Performance Evaluation of Administrators

 

Evaluation of the President and Vice Presidents

In order to promote systematic analysis for the improvement of the institution and to meet the requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACSCOC), an evaluation system for the assessment of senior administrators, specifically the President and the Vice Presidents, has been established at Southeastern Louisiana University.

Generally, the purpose of evaluation of senior administrators is to assess the quality and substance of administrative performance in the context of the University’s mission, vision, and strategic goals. The role of any university senior administrator is exceedingly complex, diverse, and difficult. Accordingly, the evaluation must reflect the role and scope of administrative duties and expectations while fostering a positive climate for growth in professional competence and leadership.

The complete policy regarding evaluation of the President and Vice Presidents can be found at: http://www.southeastern.edu/resources/policies/assets/pres_vp_eval.pdf

 

Evaluation of Deans 

Each year the Provost will evaluate the deans. Each dean will submit a self-evaluation as well as three names in each of three categories: peer, subordinate, and customer. These nine individuals will evaluate and comment upon the dean’s performance in such areas as communication, decision-making, planning and organizing, operations/actions, problem solving, and collegial relationships. For academic deans, an anonymous survey will also be sent to all full-time faculty in each college so that they can assess and comment upon the dean’s performance in similar areas. Based upon these instruments and his/her own observations, the Provost will evaluate each dean and then meet with them individually to discuss the results. Each dean will receive a copy of the Provost’s written evaluation as well as the summaries of the quantitative and qualitative data from the surveys.

 

Evaluation of Department Heads 

On or before March 15, the dean shall initiate an annual evaluation (procedure and format to be jointly recommended by the Council of Department Heads and Faculty Senate) of department heads by full-time faculty within each department. Faculty participation shall be voluntary. The annual evaluation shall include a section at the end of the objective criteria to provide each faculty member the opportunity, if he/she so chooses, to make narrative comments. If the evaluation appears to reflect general dissatisfaction by the full-time faculty, the dean may formally poll the faculty by secret ballot as to confidence in the performance of the department head. A two-thirds or more vote of no confidence by the full-time faculty shall be interpreted as a recommendation to the dean that the department head's annual appointment not be renewed at the end of the academic year.

The dean shall write an annual evaluation of each department head and discuss that evaluation during a year-end conference. This evaluation, with any amendments agreed to by the dean and department head, shall be given to the department head and to the Provost. At the time of the conference, the dean shall also make available to the department head a summary of the results of the faculty evaluation.