by the unit under his/her administration, with appropriate allowance being made for any limits imposed by finances, physical facilities, the number and quality of faculty available and administrative restrictions; and to the administrator’s:

  1. overall effectiveness in the position.
  2. abilities of leadership and administration;
  3. managerial skill in relation to what is required in his position;
  4. fairness in making decisions whether popular or unpopular;
  5. rapport with faculty, students, administrative superiors, alumni and the East Tennessee community; and
  6. professional achievements as a scholar, educator and administrator at local, state, regional and national levels;

Review of Academic Department Chairs

The dean under whom the department is located will announce that the summative evaluation will take place and distribute the narrative statement prepared by the person being evaluated.  The dean will consult, at a minimum, with all full-time faculty in the department served by the chair being reviewed and selected peers and appropriate staff and request (but not require) that each provide a written evaluation of the department chair using the Periodic Evaluation of Administrators Survey.  After consideration of the views expressed by the evaluators, a written summary will be prepared and the dean will meet with the chair and review with him or her the impressions gained from the information provided by the evaluators and other available information from the past four years.  If warranted, a professional development improvement plan will be developed by the person being evaluated and approved by the supervisor. If disciplinary action is warranted, the President will follow the University’s Progressive Disciplinary Procedures (PPP-70), to ensure the prompt, consistent and fair treatment of the employee.  The dean will also indicate his or her intention to recommend to the appropriate vice president that (1) the chair be retained in office or (2) that the chair be relieved of administrative duties and that a search begin for a new departmental chair.  The dean will then submit the recommendation in writing to the appropriate vice president with such supporting evidence as may be considered necessary for the vice president’s review.

If concurring, the vice president will seek the further concurrence of the President; if both are in agreement, they will notify the dean in writing.  The dean will inform the chair of the decision.  If there is a disagreement, the dean and administrative superiors will confer and review the various written statements.  The dean will inform the chair of resolution.  Upon completion of the entire review process the dean will meet with the chair and provide feedback on the review to him or her.  The dean will provide an overview of the evaluation to all individuals who were consulted in the review as referenced above, and the overview will include (a) the decision regarding retention of the administrator in his or her position and (b) will include an overview of the evaluation that addresses aspects relevant to the future direction of the unit.

Review of Academic Associate/Assistant Deans and Directors

The appropriate dean or administrator will announce that the summative evaluation will take place and distribute the narrative statement prepared by the person being evaluated.  If a dean or administrator believes the periodic review process is not suitable for a particular individual serving in an associate/assistant dean or director role, the dean or administrator may request an exemption from the appropriate vice president, in writing.  If the vice president agrees, the individual will be exempt from the periodic review.  For associate/assistant deans and directors undergoing periodic review, the dean or administrator will consult, at a minimum, with college chairs in the college or school served by the associate/assistant dean or director being reviewed, all full-time faculty in the college or school, selected peers and appropriate staff and will request (but not require) that each provide a written evaluation of the associate/assistant dean or director using the Periodic Evaluation of Administrators Survey.  After consideration of the views expressed by the evaluators, a written summary will be prepared and the appropriate dean or administrator will meet with the associate/assistant dean or director and review with him or her the impressions gained from the information provided by the evaluators and other available information from the past four years.  If warranted, a professional development improvement plan will be developed by the person being evaluated and approved by the supervisor.  If disciplinary action is warranted, the President will follow the University’s Progressive Disciplinary Procedures (PPP-70), to ensure the prompt, consistent and fair treatment of the employee.  The dean will also indicate his or her intention to recommend to the appropriate vice president that (1) the assistant/associate dean or director be retained in office or (2) that the assistant/associate dean or director be relieved of administrative duties and that a search begin for a new assistant/associate dean or director.  The dean will then submit the recommendation in writing to the appropriate vice president with such supporting evidence as may be considered necessary for the vice president’s review.

If concurring, the vice president will seek the further concurrence of the President; if both are in agreement, they will notify the administrator conducting the review in writing. That individual will inform the associate/assistant dean or director of the decision.  If there is a disagreement,   the administrator conducting the review and administrative superiors will confer and review the various written statements.  The administrator conducting the review will inform the associate/assistant dean or director of resolution.  Upon completion of the entire review process the administrator conducting the review will meet with the associate/assistant dean or director and provide feedback on the review to him or her.  The administrator conducting the review will provide an overview of the evaluation to all individuals who were consulted in the review as referenced above, and the overview will include (a) the decision regarding retention of the administrator in his or her position and (b) will include an overview of the evaluation that addresses aspects relevant to the future direction of the unit.

Review of Deans

The appropriate vice president (Academic Affairs or Health Affairs) will announce that the summative evaluation will take place and distribute the narrative statement prepared by the person being evaluated.  The vice president will consult, at a minimum, with associate/assistant deans, directors, departmental chairs in the college or school served by the dean being reviewed all full-time faculty in the college or school, selected peers and appropriate staff and will request (but not require) that each provide a written evaluation of the dean using the Periodic Evaluation of Administrators Survey.  After consideration of the views expressed by the evaluators, a written summary will be prepared and the vice president will meet with the dean and review with him or her the impressions gained from the information provided by the chairs and faculty and other available information from the past four years.  If warranted, a professional development improvement plan will be developed by the person being evaluated and approved by the supervisor.  If disciplinary action is warranted, the President will follow the University’s Progressive Disciplinary Procedures (PPP-70), to ensure the prompt, consistent and fair treatment of the employee.  The vice president will also indicate his or her intention to recommend to the President that (1) the dean be retained in office or (2) that the dean be relieved of administrative duties and that a search begin for a new dean.  The vice president will then submit the recommendation in writing to the President with such supporting evidence as may be considered necessary for the President’s review.

If the vice president's recommendation is approved, he or she will inform the dean of the decision.  If there is a disagreement, the vice president and administrative superiors will confer and, after reviewing the various written statements, will inform the dean of resolution.  Upon completion of the entire review process the vice president will meet with the dean and provide feedback on the review to him or her.  The vice president will provide an overview of the evaluation to all individuals who were consulted in the review as referenced above, and the overview will include (a) the decision regarding retention of the administrator in his or her position and (b) will include an overview of the evaluation that addresses aspects relevant to the future direction of the unit.

Review of Vice Provosts, Academic Associate/Assistant Vice Presidents

The appropriate vice president will announce that the summative evaluation will take place and distribute the narrative statement prepared by the person being evaluated. The vice president will consult, at a minimum, with deans, directors, chairs, faculty senate, selected peers and appropriate staff and request (but not require) that each provide a written evaluation of the vice provost or associate/assistant vice president using the Periodic Evaluation of Administrators Survey.  After consideration of the views expressed by the evaluators, a written summary will be prepared and the vice president will meet with the vice provost, or associate/assistant vice president and review with him or her the impressions gained from the information provided by the evaluators and other available information from the past four years.  If warranted, a professional development improvement plan will be developed by the person being evaluated and approved by the supervisor.  If other action such as a change of status is warranted, the vice president will make a recommendation in writing to the President with supporting evidence for review.  If disciplinary action is warranted, the President will follow the University’s Progressive Disciplinary Procedures (PPP-70), to ensure the prompt, consistent and fair treatment of the employee.  In either case, the recommendation will be forwarded to the President for review.

If the vice president's recommendation is approved, he or she will inform the vice provost or associate/assistant vice president of the decision.  If there is a disagreement, the vice president and administrative superiors will confer and after reviewing the various written statements, will inform the vice provost or associate/assistant vice president of resolution. Upon completion of the entire review process the vice president or provost will meet with the vice provost or associate/assistant vice president and provide feedback on the review to him or her.  The vice president will provide an overview of the evaluation to all individuals who were consulted in the review as referenced above, and the overview will include (a) the decision regarding retention of the administrator in his or her position and (b) will include an overview of the evaluation that addresses aspects relevant to the future direction of the unit.

Review of Provost or Academic Vice Presidents

The President will announce that the summative evaluation will take place and distribute the narrative statement prepared by the person being evaluated.  The President will consult, at a minimum, with associate and assistant vice presidents, deans, directors, chairs, associate/assistant deans/directors, members of the faculty senate, selected peers and appropriate staff and request (but not require) that each provide a written evaluation of the provost or vice president using the Periodic Evaluation of Administrators Survey.  After consideration of the views expressed by the evaluators, a written summary will be prepared and the President will meet with the vice president and review with him or her the evaluator's impressions and other available information from the past four years.  If warranted, a professional development improvement plan will be developed by the person being evaluated and approved by the President.  If disciplinary action is warranted, the President will follow the University’s Progressive Disciplinary Procedures (PPP-70), to ensure the prompt, consistent and fair treatment of the employee.  The President will also decide whether or not the vice president or provost being reviewed will continue in that position.  The President will inform the university community of the decision.   The President will inform the university community of the decision regarding retention of the administrator in his or her position and will provide all individuals who were consulted in the review as referenced above an overview of the evaluation that addresses aspects relevant to the future direction of the unit.

Administrative

Review of Administrative Directors (Classification Level 15, 16 and 1)

The supervisor (associate/assistant vice president or vice president) under whom the department is located will announce that the summative evaluation will take place and distribute the narrative statement prepared by the person being evaluated.  The supervisor will consult, at a minimum, with the next higher level of employees served by the director being reviewed, selected peers and others served by the administrator, and request (but not require) that each provide a written evaluation of the director using the Periodic Evaluation of Administrators Survey.  After consideration of the views expressed by the evaluators a written summary will be prepared and the supervisor will meet with the director, review with him/her the impressions gained from the information provided by the evaluators and other available information from the past four years.  If warranted a professional development improvement plan will be developed by the employee being evaluated and approved by the supervisor. If disciplinary action  is warranted, the supervisor will follow the University’s Progressive Disciplinary Procedures (PPP-70), to ensure the prompt, consistent and fair treatment of the employee. In either case, the recommendation will be forwarded to the vice president or President for review.  If in agreement, the vice president or President will inform the administrator conducting the review in writing.  That individual will inform the director of the decision.  If there is a disagreement, the  administrator conducting the review and administrative superiors will confer and review the various written statements.  The administrator conducting the review will inform the director resolution. The administrator conducting the review will provide an overview of the evaluation to all individuals who were consulted in the review as referenced above, and the overview will include (a) the decision regarding retention of the administrator in his or her position and (b) will include an overview of the evaluation that addresses aspects relevant to the future direction of the unit.

Review of Administrative Associate/Assistant Vice Presidents (Level 15, 16, and 1)

The supervisor (associate/assistant vice president or vice president) under whom the department is located will announce that the summative evaluation will take place and distribute the narrative statement prepared by the person being evaluated.  The supervisor will consult, at a minimum, with the next higher level of employees served by the associate/assistant vice president being reviewed, selected peers and others served by the administrator, and request (but not require) that each provide a written evaluation of the associate/assistant vice president  using the Periodic Evaluation of Administrators Survey.  After consideration of the views expressed by the evaluators a written summary will be prepared and the supervisor will meet with the associate/assistant vice president, review with him/her the impressions gained from the information provided by the evaluators and other available information from the past four years. If warranted a professional development improvement plan will be developed by the employee being evaluated and approved by the supervisor.  If disciplinary action is warranted, the supervisor will follow the University’s Progressive Disciplinary Procedures (PPP-70), to ensure the prompt, consistent and fair treatment of the employee.   In either case, the recommendation will be forwarded to the vice president or President for review.  If in agreement, the vice president or President will inform the administrator conducting the review in writing.  The administrator will inform the associate/assistant vice president of the decision.  If there is a disagreement, the vice president and administrative superiors will confer and review the various written statements.  The administrator conducting the review will inform the director of resolution.  The administrator conducting the review will provide an overview of the evaluation to all individuals who were consulted in the review as referenced above, and the overview will include (a) the decision regarding retention of the administrator in his or her position and (b) will include an overview of the evaluation that addresses aspects relevant to the future direction of the-unit.

Review of Administrative Vice Presidents (Level 1)

The President will announce that the summative evaluation will take place and distribute the narrative statement prepared by the person being evaluated.  The President will consult, at a minimum, with the next level of employees served by the vice president, selected peers and others served by the administrator, and request (but not require) that each provide a written evaluation of the vice president  using the Periodic Evaluation of Administrators Survey.  After consideration of the views expressed by the evaluators a written summary will be prepared and the President will meet with the vice president, review with him/her the evaluator's impressions and other available information from the past four years.  If warranted a professional development improvement plan will be developed by the employee being evaluated and approved by the President .If disciplinary action is warranted, the President will follow the University’s Progressive Disciplinary Procedures (PPP-70), to ensure the prompt, consistent and fair treatment of the employee.  The President will inform the university community of the decision regarding retention of the administrator in his or her position and will provide all individuals who were consulted in the review as referenced above an overview of the evaluation that addresses aspects relevant to the future direction of the unit.

President's Senior Staff (not described above, any Level)

The President will announce that the summative evaluation will take place and distribute the narrative statement prepared by the person being evaluated.  The President will consult, at a minimum, with members of the Senior Staff, selected peers and appropriate staff and others served by the administrator, and request (but not require) that each provide a written evaluation of the Senior Staff member using the Periodic Evaluation of Administrators Survey.  After consideration of the views expressed by the evaluators a written summary will be prepared and the President will meet with the Senior Staff member, review with him/her the evaluator's impressions and other available information from the past four years.  If warranted a professional development improvement plan will be developed by the employee being evaluated and approved by the President .If disciplinary action is warranted, the President will follow the University’s Progressive Disciplinary Procedures (PPP-70), to ensure the prompt, consistent and fair treatment of the employee.   The President will inform the university community of the decision regarding retention of the administrator in his or her position and will provide all individuals who were consulted in the review as referenced above an overview of the evaluation that addresses aspects relevant to the future direction of the unit.

Provisos

Faculty Status of Administrators

When an administrator holds faculty rank, termination of his/her services as an administrator does not affect his/her status as a member of the faculty.

Withdrawal from Review Process

An individual planning to relinquish his/her office may stop the review process by informing his/her superior prior to the scheduled review date.

Non-Periodic Review

Unscheduled reviews of an academic or administrative officer may be conducted at any time justifying information is made available to the appropriate administrative officer.

Appointment and Review of Administrators of Other Units

The appointment and review of all other administrators will conform as closely as possible to the procedures outlined in this document.  It will be the responsibility of the appropriate vice president to establish necessary variations in procedures to accomplish these tasks.

Persons Approaching Retirement

Persons who plan to retire on or before the following September will not be evaluated.

Recordkeeping

Administrators will forward an employee’s final summary report to the office of Human Resources for inclusion in the employee’s official personnel record.   All Periodic Evaluation survey data and all other supporting documentation for periodic reviews of administrators will be maintained in the offices that conducted the reviews in accordance with the policies of the Tennessee Board of Regents and East Tennessee State University.

Revised: 01/08/03; 04/23/09.

Revised and approved by President’s Council: 01/19/2011.


 

Appendix C

Periodic Review of Administrators Surveys I and II

Electronic Forms 

Survey I & Survey II

Periodic Review of Administrators

Survey I

Select

Item

 

1.     How would you describe this administrator’s efforts to lead the unit in setting goals and priorities?

 

2.     How would you describe this administrator’s vision for the unit and the degree to which it is shared by others within and outside the unit?

 

3.     How would you describe the degree to which this unit has achieved its goals or improved over the past five years?

 

4.     How would you describe this administrator’s ability to encourage and motivate others?

 

5.     How would you describe this administrator’s communication style?

 

6.     How would you describe this administrator’s willingness to be of assistance to others in and outside the unit?

 

7.     How would you describe this administrator’s openness to criticism, the ideas of others, and new information?

 

8.     How would you describe this administrator’s decision-making skills?

 

9.     How would you describe this administrator’s ethics?

 

10.  How would you describe this administrator’s problem solving skills?

 

11.  How would you describe this administrator’s listening skills?

 

12.  How would you describe this administrator’s contributions to trust and cooperation within the unit?

 

13.  How would you describe this administrator’s efforts to inform members of the unit about important developments?

 

14.  How would you describe this administrator’s ability to represent the unit within and outside the university?

 

15.  How would you describe this administrator’s ability to work with others in and outside the unit?

 

16.  How would you describe this administrator’s personal organizational skills, timeliness in meeting deadlines, and overall management skills?

 

17.  How would you describe this administrator’s approach to using and distributing resources within the unit?

 

18.  How would you describe this administrator’s familiarity with the unit’s fields of endeavor, programs, personnel, facilities, budget and other resources?

 

19.  How would you describe this administrator’s familiarity with the university’s structure, policies and procedures, and programs?

 

20.  How would you describe this administrator’s hiring decisions?

X

21.  OPTIONAL: Comments on aspects of this administrator’s performance not covered above.

X

22.  How would you best describe your position at ETSU for the purposes of this review?  Select one of the following:

a.     Faculty

b.    Academic department chair

c.     Dean

d.    Other academic administrator

e.     Staff, non-administrative

f.     Non-academic administrator

g.    Peer of individual being reviewed

 


 

Periodic Review of Administrators

Survey II

Select at least ten of the following Likert-type items, including at least one from each category, by typing Xs in the left-hand column.  Survey respondents will be asked to indicate the degree to which they agree with items (i.e., strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree, no opportunity to observe) and to explain their ratings.   Items 50 and 51 will also be included in all surveys.

Select

Item

 

LEADERSHIP

 

1.     This administrator has a clear vision for the unit.

 

2.     This administrator’s vision for the unit is shared by others in the unit.

 

3.     This administrator informs members of the unit about future changes likely to affect it.

 

4.     This administrator works with members of the unit to develop goals and priorities for the unit.

 

5.     This administrator motivates members of the unit to pursue its goals.

 

6.     This administrator has helped the unit achieve agreed upon goals.

 

7.     This administrator has done everything in his or her power to help the unit improve.

 

8.     This administrator keeps members of the unit informed of trends, threats and opportunities and mobilizes the unit to meet these challenges.

 

9.     This administrator encourages members of the unit to achieve excellence.

 

10.  This administrator helps others in the unit be successful.

 

11.  This administrator exhibits confidence.

 

12.  This administrator is enthusiastic.

 

13.  This administrator is aware of his or her own strengths and limitations.

 

14.  This administrator is eager to be of assistance to others in and outside the unit.

 

15.  This administrator is fair.

 

16.  This administrator exhibits honesty and integrity.

 

17.  This administrator sets high standards for his or her own work.

 

DECISION-MAKING

 

18.  When making decisions the administrator solicits input from members of the unit.

 

19.  This administrator makes decisions that are in the unit’s best interest.

 

20.  This administrator is effective in solving problems.

 

21.  This administrator makes decisions in a timely manner.

 

COMMUNICATION

 

22.  This administrator keeps members of the unit informed about issues and developments within the unit.

 

23.  This administrator is a good listener.

 

24.  This administrator openly communicates his or her plans and intentions.

 

25.  This administrator fosters an atmosphere of trust and respect within the unit.

 

26.  This administrator keeps members of the unit informed about issues and developments in the university.

 

27.  This administrator communicates effectively with individual members of the unit.

 

28.  This administrator effectively communicates the unit’s ideas, concerns and interests to others in the university who are in a position to act upon them.

 

29.  This administrator facilitates collaboration and cooperation among members of the unit.

 

30.  This administrator’s written communication is clear, concise and persuasive.

 

31.  This administrator’s oral communication is clear, concise and persuasive.

 

32.  This administrator develops effective working relationships with individuals in and outside the unit.

 

33.  This administrator seeks to maintain good morale in the unit.

 

34.  This administrator provides honest, accurate and timely feedback to members of the unit regarding their performance.

 

35.  This administrator is open to criticism and feedback.

 

ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS

 

36.  This administrator is well-organized.

 

37.  This administrator provides clear instructions.

 

38.  This administrator completes tasks in a timely manner.

 

39.  This administrator is familiar with the fields of endeavor, programs, personnel, facilities, budget and other resources, and other components of the unit.

 

40.  This administrator is appropriately familiar with the university’s structure, policies and procedures, programs, personnel, and facilities.

 

41.  This administrator organizes and oversees major projects effectively.

 

42.  This administrator delegates responsibility effectively.

 

HUMAN & FINANCIAL RESOURCES

 

43.  This administrator makes wise use of the unit’s financial resources.

 

44.  This administrator identifies the strengths of members of the unit and draws upon these abilities wisely.

 

45.  This administrator makes good use of the time of members of the unit.

 

46.  This administrator equitably distributes resources within the unit.

 

47.  This administrator actively supports the professional growth of members of the unit.

 

48.  This administrator makes sound hiring decisions.

 

49.  This administrator provides appropriate mentoring to members of the unit.

 

GENERAL (INCLUDED ON ALL SURVEYS)

X

50.  OPTIONAL: Comments on aspects of this administrator’s performance not covered above.

X

51.  How would you best describe your position at ETSU for the purposes of this review?  Select one of the following:

a.     Faculty

b.    Academic department chair

c.     Dean

d.    Other academic administrator

e.     Staff, non-administrative

f.     Non-academic administrator

g.    Peer of individual being reviewed

 

 

direct edit