Report of the
Administrator Appraisal Committee [1]
Concerning
Dean Daniel Sher, College of Music
Five-Year Review, Fall 1997 - 2002
The Administrator Appraisal Program (AAP) has been developed and directed by the Boulder Faculty Assembly (BFA), with technical support by the Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis (PBA) since the 1992 pilot year. In the past the AAP consisted of a short questionnaire mailed to all faculty on an annual basis, seeking input on the faculty member’s dean plus all campus-wide administrators. While the AAP questionnaire presented an opportunity for written comments from faculty, the principal evaluation tool was grading an administrator’s performance on the familiar scale of A-F with reference to a limited number of factors.
The revised AAP used as the basis for this report is different in several respects. First, in order to provide more in-depth feedback, the number of administrators under review is limited. Faculty have the opportunity to provide AAP feedback to the review/ reappointment process when the president, chancellor, vice chancellor 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” speaking to 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. 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. In that regard, the survey questionnaire for Dean Sher contained nineteen (19) questions. Nine (9) questions were common to all administrators, but the other questions were tailored to the specific circumstances of the College of Music.
Fifty-five (55) of sixty-two (62) eligible faculty raters in the College of Music completed and returned the survey package as it pertained to Dean Sher. 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 College of Music faculty had an excellent return rate of 89%, well over the threshold needed for reliability.
[1]Members of the Committee are Chair Cathy Comstock, Co-Director Farrand 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; Professor Richard Laver, Mathematics; Professor Judith Glyde, Music; Sharon Gause, Emeritus, Libraries.
AAP EVALUATION CATEGORIES
The AAP Committee hopes to provide a developmental picture of strengths and weaknesses for administrators standing for review or reappointment in AY 2002-2003. Broadly viewed, we considered four general categories in evaluating responses:
Strengths to Build on represent areas of the Dean’s performance which were rated as highly effective by a substantial majority of the faculty respondents (60% or more gave ratings of 4 or 5). This category identifies areas of perceived strength that may be used to build consensus or achieve common goals.
Assets to Protect were areas where at least half of the responding faculty found the Dean’s performance to be better than effective (50% - 59% of respondents gave ratings of 4 or 5). Thus, any reallocation of effort to correct weaknesses or changes in priorities should try to protect these strengths.
Issues to be Mindful of were judged to be effective or better by the majority of the respondents, but less than effective by a minority of respondents (25%-39% gave ratings of 1 or 2). Thus, any significant change in attention to these areas could move performance to less than effective. Also, actions in these areas by the Dean must be accompanied with sensitivity to the legitimate concerns of faculty who found performance to be less than effective.
Areas in Need of Improvement were areas judged by a number of respondents as unsatisfactory (over 40% gave ratings of 1 or 2). Performance in this category should trigger a plan for improvement that is mindful of how changes in actions, priorities, and performance will maintain areas of strength while addressing concerns of faculty who rate performance as less than effective.
Half or more of the responding faculty judged Dean Sher to be effective to very effective (ratings of 3, 4, or 5) in all of the areas surveyed, with 15 out of 19 questions receiving ratings of 4 or 5 from over half the respondents. At the same time, 30% or more of the faculty gave ratings ranging from less than effective to very ineffective (ratings of 1 or 2) on 6 of the 19 questions. This constitutes a slightly 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.
The committee defined these to be areas in which 60% or more of the respondents gave ratings of 4 or 5. Dean Sher received ratings in this category on 9 of the 19 questions:
· EF05 Make decisions in a timely manner
· EF09 Act with integrity
· EF10 Solve problem of low faculty salaries
· EF11 Establish new faculty and staff positions
· EF12 Retain faculty
· EF13 Exercise leadership in hiring decisions
· EF15 Assume leadership role regarding initiatives
· EF16 Foster atmosphere for recruitment diversity
· EF18 Establish funding sources for the College of Music
The highest ratings (70%-79% of respondents gave ratings of 4 or 5) were received by the Dean for his effectiveness in activities associated with establishing funding sources and faculty/staff positions:
· EF11 Establish new faculty and staff positions
· EF18 Establish funding sources for the College of Music
Assets to Protect (50% - 59% ratings of 4 or 5)
Dean Sher received ratings of more than effective to very effective from over half of the faculty in six areas:
· EF01 Listen to faculty, staff, students
· EF03 Support innovation in teaching
· EF04 Support innovation in research
· EF07 Treat all faculty fairly and inclusively
· EF14 Provide opportunity for input on major decisions
· EF19 Effectiveness of open-door policy
Due to the high variance in ratings, six (6) of the responses to the questions above also fell into the category of issues to be mindful of.
· EF03 Support innovation in teaching
· EF04 Support innovation in research
· EF07 Treat all faculty fairly and inclusively
· EF09 Act with integrity
· EF14 Provide opportunity for input on major decisions
· EF19 Effectiveness of open-door policy
For the two other areas in this category, 29%-38% of respondents assigned ratings of 1 or 2:
· EF02 Manage conflicts among faculty, staff
· EF08 Appropriately involve faculty in decisions
Two of the nineteen questions surveyed received over 40% ratings of 1 or 2.
· EF06 Create an atmosphere of trust
· EF17 Articulate appropriate vision for the College of Music
The following comments are derived from a comparison with the BFA Satisfaction Survey results in the College of Music. The responses to corresponding questions from the BFA Satisfaction Survey may provide a useful context in which to consider some of Dean Sher's ratings.
Since two of the questions receiving the lowest ratings on the Dean's survey (38-40% of 1 or 2 ratings and mean ratings of 2.9) regard the managing of conflicts and the atmosphere of trust, it may be helpful to consider collegial relations within the College itself. The Satisfaction Survey shows that Relationships with colleagues received very high scores, with only 10.4 % ratings of 1 or 2, and a mean rating of 4, showing that the state of collegial relations within the College itself is quite good.
In contrast, while Satisfaction Survey questions regarding salary in relation to peer institutions and equitable distribution on the UCB campus received low mean ratings of
1.8 and 2.1 respectively, among music faculty Dean Sher received high mean ratings (3.7 and 4.2 respectively) for solving problems of low faculty salaries and establishing funding sources for the College of Music.
CONCLUSIONS
A majority of the Music Faculty judged Dean Sher to be effective to very effective in all of the areas being appraised, with 15 of the 19 questions rated at 4 or 5 from more than half the faculty. The survey response rate of 89% suggests these results to be highly representative. Dean Sher’s ratings were especially strong in regard to the hiring and retaining of faculty, including such areas as attention to faculty salaries, recruitment of diverse faculty, and the creation of positions. Questions regarding Dean Sher’s initiative in bringing resources into the college also received very high levels of positive response.
At the same time, ten of the nineteen questions received ratings of less than effective or very ineffective by a significant number (25-44%) of respondents. The majority of the questions in these areas focus on the need for fair and inclusive treatment of faculty, better management of conflict, and more communication with faculty, especially in regard to participation in decision-making. Significant faculty concern was also shown in relation to the support of innovation in teaching and research and the articulation of an appropriate vision for the College of Music.
Six of these items drew notable percentages of both high and low ratings, reflecting a fair amount of disagreement among the faculty on these particular issues: support for innovation in teaching and research, effectiveness of open-door policy, treating all faculty fairly and inclusively, acting with integrity, and providing opportunity for input on major decisions.