Skip to Search Skip to Global Navigation Skip to Local Navigation Skip to Content
Handbook of Operating Procedures
Chapter 1 - Administration
Publication Date: August 20, 2009
Responsible Executive: President


1.03 Evaluation of Academic Administrators

The evaluation of academic administrators is the responsibility of their immediate supervisor and will be conducted as follows:

    Academic administrators will be evaluated periodically in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the University of Texas System Board of Regents Series 30000, Rule 31101.

    Academic administrators with faculty appointments, such as department chairs, will also be evaluated annually in accordance to the Rules and Regulations of the University of Texas System Board of Regents, Series 30000, Rule 30501.

The immediate supervisor may seek formal or informal faculty, student and staff input and incorporate such views in the evaluation. Appropriate methodologies for soliciting the views of others include, but are not limited to:

  1. Self-assessment,
  2. Multi-rater participation using a team approach to obtain feedback,
  3. Individual assessments of those
    1. most frequently in contact with the administrator,
    2. highly familiar with tasks performed by the administrator,
  4. Assessment by peers and colleagues (lateral associates),
  5. Assessment by members of one's support team (subordinate associates), and
  6. Assessment by other relevant individuals in the organization.

The criteria for an academic administrator evaluation should reflect job descriptions and duties performed at the level of the position, as well as such central performance factors as leadership, communicating effectively, planning and organizing, problem analysis and decision making, administration, coordinating and controlling resources, internal control, courtesy and service support, creativity and innovation, crisis management, interpersonal skills, organizational skills, teamwork and team building, mentoring and developing, and external relations. Within this framework, the assessment of academic administrators should also include support for quality teaching, research, service, academic program development, and shared governance, the resolution of student concerns, enrollment management, faculty workload and course scheduling, involvement in university affairs and the recruitment, evaluation and development of quality and diverse faculty and staff.

The periodic evaluation of academic administrators shall result in one of the following recommendations by the immediate supervisor:

  1. reappointment of the individual to the administrative position,
  2. non-reappointment of the individual to the administrative position, or
  3. for individuals holding a tenured faculty appointment, non-reappointment of the individual and reassignment to the faculty or another appointment at the university.
  1. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

    Evaluation of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs (hereafter, the “Provost”) is a continuing process and is the responsibility of the President. In this continuing process of administrative performance review, the President may seek such formal or informal faculty, student, staff and administrator consultations as he or she deems advisable.

    Under normal circumstances, a Provost shall be formally evaluated not later than the end of a six-year period of service. In a formal evaluation, the President follows the evaluative principles and criteria identified above and shall consult with:

    1. the Deans of the Colleges and others directly reporting to the Provost,
    2. other Executive Officers,
    3. academic Department Chairs,
    4. faculty, students and staff who have direct knowledge of the Provost’s performance and the position's tasks, to include an opportunity for additional commentary by other faculty,
    5. others as the President may deem appropriate, and
    6. the Provost on his or her self-evaluation.
  2. Deans of Colleges

    Evaluation of Deans of Colleges is a continuing process and is the responsibility of the Provost, to whom they immediately report. In the continuing process of evaluation of the administrative performance of Deans, the Provost may seek such formal or informal faculty, student, staff, and administrator consultation as he or she deems advisable.

    Under normal circumstances, a Dean shall be formally evaluated not later than the end of a six-year period of service. Normally, formal evaluation shall be conducted during the fall semester. In a formal evaluation, the Provost follows the evaluative principles and criteria enumerated above and shall consult with:

    1. the Department Chairs in the college,
    2. faculty, students and staff in the college and in other colleges as appropriate, to include an opportunity for input by all faculty members in the affected college,
    3. the Deans of other colleges,
    4. other persons as the Provost may deem appropriate, and
    5. the Dean on his or her written self-evaluation.

    A developmental review shall also be conducted by the Provost after the third year of service. It will normally be less extensive but shall consider the same performance elements as the formal review which is conducted in the sixth year.

    The decision concerning reappointment, non-reappointment, or reassignment is made by the President upon the recommendation of the Provost.

  3. Academic Department Chairs

    Evaluation of academic Department Chairs is a continuing process and is the responsibility of the Dean of the College. In the continuing process of evaluation of the administrative performance of academic Department Chairs, the Dean may seek such formal or informal faculty, student, staff and administrator consultation as he or she deems advisable. At the request of the Provost, the Dean shall prepare and submit to the Provost a report evaluating the administrative performance of an academic Department Chair.

    Under normal circumstances, a Department Chair shall be formally evaluated not later than the end of a three-year period of service. Normally, formal evaluation shall be conducted during the fall semester. In a formal evaluation, the Dean follows the evaluative principles and criteria enumerated above and shall consult with:

    1. the Provost;
    2. the voting members of the department faculty;
    3. students and staff in the department;
    4. faculty and students in other colleges as appropriate;
    5. such other persons as the Dean may deem appropriate; and
    6. the Department Chair on his or her written self-evaluation.

    Following the formal evaluation, the Dean shall report the results of the evaluation and his or her recommendation to the Provost. The Provost will submit the Dean's evaluation report, along with his or her recommendation, to the President or his or her designee, who will make the final decision concerning reappointment, non-reappointment, or reassignment of the Department Chair.

Definitions:

Academic administrator – refers to the chief academic officer (vice president for academic affairs & provost), deans, department chairs, and directors of academic units.