Report of the
Administrator Appraisal Committee[1]
Concerning
Dean Steven Manaster, Leeds School of Business
The Administrator Appraisal Program (AAP) seeks to provide in-depth feedback with a high rate of faculty response, in order to assure a representative survey. Faculty 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 the third- or fifth-year review. Faculty are also requested to complete and return a “BFA Satisfaction Survey” addressing campus-wide concerns such as salary and benefit programs. In regard to the appraisal of administrators, the surveys contain questions addressing the effectiveness of each administrator's performance in key 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 has 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 surveyed included 76 tenured and tenure-track faculty as well as instructors with a contract of at least one year. The survey yielded a return rate of 80% (61 respondents out of 76 surveyed), 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 2003-2004. Broadly viewed, we considered threefour
general categories in evaluating
responses:
Strengths to Build On represent areas of the administrator’s performance that were rated as highly effective by a substantial majority of the faculty (60% or more ratings of 4 or 5).
Assets to Protect are areas where 50% - 59% of the responding faculty ranked the administrator’s performance 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 have ratings of 3, 4, or 5 by the majority of the respondents, but are judged 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 (40% or more ratings of 1 or 2).
Half or more of the responding faculty assigned ratings of
3 or higher to Dean Manaster’s performance in 13 of the 25 areas surveyed. At the same time, 40% or more of the faculty
gave ratings ranging from less than effective to very ineffective on 20 of the
25 questions. The previous third-year
review of Dean Manaster in fall 2001 noted a 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) on many of the questions.
While that pattern persists in some areas, it is a less prevalent pattern in
the evaluation responses of the fall 2003 administrator appraisal.
The committee defined these to be areas in which at least 60% of the respondents gave ratings of 4 or 5. There were no survey items on which Dean Manaster received ratings of 4 or 5 by 60% or more of the respondents. Therefore none of the 25 questions are classified under the Strengths to Build On category. In the previous evaluation Dean Manaster received ratings in this category on two questions having to do with fundraising and executive education. In this evaluation, those areas are still considered effective, but because less than 60% of the faculty gave them ratings of 4 or 5, they are reported in the next section (see “Assets to Protect”).
Assets to Protect (50% - 59% ratings of 4 or 5)
Dean Manaster received
ratings of more than effective to very effective from over half the faculty in
these areas of
support for innovative research:
Due to the high variance of
respondent ratings, the three questions above categorized as “Assets to
Protect” also fell into the category of Issues to be Mindful Of. In addition, aA
significant percentage of respondents (27% - 38%) assigned ratings of 1 or 2 to
the following questions:
Of the 25 questions in the survey, 20 were rated as less
than effective to very ineffective by 40% or more of the respondents.. These fall into several general
categories. The majority of the
questions fall into a category involving the treatment of faculty and faculty’s
inclusion in decision-making processes:
The responses to other questions expressed concerns about administrative and management process:
Concern was expressed about commitment to the teaching
mission of the CollegSchoole:
CATEGORY |
CATEGORYDEFINITION |
FALL 2001 |
FALL 2003 |
Strengths to Build On
|
60% or more of respondents rated as 4 or
5
|
2
|
0
|
Assets to Protect
|
50% - 59% of respondents rated as 4 or 5
|
1
|
3
|
Issues to be Mindful Of
|
25% - 39% of respondents rated as 1 or 2
|
9
|
5
|
Areas In Need of Improvement
|
40% or more of respondents rated as 1 or
2
|
11
|
20
|
Questions from the BFA Satisfaction Survey of the Leeds School faculty may provide an important context in which to consider the evaluation of Dean Manaster concerning salary and an atmosphere of trust and collegiality. With respect to equitable salary distribution, the ratings from the two surveys are almost identical. Dean Manaster’s mean rating was 2.6 and the Satisfaction Survey mean rating was 2.5. Faculty appear to see the salary issues as systemic to the university.
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. Therefore, it may be helpful to consider the faculty’s evaluation of the overall state of collegial relations in the School, aside from their reactions to the dean. The faculty of the School report improvement in relations among colleagues. In the 2003 Satisfaction Survey, Relationships with colleagues received a very positive 87% of 3, 4, or 5 ratings, with a mean of 3.7. In the 2001 Satisfaction Survey this question received a positive 70% of 3, 4, or 5 ratings with a mean of 3.4. However, Dean Manaster’s ratings in the 2001 and 2003 surveys have declined from a mean rating of 2.5 to 2.1 on the question of Managing conflicts among faculty and staff, from a mean of 2.4 to 2.1 for Creating an atmosphere of trust, and from a mean of 2.4 to a mean of 2.1 for Treat all faculty fairly and inclusively.
The appraisal of Dean Manaster received a high survey response rate of 80% of the business faculty. For 20 of the 25 questions, Dean Manaster’s performance was judged as less than effective or very ineffective by at least 40% of the faculty. Significant numbers of respondents expressed concern about decision-making processes guiding the school. Openness, inclusiveness, trust, and fairness are the focus of the concerns. The majority of the questions in these areas of dissatisfaction focus on the need for communication with faculty and inclusion of faculty in determining goals and performance standards. Faculty expressed concern about the effectiveness of Dean Manaster in fostering an atmosphere that supports diversity and accomplishes the goals articulated in the Leeds gift. The most significant area of faculty concern relates to the undergraduate experience. On this question, 74% of the respondents judged Dean Manaster’s performance to be less than effective (19%) or very ineffective (55%).
Dean Manaster’s performance ratings in this survey show strength in areas of fundraising, executive education and improving the faculty through hiring, retention and support. While the ratings in these categories are lower than those in the fall 2001 appraisal, over 50% of the faculty still rated Dean Manaster’s performance as 3 or above.
[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 Betty Jackson, Leeds School of Business; Professor Richard Laver, Mathematics; Professor Judith Glyde, Music; Professor Bruce Henderson, Journalism.