Report of the
Administrator Appraisal Committee1
Concerning
DESIGN OF THE SURVEY
Previous to AY 2000-01, surveys by the Administrator Appraisal Program (AAP) consisted of a short questionnaire mailed to all faculty on an annual basis, seeking input on each member’s dean plus all campus-wide administrators. The questionnaire provided an opportunity for written comments from faculty, but the principal evaluation tool was grading of an administrator’s performance on the familiar scale of A-F with reference to a limited number of factors.
The revised AAP is different in several respects. First, in order to provide more in-depth feedback, the number of administrators under review is limited. Faculty members have the opportunity to provide AAP feedback to the review/ reappointment process when the president, chancellor, provost or the dean of their school or college is undergoing a third- or fifth-year review. Second, faculty are requested to complete and return a “BFA Satisfaction Survey” addressing campus-wide concerns such as salary and benefit programs. Third, the survey questionnaire dispenses with the A-F grading, substituting scaled opinions of administrator effectiveness in more areas. The questionnaire contains approximately 20 questions addressing the effectiveness of each administrator’s performance in several areas. Eleven questions – addressing general administrative style, salary process, and diversity – are common for all administrators. The remaining questions are performance-based and tailored to the specific circumstances of the administrator and school or college. Responses are solicited using and effectiveness scale of 1 to 5, in which 1= very ineffective and 5 = very effective (the ratings in between the committee interpreted as 2 = less than effective, 3 = effective, 4 = more than effective), plus a “Don’t Know” option. In that regard, the survey questionnaire for Dean Williams contained twenty-one (21) questions.
[1] The members of the Committee are Chair Cathy Comstock, Co-Director Farrand Academic Program; Professor Chick Judd, Psychology; Professor Wayne Gazur, Law; Jeff Schiel, Assistant Director, Office of Planning, Budget, & Analysis; Professor James Palmer, Film Studies; Dean Anne Heinz, Continuing Education; Professor Jean Koster, Engineering; Associate Professor Richard Laver, Mathematics; Professor Judith Glyde, Music; Sharon Gause, Emeritus, Libraries.
2 The University Libraries include Norlin, Business, Earth Science, Engineering, Math/Physics and Music Libraries. The Law Library is part of the Law School.
_____________________________________
SURVEY PARTICIPATION
The AAP Committee had agreed, on the advice of several faculty who specialize in survey methods, that a 60% return rate would be needed for a representative statistical study. Two pools of participants were selected to participate in the evaluation of Dean Williams. The library faculty/staff (47) and a group of people (53) selected across campus who are knowledgeable of the Libraries and of Dean Williams’ activities. The knowledgeable group was selected from the Blue Ribbon Committee, who had taken part in an intensive study of the Libraries; library liaisons across the campus; and the BFA Libraries Committee. The library faculty/staff had a 66% return rate and the knowledgeable group had a 60.4% return rate.
AIMS OF THE AAP EVALUATION
The AAP Committee hopes to provide a developmental picture of strengths and weaknesses for administrators standing for review or reappointment in AY 2002-2003.
Strengths to Build On represent areas of the dean’s performance that were rated as highly effective by a substantial majority of the faculty (over 60% 4 or 5 ratings).
Assets to Protect are areas where at least half the responding faculty found the dean’s performance to be better that effective, i.e., ranked his effectiveness as a 4 or 5. Hence, any reallocation of effort to correct weaknesses or changes in direction should try to protect these strengths.
Issues to be Mindful of are performance areas judged to be effective or better by the majority of the respondents, but less than effective by a significant minority of respondents (25% - 39% ratings of 1 or 2).
Areas that Need Improvement are areas judged by a significant fraction of the faculty as unsatisfactory (over 40% 1 or 2 ratings).
The three populations surveyed rated Dean Williams with a high proportion of effective or highly effective responses. Within the Libraries faculty/staff group 20 of the 21 questions received very effective ratings of 4 or 5. In this group only one question received less than 50 % in the 4-5 category, EF2 Manage conflicts among faculty and staff. The Knowledgeable group also selected 20 out the 21 questions to give a 4 or 5 rating; the only question from the knowledgeable group to receive less than a 50% 4-5 rating was EF20 Establish awards to recognize excellence . When the two groups were combined, again the only question receiving less than 50% of the 4-5 ratings was EF2 Manage conflicts among faculty and staff.
Strengths to Build on (60% ratings of 4 or 5)
Library respondents evaluated Dean Williams’ performance higher than 60% in all but one question, while the Knowledgeable respondents evaluated his performance higher than 60% in 14 of the 21 questions. All respondents (90% or more) agreed that Dean Williams has been very effective in his ability to
● EF13 Create interinstitutional relationships
The Knowledgeable group rated Dean Williams’ performance in the category as very effective for all of the following areas: (These are presented in rank order, with the first category receiving the highest ratings, but the differences are often very small.)
● EF13 Create interinstitutional relationships
● EF19 Support innovation in Libraries operation
● EF14 Obtain resources for Information Management Systems
● EF 9 Act with integrity
● EF 3 Support innovation in teaching
● EF10 Establish compensation plan for library faculty
● EF12 Effectively develop new strategic plan
● EF1 Listen to faculty, staff, and students
● EF5 Make decisions in a timely fashion
● EF7 Treat all faculty fairly and inclusively
● EF11 Establish/strengthen new and continuing resources
● EF4 Support innovation in research
● EF16 Foster atmosphere for recruitment of diverse faculty and staff
● EF17 Effective long-term storage plans
Library faculty/staff included the following in the Strengths category:
● EF 1 Create interinstitutional relationships
● EF16 Foster atmosphere for recruitment divers
● EF 9 Act with integrity
● EF1 Listen to faculty, staff, and students
● EF7 Treat all faculty fairly and inclusively
● EF19 Support innovation in Libraries operation
● EF 12 Effectively develop new strategic plan
● EF 3 Support innovation in teaching
● EF17 Effective long-term storage plans
● EF18 Handle journal cancellation project/budget issues
● EF10 Establish compensation plan for library faculty
● EF14 Obtain resources for Information Management Systems
● EF4 Support innovation in research
● EF20 Establish awards to recognize excellence
● EF6 Create an atmosphere of trust
● EF21 Use faculty input effectively
● EF8 Appropriately involve faculty in decisions
● EF11 Establish/strengthen new and continuing resources
● EF15 Articulate vision for collection endowments and building/retrofits for
Business/Norlin Libraries.
● EF5 Make decisions in a timely fashion
Assets to Protect (50% or more ratings of 4 or 5)
All the questions above, 20 of the 21 questions, received above a 50% rating of 4 or 5 from both respondent groups.
Areas in Need of Improvement (40% or more ratings of 1 or 2)
Notable in this area is that Dean Williams was never placed in the “Needs Improvement” category by any of the three groups.
Issues to Be Mindful of (25%-39% ratings of 1or 2)
The area in which 25-33% of all respondent groups assigned a 1 or 2 was
● EF2 Manage conflicts among faculty, staff
While the above is the only category in which the Faculty/Staff group rated Dean Williams at this level, the Knowledgeable respondents did so in the case of 8 questions. These areas of concern fall in the following areas:
●EF8 Appropriately involve faculty in decisions
● EF15 Articulate vision for collection endowments and building/retrofits for
Business/Norlin Libraries.
●EF6 Create an atmosphere of trust
●EF10 Establish compensation plan for library faculty
●EF21 Use faculty input effectively
●EF20 Establish awards to recognize excellence
●EF18 Handle journal cancellation project/budget issues
●EF2 Manage conflicts among faculty, staff
BFA SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS
BFA Satisfaction Survey results were used to compare the Libraries faculty/staff satisfaction with the institution in comparison to their satisfaction with Dean Williams’ performance. (The Knowledgeable group results were not used, since this comparison seemed more relevant to the dean’s immediate faculty and staff.) Responses to Satisfaction Survey questions which correspond to similar questions in the dean’s performance survey may provide a useful context in which to consider Dean Williams’ lowest as well as two of his highest ratings.
While the dean’s ratings in regard to most personnel interactions-- Listening to faculty, staff and students; Creating an atmosphere of trust; Treating all faculty fairly; and Involving faculty in decisions—fell into the category of Strengths, his lowest rating was in the area of Managing conflicts among faculty and staff, the only performance area to fall into the “issues to be mindful of” category. This rating came in contrast to high satisfaction survey ratings of collegial relations throughout the Libraries, where Relationships with colleagues received very high scores. (A mean rating of 4 and only 7% negative ratings of 1 or 2.)
In two other areas of comparable subjects, the faculty /staff showed high satisfaction with Dean Williams’ performance in comparison to low scores for the institution in the areas of teaching/research support and salaries. While the Satisfaction Survey showed overall low ratings for the institution in regard to factors affecting teaching and research(mean 2.5) such as classroom and space facilities(mean 2.1), number of graduate assistants(mean 2.3), and research support (means 3.2) among libraries faculty, Dean Williams received the very high mean rating of 4.3 for both support of teaching and support of research.
Similarly, while Satisfaction Survey questions regarding salary in relation to peer institutions and equitable distribution on the UCB campus received low mean ratings of 2.1 and 2.5 respectively, among library faculty and staff Dean Williams received a very high 4.2 mean rating for his establishing of a compensation plan.
CONCLUSIONS
A majority of respondents from both library faculty/staff and targeted knowledgeable faculty across campus judged Dean Williams’ performance to be more than effective to very effective in 20 of 21 areas. It is noteworthy that no responses fell into the category of “needs improvement” in either of the respondent samples.
A comparison of responses from Dean Williams’ last Administrator Appraisal (conducted only among the Libraries faculty/staff in 2001) to the present reveals that out of the two “issues to be mindful of” in the previous survey, only one—management of conflicts among faculty and staff—remains in that category of concern in the present AAP responses. Additional “issues to be mindful of” in the current AAP came from the cross-campus knowledgeable group and centered around creating an atmosphere of trust with the faculty and using them effectively in decision-making processes, in particular in regard to journal cancellations and budget concerns.
In regard to the category of strengths, Dean Williams’ evaluations showed a noteworthy 14 of 20 questions receiving 4 or 5 ratings in both respondent samples, with especially high approval for the creation of interinstitutional relationships; support for innovation in Libraries’ operations and teaching; development of strategic plan and means of securing resources; and the personnel matters of fairness, inclusiveness, and diversity.