Evaluation of administrators

Evaluation of directors of academic units

Download the Performance evaluation of directors in Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering (PDF)


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 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:
    • Assess the survey questions and communicate any suggested changes.
    • 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.
    • Send the distribution list for faculty, academic professionals, and staff in their unit to the Engineering Dean’s Office.
      1. Include any shared faculty with 50% or more FTE
      2. Include staff with 50% or more FTE
      3. Do not include any temporary faculty (faculty associates and adjuncts)
      4. Do not include any postdocs
  2. The UOEEE will release the director evaluation surveys to all associated 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 Policies and Procedures Manual – ACD 111–03: Faculty and Academic Professional Participation in Evaluation of Academic Administrators

Director evaluation survey

Multiple choice questions (9)

Answer choices range from Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly disagree; Not enough information/Not applicable/No opinion:

  1. Our director has a long-range and forward-looking vision for our school.
  2. Our director communicates the mission, vision, and priorities of our school, the Fulton Schools, and ASU to faculty, staff, and other unit personnel.
  3. Our director values and promotes a culture of creativity and innovation in research and education.
  4. Our director addresses problems and communicates information directly and in a timely way.
  5. Our director makes decisions based on transparent values and principles.
  6. Our director promotes an inclusive work environment.
  7. Our director demonstrates an availability and willingness to receive and act on input from faculty, staff, and other unit personnel.
  8. Our director’s leadership has helped advance our school in constructive ways.
  9. Our director’s leadership has contributed to my professional growth.

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?