Evaluation of administrators

Evaluation of directors of academic units

How

The University Office of Evaluation and Educational Effectiveness (UOEEE) administers the director evaluation surveys to all faculty, academic professionals and staff in the unit. The results of the evaluation will be discussed with the supervising administrator and a summary will be shared with the unit. Data from the survey are aggregated and responses to open-ended items will be shared verbatim with the supervising administrator, though no names will be attached to responses.

When (rough timeframe, approximate length)

Every other year, faculty, academic professionals and staff input will be requested concerning their directors. The Engineering Dean’s Office will administer 2-3 director surveys every academic year during the fall or spring semester, so directors are being evaluated every two years (specific timeline follows).

  1. Fall or spring semester – Directors to be evaluated in the current academic year will be asked to:
    • Prepare a brief optional statement to be included in the survey. This statement should explain the individual’s vision for the unit and outline recent accomplishments and goals so as to provide a background for the evaluation.
    • The Engineering Dean’s Office will provide the designated unit contact with a list of the unit’s faculty, academic professionals, and staff for review and verification of accuracy, which includes:
      1. Shared faculty with 50% or more FTE
      2. Staff with 50% or more FTE
      3. Note that this does not include any temporary faculty (faculty associates and adjuncts) or postdocs
  2. The UOEEE will release the director evaluation surveys to all faculty, academic professionals and staff in the unit. The assessment must be completed in two weeks.
  3. Feedback on the results of the evaluation will be provided to the director in an oral report from the supervising administrator who conducted the evaluation.

Why (why this is important for Engineering to do)

In addition to supporting an ongoing commitment to positive and productive leadership, Engineering is aligned with policies set forth in ASU’s Academic Affairs Manual (ACD) 111–03: Faculty and Academic Professional Participation in Evaluation of Academic Administrators.

Director evaluation survey

Multiple choice questions (11)

Answer choices range from Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly disagree; No basis to answer:

  1. Our director has a forward-looking vision for our school.
  2. Our director communicates effectively to all stakeholders the mission, vision and priorities of the school.
  3. Our director’s leadership has helped advance our school in constructive ways.
  4. Our director fosters a culture of creativity and innovation.
  5. Our director demonstrates commitment to cultivating a workplace environment where everyone feels valued and respected.
  6. Our director communicates information in a timely way.
  7. Our director demonstrates a willingness to receive and act on input from faculty/staff.
  8. Our director directly addresses problems.
  9. Our director makes decisions based on transparent values and principles.
  10. Our director’s leadership has contributed to my professional growth.
  11. Our director’s priorities and actions are aligned with ASU’s Design Aspirations.

Written feedback questions (2)

Boxes available for comprehensive answer to the following questions:

  1. What do you believe your director does exceptionally well?
  2. What constructive feedback can you offer to help your director improve a specific area of leadership?

^TOP