Previous to AY 2000-01, surveys by the Administrator Appraisal Program (AAP) consisted of a short questionnaire mailed to all faculty members on an annual basis, seeking input on each member’s dean and all campus-wide administrators. This 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 an 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.

The AAP Committee had agreed, on the advice of several faculty members who specialize in survey methods, that a 60% return rate would be needed for a reliable statistical study. The Leeds School of Business faculty had an excellent return rate of 80%, well over the threshold needed for reliability.

The AAP Committee hopes to provide a developmental picture of strengths and weaknesses for administrators standing for review or reappointment in AY 2001-2002. Broadly viewed, we considered three general categories in evaluating responses:

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 than 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 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).

Half or more of the responding faculty judged Dean Manaster to be effective to very effective (ratings of 3, 4, or 5) in 13 of the 22 areas surveyed. At the same time, 40% or more of the faculty gave ratings ranging from less than effective to very ineffective on 11 of the 22 questions. A noticeably bi-modal pattern of response – that is, a concentration of ratings at the ends of the spectrum rather than spread evenly throughout or at the midpoint of the scale – also characterized many of the questions.

The committee defined these to be areas in which more than 60% of the respondents gave ratings of 4 or 5. Dean Manaster received ratings in this category on 2 of the 22 questions:

• EF15 Fundraising and securing resources for faculty
• EF21 Advancing executive ed initiatives

Dean Manaster received ratings of more than effective to very effective from over half the faculty in the area of support for innovative research:

• EF04 Support innovation in research

Due to the high variance of respondent ratings, the question immediately above also fell into the category of issues to be mindful of. While the average ratings in this category were strong enough for these areas to be considered effective, it also shows that a significant percentage of respondents (25% - 39%) assigned ratings of 1 or 2. This category includes:

• EF04 Support innovation in research
• EF05 Make decisions in a timely fashion
• EF09 Act with integrity
• EF12 Represent college to business community & communicating
• EF13 Improve quality of faculty through hiring/retention/support
• EF16 Fostering an atmosphere that supports diversity in recruiting
• EF18 Promoting centers in the college
• EF20 Improving the MBA experience
• EF22 Moving the school in right direction

Eleven of the twenty-two questions surveyed received over 40% ratings of 1 or 2. These fall into several general categories, with the majority involving the treatment of faculty and their inclusion in decision-making processes:

• EF01 Listening to faculty, staff and students
• EF02 Manage conflicts among faculty/staff
• EF07 Treat all faculty fairly and inclusively
• EF08 Appropriately involve faculty in decisions
• EF10 Lead for equitable merit-based salary system
• EF14 Articulating performance standards promoting productivity
• EF17 Establishing/accomplishing goals within context of faculty governance

The responses to other questions expressed concerns about administrative and management process:

• EF06 Create an atmosphere of trust
• EF11 Effective delegation of authority

Finally, concern was expressed about commitment to the teaching mission of the College:

• EF03 Support innovation in teaching
• EF19 Improving the undergraduate experience

A question from the BFA Satisfaction Survey results in the Leeds School may provide an important context in which to consider the evaluation of Dean Manaster concerning salary and an atmosphere of trust and collegiality. Since many of the questions that fall into the "Needs Improvement" category in Dean Manaster’s appraisal have to do with faculty discontent in regard to an atmosphere of trust and inclusiveness and communication in the Leeds School, it may be helpful to consider their evaluation of the overall state of collegial relations in the School, aside from their reactions to the dean. The Satisfaction Survey (SS) shows that Relationships with colleagues received a very positive 70% of 3, 4, or 5 ratings, with a mean of 3.4. This comes in contrast to a mean rating of 2.5 in regard to Managing conflicts among faculty and staff, a mean of 2.4 in regard to Creating an atmosphere of trust, and a mean of 2.4 for Treat all faculty fairly and inclusively in the appraisal of Dean Manaster.

For twenty of twenty-two questions, Dean Manaster’s performance was judged as less than effective or very ineffective by notable fractions of faculty respondents. Significant numbers of respondents expressed concern about decision-making processes: timeliness, openness, and fairness. The majority of the questions in these areas of dissatisfaction focus on the need for communication with and inclusion of faculty. Another area of significant faculty concern relates to improving the undergraduate experience. The high survey response rate of 80% suggests that these results are broadly representative of the faculty.

In contrast, Dean Manaster’s performance was judged as very effective by the faculty in three categories: fundraising, executive education, and support for innovation in research. These strengths may be useful in seeking improvements and expanding faculty support. However, the high variance of responses throughout, whether positive or negative, suggests a marked division of opinion among the faculty in most areas.