3.3.10 Evaluation of Academic Administrators

3.3.10 Evaluation of Academic Administrators abruneau3 Thu, 06/26/2014 - 17:57

Purpose 
The performance of each academic administrator will be reviewed annually by their supervisor based on criteria related to their duties. In addition, a comprehensive formal review must be completed at the end of every fifth year of appointment for all faculty who have an administrative appointment of 50% or greater, including those who hold tenure. 

The criteria for review will be based on the duties of the administrator as determined on appointment or later updates to those duties. For tenured faculty administrators, the supervisor and faculty member should determine relevant criteria related to traditional faculty activities (i.e., teaching, scholarship and creative activities, student success, and service) that align with the responsibilities of the administrator’s position. These appropriate criteria are included in the annual and comprehensive reviews. (Note that while this section of the Handbook pertains to administrators who are tenured faculty members, the annual review process described in the current paragraph will also apply to academic administrators who hold a faculty rank but are not tenured.)   

The purpose of a comprehensive review is to evaluate the progress of the administrator and to provide the opportunity for constructive input from Faculty and other constituencies. It is typical to appoint a tenured or tenured-track administrator for terms of three (3) to five (5) years, and the comprehensive review may be used to determine if the administrator should be appointed for additional terms.  

It is recognized that all administrators, including Deans and School Chairs, serve at the will of their immediate supervisors and higher administrators. Nothing in this review process is meant to limit the ability and responsibility of higher administrators to make changes in leadership positions whenever it is deemed necessary or desirable.  

Also see USG policy 8.3.5 Evaluation of Personnel and USG ASAH sections 4.7 Post-Tenure Review and 4.8 Evaluation of Faculty. 

Five-Year Review Procedures 
The general procedures for a 5-year comprehensive review of academic administrators is discussed here, while the specific criteria and procedures for review of school chairs and deans are given in Sections 3.3.10.1 and 3.3.10.2. 

The 5-year comprehensive review should be completed by a committee, with membership as determined by the procedures in the faculty administrator’s School or unit. The committee should receive from the administrator: a summary of activities and accomplishments, a list of job duties, a self-evaluation, and the results of prior annual evaluations. The overall review should include a 360° evaluation that incorporates feedback from a variety of constituents such as the students, peers, and other groups as appropriate to the role. The administrator being reviewed has a chance to make comments on the committee’s report.   

The report, and any additional comments from the administrator, is presented to the supervisor. The supervisor will make their own written assessment of performance and share it with the administrator under review. Based on that assessment and results of the committee’s review, the supervisor will make a decision on reappointment and on any improvements that should be made. The supervisor will inform the administrator and the review committee in writing of the decision.   

The 5-year comprehensive review is allowed to take the place of the standard post tenure review for tenured administrators.  

3.3.10.1 Process for 5-Year Comprehensive Review and Evaluation of School Chairs

3.3.10.1 Process for 5-Year Comprehensive Review and Evaluation of School Chairs Rhett Mayor Fri, 03/10/2023 - 17:01

Additional processes and procedures specific to the 5-Year comprehensive review of school chairs are outlined in this section. 

Purpose 
The purpose of such a comprehensive review is to evaluate the progress of the School under the Chair’s leadership, to provide the opportunity for constructive input from Faculty and other constituencies, and to review the professional contributions and performance of the Chair as a “leader” and an “administrator.” 

Ultimately, the purpose of such comprehensive reviews is to determine whether the Chair should be reappointed for another term. A second five (5) year appointment has been typical whereas a third five (5) year appointment is unusual. Nevertheless, the reappointment decision will be based on the best interests of the Institute, College, School, and individual. 

Criteria and Procedures 
A review committee is appointed by the Dean of the College as follows: 

  • The Committee will consist of no fewer than five (5) members. 

  • A majority of the Committee members shall be chosen from tenured, non-administrative Faculty members in the School. 

  • The Committee Chair shall be chosen by the Dean in consultation with the School’s Faculty Advisory Committee. 

  • The Committee will normally be chaired by a senior Faculty member. 

  • The Committee Chair is normally from a different academic School in the College. 

  • The School Chair has the opportunity to comment on the composition of the Committee. 

Establishment of Criteria to be Used in Reviews 
The review criteria are to be defined by the Dean and the candidate prior to initial appointment or the Dean and the Chair prior to reappointment. As part of this review criteria, the Dean and Chair will determine the traditional faculty activities (i.e., teaching, scholarship and creative activities, student success, and service) that align with the responsibilities of the Chair’s position. As part of the Dean’s annual review of the Chair, the criteria may be reaffirmed or modified in consultation with the Chair of the School. As part of the Dean’s charge to the review committee, the Dean will review the evaluation criteria established at the beginning of the Chair’s current term, as well as any changes made since that time. Specific responsibilities of school chairs that fall within these general criteria and must be included in the review are posted on the Faculty Affairs website. 

General Criteria 

  • Demonstrating evidence of commitment to the highest standards of quality in teaching, scholarship and creative activities, and academic development with evidence of the School’s actual progress on all three (3). 

  • Providing effective management of internal affairs of the School. 

  • Recruiting/retaining the highest quality Faculty, Staff, and Students. 

  • Managing the School’s fiscal affairs. 

  • Developing/maintaining open communications with all constituencies. 

  • Facilitating goal setting by individuals, programs, and by the School as a whole. 

  • Identifying issues and resolving conflicts affecting the School. 

  • Developing internal and external resources. 

  • Implementing fair and equitable performance evaluations and salary adjustments. 

  • Establishing a working environment conducive to achieving individual and School goals, as well as balancing and reconciling diverse interests with the School. 

  • Building relationships with constituencies within and outside of Georgia Tech. 

Review Process 
The Dean may schedule the review for any time between four (4) and five (5) years after either the initial appointment of the Chair or the preceding formal review. The review may be timed to coincide with the mandatory Board of Regents’ five (5) year Program Review. The review process described below provides 360o feedback assessment. Utmost confidentiality must be maintained during the review process. The Dean will provide the Committee with confidentiality guidelines at their first meeting. 

Early in the process, the Chair should be asked to meet with the review committee to provide a self-assessment. The Committee should seek input from the School’s Faculty, Staff, and Students, and other constituencies as well as peers including other school chairs. The Committee should identify areas where the Chair should place added emphasis/attention if the Chair continues to lead the School over the next five (5) years. 

Conclusion of the Review 
The Committee provides the Dean with a confidential, written report of no more than six (6) pages. The report shall include: 

  • Assessment of the School’s progress under the Chair’s leadership. 

  • Evaluation of the Chair’s performance as a leader and administrator, including a summary of the results of the feedback from each of the constituency groups. 

  • For chairs who are tenured: evaluation of the teaching, scholarship and creative activities, student success, and service that align with the responsibilities of their position as determined by the Dean and Chair.  

  • Recommendations for improvement (if any). 

The Chair being reviewed will have the opportunity to comment on the report. The Dean will evaluate the report and write their own assessment of the School Chair’s performance. The Dean will make a decision regarding the reappointment of the Chair and communicate results of the review both orally and in writing to the Chair. The Dean will inform the Review Committee of the reappointment decision. 

3.3.10.2 Process for 5-Year Comprehensive Review and Evaluation of Deans

3.3.10.2 Process for 5-Year Comprehensive Review and Evaluation of Deans Rhett Mayor Fri, 03/10/2023 - 17:03

Additional processes and procedures specific to the 5-Year comprehensive review of deans are outlined in this section. 

Purpose 
The purpose of such comprehensive reviews is to evaluate the progress of the Schools under the Dean’s leadership, to provide the opportunity for constructive input from Faculty and other constituencies, and to review the professional contributions and performance of the Dean as a leader and an administrator.  

Ultimately, the purpose of such comprehensive reviews is to determine whether the Dean should be reappointed for another term. A second five (5) year appointment has been typical whereas a third five (5) year appointment is unusual. Nevertheless, the reappointment decision will be based on the best interests of the Institute, College, School and individual. 

Criteria and Procedures 
A Review Committee shall be appointed by the Provost as follows: 

  • The Committee will consist of no fewer than five (5) members. 

  • The majority of the Committee members shall be chosen from tenured, non-administrative Faculty members in academic units supervised by the Dean. 

  • The Committee will normally be chaired by a senior Faculty member. 

  • The Committee Chair is normally from a different College/Unit. 

  • The Committee Chair is chosen by the Provost in consultation with the Chair of the Faculty Executive Board. 

  • The Dean has an opportunity to comment on the composition of the Committee. 

Criteria Established to be Used in Reviews 
The review criteria are to be defined by the Provost and the candidate prior to initial appointment, or the Provost and the Dean prior to reappointment. As part of this review criteria, the Provost and Dean will determine the traditional faculty activities (i.e., teaching, scholarship and creative activities, student success, and service) that align with the responsibilities of the Dean’s position. As part of the Provost’s annual review of the Dean, criteria will be reaffirmed or modified in consultation with the Dean. As part of the Provost’s charge to review committee, the Provost will review the original criteria as well as any changes made. 

General Criteria 

  • Demonstrating evidence of commitment to the highest standards of quality in teaching, scholarship and creative activities, and academic development with evidence of College's actual progress on all three (3). 

  • Providing effective management of internal affairs of the College. 

  • Recruiting/retaining the highest quality administrators, Faculty, Staff, and Students. 

  • Managing the College's fiscal affairs. 

  • Developing/maintaining open communications with all constituencies. 

  • Facilitating goal setting by individuals, programs, Schools, and by the Unit as a whole. 

  • Identifying issues and resolving conflicts affecting the Unit. 

  • Developing internal and external resources. 

  • Implementing fair and equitable performance evaluations and salary adjustments. 

  • Establishing a working environment conducive to achieving individual and Unit goals, as well as balancing and reconciling diverse interests within the College. 

  • Building relationships with constituencies within and outside of Georgia Tech. 

Review Process 
The Provost may schedule the review for any time between four (4) and five (5) years after either the initial appointment or the preceding formal review. For Colleges without Schools, the review of the Dean may be timed to coincide with the Board of Regents' five (5) year Program Review. The review process described below provides 360o feedback assessment.  Utmost confidentiality must be maintained during the review process. The Provost will provide the Committee with confidentiality guidelines at their first meeting. 

Early in the process, the Dean should be asked to meet with the review Committee to provide a self-assessment. The Committee should seek input from Chairs, Faculty, Staff, Students, and other constituencies as well as peers including other deans. The Committee should identify areas where the Dean should place added emphasis/attention if the Dean continues to lead the Unit over the next five (5) years. 

Conclusion of the Review 
The Committee shall provide the Provost with a confidential, written report of no more than six (6) pages. The report shall include: 

  • Assessment of the College's progress under the Dean's leadership. 

  • Evaluation of the Dean's performance as a "leader" and "administrator", including a summary of the results of the feedback from each of the constituency groups. 

  • For deans who are tenured: evaluation of the teaching, scholarship and creative activities, student success, and service that align with the responsibilities of their position as determined by the Provost and Dean.  

  • Recommendation for improvement (if any). 

The Dean being reviewed will have opportunity to comment on the report. The Provost will evaluate the report and write their own assessment of the Dean’s performance. The Provost will make a decision regarding reappointment of the Dean and communicate the results of the review both orally and in writing to the Dean. The Provost will inform the Review Committee of the reappointment decision.