Evaluation of Academic Administrators Policy
Purpose
A policy for the evaluation of academic administrators at the University of Dayton should establish and communicate clear, consistent, and meaningful expectations for the review of academic administrators’ performance and for their professional development. These expectations should support widespread institutional understanding of the primary aims and scope of such evaluations, the main components and frequency of such evaluations, the nature of others’ participation in the evaluations, and communication about their outcomes. Through such understanding, the quality and significance of these evaluations, both for the administrators being evaluated and for the broader university community, should be enhanced and sustained.
Evaluations of academic administrators should serve the following purposes, consonant with the purposes for the evaluation of faculty as stated in the University of Dayton Faculty Governance Handbook.
Scope
For the purposes of this policy, the academic administrative positions to be evaluated are:
1. Those that have direct, supervisory responsibility for faculty; or
2. Those that have direct responsibility for the administration of academic units, departments, or university-wide academic programs or centers
In order that evaluations of academic administrators serve effectively and efficiently the purposes stated above (section III.), this policy focuses at the outset on the evaluation of those who hold the following positions: provost, vice/associate provost, academic unit dean, or department chairperson.
Other administrative positions also may meet the criteria presented above and thus should fall within the policy’s scope. Decisions to include other administrative positions under the scope of this policy shall be recommended to the Provost or Provost’s designee for approval.
Policy History
I. Effective Date: June 23, 2015
II. Approval: October 28, 2026
III. History:
- Approved in Original Form: June 23, 2015
- Approved as amended: October 28, 2026
IV. Maintenance of Policy: Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, Office of the Provost
Policy
This policy concerns three types of evaluations of academic administrators: annual performance evaluations, developmental evaluations, and evaluations conducted for the purpose of renewing administrative appointments. Each of these types of evaluation contributes to the aforementioned purposes of evaluating academic administrators. The particular role of each type of evaluation normally warrants differences in their timing, in their components, in their participants, and in the communication of their results, as described below.
Supervisors of academic administrators may have good reason to conduct additional evaluations at other times and in other manners, consistent with the general policies and purposes of the University.
A. Annual performance evaluations
The performance of all University academic administrators is evaluated annually. Annual evaluations of academic administrators are conducted by the immediate supervisor.
Annual evaluations of academic administrators are structured in relation to the responsibilities described in their position descriptions. These evaluations normally are focused by annual goals that have been agreed upon by the administrator and the supervisor. These goals should be aligned with the strategic goals of the unit and the University.
Due to differences in the mission, structure, and scale of individual academic units or offices, annual evaluations properly may take different forms, so that the evaluations are well suited to the particular responsibilities of the administrator and the goals of the unit.
Normally, only the supervisor and the academic administrator participate in the annual performance review, unless the supervisor decides to seek additional sources of input for the evaluation.
The substance of the outcome of the annual performance evaluation is a confidential personnel matter. In addition, due to the frequency of this type of review, its initiation and conclusion normally are not reported to others.
B. Developmental evaluations
For purposes of academic administrators’ on-going professional development, broader evaluations of their administrative and leadership styles are conducted in the latter half of their term of appointment (e.g., normally in the third year of a four- or five-year term). Due to contractual variations in administrators’ terms of appointment, the timing of the developmental evaluation should be determined at the time of appointment and should be communicated to the newly appointed or reappointed administrator. In turn, the administrator should communicate the timeline for the developmental evaluation to faculty and staff in the unit.
It is important that a suitably broad range of perspectives be included in these developmental evaluations, as they are intended to assess wide-ranging features of the ways in which administrators carry out their work, as opposed to the accomplishment of narrower annual goals.
C. Evaluations for administrative reappointment
Evaluations for reappointment of academic administrators normally are conducted during the Fall Term of the final year of the administrator’s appointment (where there is a multi-year contract) and are designed to provide input to the supervisor in reaching a decision about the reappointment. Hence, these evaluations primarily serve a summative purpose.
Due to the significance of a decision about reappointment, all of the administrator’s direct reports should be invited to contribute to the evaluation in an appropriate manner. In addition, all faculty and staff who work in the administrator’s unit should have an opportunity to contribute to the evaluation.
As with developmental evaluations, the timing of the evaluation for reappointment should be determined by the supervisor when the appointment begins and should be communicated to the administrator and then to the faculty and staff in the unit. Some administrators serve an initial multi-year term and then are reappointed annually. In these cases, the supervisor of these administrators should conduct an evaluation with input from all direct reports and unit faculty and staff at least every four years.
Like annual performance evaluations and developmental evaluations, the specific substance of evaluations for reappointment is confidential. The supervisor’s decision to reappoint the administrator or not should be communicated at an appropriate time to the person’s unit, after the administrator has had the opportunity to review the decision with the supervisor.
D. Retention of Records
Supervisors shall retain evaluation records in accordance with the University’s Record Retention Policy.