Skip to main content

Review of Deans and Administrators

The purpose of the review of deans and administrators (hereafter leader) is to evaluate the quality of leadership provided by the leader to the college/school/area within the university. The review focuses solely on the evaluation of the leader and is not a direct evaluation of the associated programs. While it may not be possible to separate the review of the leader entirely from program review, efforts must be made to insure that the leader’s review is an evaluation of their performance and not an evaluation of the program. Given that administrators have different roles and constituencies than do deans, the procedures used to evaluate them should be tailored to their role and function, while reflecting the general principles followed in the review of deans.

The review normally will occur in the fifth year of a leader’s term, with subsequent reviews on a five year cycle. When appropriate, the review may be rescheduled in order not to conflict with an accreditation review or Board of Trustees’ review or other major activities underway in the unit.

The report of the committee charged with evaluating the leaders performance will be submitted to the Provost for confidential discussion with the leader. The Provost will meet with the leader to provide feedback from the review and make specific recommendations to the leader. The leader and the Provost will agree on a set of mutual goals and objectives resulting from the review. The Provost will send a letter to the faculty/staff summarizing the results of the review.

1. Committee Composition

The Committee will be chaired by the Vice Provost, or an Associate Provost designated by the Provost. Additional members will include the following persons.

a. A dean from another college within WVU selected by the Provost.

b. Three faculty members from the College. No chairs will be included in this group. The executive committee or other representative faculty body from the college/school nominates faculty members for the committee, nominating at least twice the number needed. If no appropriate body exists, a canvassing process is used to nominate the faculty members.

c. One chair or division head from the College. Department chairs nominate by ballot two or more chairs to serve on the committee.

d. A member of the staff in the College. Two staff representatives are nominated for committee membership through a canvassing process by the staff in the college/school.

e. The Provost may appoint additional committee members after consultation with the Committee and the leader under review (e.g. visiting committee, officers of professional organizations, etc.).

Please note: In the case of an administrator the Vice Provost or an Associate Provost will be asked to serve on the committee as chair and the overall committee will comprise of three to five persons from the various constituencies with whom the administrator works. The Provost will discuss the list of nominees with the leader, and, subsequent to that, will select and make appointments to the committee.

Either the Provost or the leader may request that the dean/administrator of a similar college from outside West Virginia University serve as a consultant to the Committee. That person may review and comment on the leader’s self-evaluation, advise the Committee about the expectations of deans/administrators in the field at other colleges, and in other ways provide a context for the assessment of the evaluation data.

2. Areas of Evaluation

The quality of the leader’s success in the areas listed below will be evaluated as appropriate.

The review should reflect the evaluation of the leader’s performance by the various constituencies with which the leader interacts. These constituencies may include: faculty members; staff members; students; administrators within the college; administrators in other units of the University, including the Provost’s Office; alumni; members and leaders of relevant professional organizations; etc. The constituencies should be identified at the start of the evaluation process and methods of soliciting their evaluative comments identified. It may not be appropriate to ask all constituencies for evaluative comments on all of the areas identified below.

The review also should reflect the expectations of a particular leader’s leadership and thus the relative importance of each of the areas identified below. Some leaders may have significant relationships with constituencies external to the University; others may have more limited relationships. The size of the college/school/area may influence the degree to which some leaders are directly involved in some of the areas identified below. The expectations associated with a particular college/school’s deanship or administrative leadership should be identified in consultation with the Provost and leader at the outset of the review process and emphasis attached to the areas of expectation.

A memo summarizing the areas to be evaluated and the manner in which information about those areas will be distributed to the Provost, leader, and faculty members and staff before the review is initiated. The general areas of review include those outlined below. It is recognized that not all of these areas will be applicable to every leader and that some of the areas may receive greater emphasis that others. As such, these areas may be modified, as appropriate, to reflect a job description or other responsibilities associated with the position.

a. Leadership and Planning

  • establishment and effective communication of goals and objectives
  • anticipation of future developments
  • formulation of effective plans to achieve desired results
  • ability to present ideas in a clear and consistent fashion
  • other indicators identified as appropriate by the committee

b. Personnel Management

  • assistance in the recruitment of faculty, administrators and staff
  • encouragement of faculty and staff development
  • development of effective subordinates
  • development and motivation of faculty and staff
  • ability to work with faculty and staff in an open and honest manner
  • support of and commitment to affirmative action
  • other indicators identified as appropriate by the committee

c. Program Management

  • leadership and management in program change, when needed
  • enrollment management
  • efficient and effective execution of operating and strategic plans with regard to programs
  • overall leadership for the programs of the college/school/area
  • other indicators identified as appropriate by the committee

d. Budget Management

  • effective management of the resource base of the college/school/area through strategic and base budget planning
  • tying of budget decisions to the operating and strategic plans
  • timely decision making on budget matters
  • other indicators identified as appropriate by the committee

e. Enhancement of Quality

  • maintenance of appropriate academic standards for recruitment and retention
  • use of decision-making processes that promote quality
  • encouragement of quality in all academic and non-academic programs in the college/school/area
  • encouragement and support of high quality teaching, research, and public service
  • other indicators identified as appropriate by the committee

f. Governance-Internal Relations

  • establishment or encouragement of mechanisms for appropriate faculty governance in a collegial setting
  • handling of problems and plans efficiently and in a timely fashion
  • effectiveness in making individuals fully aware of their responsibilities and providing guidance with respect to the accomplishment of the specific goals and objectives related to these responsibilities
  • establishment or maintenance of effective channels of communication within the college/school/area, including communication on policies and procedures
  • other indicators identified as appropriate by the committee

g. Students

  • supports and environment conducive to attracting and retaining undergraduate and graduate students to the college/school
  • recognition and appreciation of contributions of undergraduate and graduate students
  • supports student organizations, honorary societies, independent study opportunities and internships
  • encourages an environment for quality advising

h. External Relations

  • involvement of leader in University activities and level of concern for the welfare of the total University as well as specific individual responsibilities
  • involvement in developmental activities, including fund raising
  • cooperation with other academic and non-academic units
  • development of effective relationships with alumni and visiting committee
  • involvement of leader with State, regional, or national professional organizations, as appropriate
  • other indicators identified as appropriate by the committee

i. Overall assessment of the leader’s performance

3. Procedures for the Review

The following describe the procedures that will generally be followed when a dean is reviewed. The Provost may modify these procedures for any given review.

a. The Review Committee is formed as noted above:

b. The committee establishes the review schedule, policies on confidentiality, and any other needed protocols for the review process.

c. A memo describing the membership of the review committee, the areas that will be reviewed, the manner in which data will be collected, and the schedule for the review is distributed by the review committee to the Provost, leader, faculty and staff.

d. The leader submits a self-evaluation, no longer than ten pages, a week prior to meeting with the committee to discuss the self-evaluation.

e. A standardized questionnaire to solicit the views of faculty, staff, and others as appropriate has been developed for use in all reviews. If appropriate, limited modifications may be made to that questionnaire with approval by the Provost. The committee reviews the standardized letters and memos used to solicit views and modifies them, as appropriate.

f. Questionnaires are distributed, returned to office of Vice Provost and analyzed, and the data forwarded to the committee.

g. The consultant dean/administrator submits a report based on information forwarded to him/her and any on-site consultation that may have occurred.

h. The committee meets with the leader to clarify any issues or questions that have arisen.

i. The committee develops a draft of the report and, after review of that draft by the full committee, a final report is prepared.

j. The final report is submitted to Provost in a meeting with him/her where the report is discussed. The report includes an analysis of questionnaire results and the consultant dean’s report, an analysis of other responses and data received, and committee’s recommendations with regard to strengths and areas in which improvement is needed.

k.The Provost discusses report with leader and provides him/her with a copy of it.

l. The Provost’s summary of the findings of the review is forwarded to faculty and staff of college.