TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
Office of Institutional Research
Administrator Evaluation Survey - 2015
Executive Summary of Results
Date: 02/12/2016
Introduction
Since 2007, Institutional Research in conjunction with the Faculty Senate has conducted a survey
for evaluating academic administrators. For the 2015 survey, the provost, deans, and department
heads were evaluated. Three different groups of faculty and faculty-administrators were invited
to participate. First, the teaching faculty (instructor through professor, including visiting and
adjunct faculty) were asked to evaluate their chair and/or dean as well as the provost.
(Respondents may decline to evaluate any particular official.) Second, chairs and other mid-level
administrators evaluated their dean and the provost. Third, evaluating only the provost were
deans and other executives reporting to the provost. The survey was conducted over a 5-week
period beginning in mid-November.
Evaluations are based on sixteen questions regarding the following: promoting research,
scholarship, teaching and service, effective representation, having an open and transparent
administration, representing faculty interests, seeking faculty input, supporting faculty
development, having an effective staff, implementing a good strategic plan, managing finances,
promoting cooperation, supporting a good tenure and promotion process, promoting diversity,
and in inspiring confidence. (Respondents may decline to respond to any of the questions.)
Respondents may also comment about each official being evaluated.
Published later in this report are detailed tables that provide for each administrator the results by
population and question, giving the count, mean, median, maximum, minimum, and distribution
of scores as well as the standard deviation, standard error and ratio of high scores to low scores.
A minimum number of responses (by count and percentage) is required for reporting. Three
additional tables list comparative mean scores by question, population, and administrator.
Comments are made available separately. (Given changes in administrators and participant
categories from one survey to the next, there are no rating comparisons over time.)
Descriptive Data
Of the general faculty, 396 (28%) evaluated the provost, 554 (39.3%) evaluated a dean
and 593 (41.9%) evaluated a department head.
Of chairs, directors, associate/assistant deans and other mid-level administrators, 71 (43%)
evaluated the provost, and 78 (47%) evaluated a dean.
Of deans and provost-office administrators 10 (56%) participated in evaluating the provost.
Regarding Provost. Deans gave the provost an overall rating mean of 4.16 (±0.08). The
evaluations by the chairs and other mid-level administrators gave 4.19 (±0.03). The general faculty
scored the provost as 3.85 (±0.01).
The chairs-level group gave the provost ratings of 4.0 or higher on 12 questions out of 16, while
the deans-level group scored 11 questions at that high level and the faculty gave 4 questions out
of 16 questions at that high level. For promoting research, scholarship and teaching the provost
earned ratings well above 4.0 from all three populations.
The only issue of comparative weakness is “Has a clear strategic plan and allocates resources
consistently with that plan” (3.80 by the deans, 3.97 by chairs and 3.73 by the general faculty).
Summative charts appear below for each evaluating group.
Mean Evaluation Scores of the Provost by Deans
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores of the Provost by Chairs & Assoc/Asst Deans
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores of the Provost by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Question data for the Provost by evaluator:
Provost by Deans
1. Research &
Scholarship
8
6
4
2
0
2.Teaching
Excellence
8
6
4
2
0
8
6
4
2
0
123 45
7. Supports Fac
Devel
8
6
4
2
0
1 234 5
8. Promotion &
Tenure
8
6
4
2
0
12345
12345
13. Financial
Mgmt
14. Open and
Transparent
8
6
4
2
0
12345
3. Institinl. &
Public service
8
6
4
2
0
12345
Response 56%
4. Represents
8
6
4
2
0
8
6
4
2
0
10. Inspires
Confidence
8
6
4
2
0
12345
15. Effective
Staff
8
6
4
2
0
12345
8
6
4
2
0
12345
123 45
9. Promotes
Diversity
5 .Responsive
Fac Interest
11. Fair and
Rigorous
8
6
4
2
0
12345
16. Promotes
cooperation
ALL Questions
12345
8
6
4
2
0
12345
12345
8
6
4
2
0
6. Seeks Fac
Input
160
128
96
64
32
0
12345
12345
12. Strategic
Plan
8
6
4
2
0
12345
Provost by Chairs and Assoc. /Asst. Deans
1. Research &
Scholarship
40
30
20
10
0
2.Teaching
Excellence
40
30
20
10
0
40
30
20
10
0
12345
12345
7. Supports Fac
devel
8. Promotion &
Tenure
40
30
20
10
0
40
30
20
10
0
12345
13. Financial
Mgmt
40
30
20
10
0
12345
12345
15. Effective
Staff
40
30
20
10
0
12345
11. Fair and
rigorous
12345
12. Strategic
plan
40
30
20
10
0
12345
12345
16. Promotes
cooperation
ALL Questions
12345
6. Seeks Fac
input
40
30
20
10
0
40
30
20
10
0
40
30
20
10
0
12345
5 .Responsive
Fac Interest
10. Inspires
Confidence
40
30
20
10
0
40
30
20
10
0
12345
40
30
20
10
0
9. Promotes
Diversity
12345
14. Open and
transparent
4. Represents
12345
40
30
20
10
0
40
30
20
10
0
12345
3. Institinl. &
Public service
43% Response
500
400
300
200
100
0
12345
12345
Provost by Faculty
1. Research &
Scholarship
160
120
80
40
0
28% Response
2.Teaching
Excellence
160
120
80
40
0
160
120
80
40
0
12345
12345
7. Supports Fac
devel
8. Promotion &
Tenure
160
120
80
40
0
160
120
80
40
0
12345
13. Financial
Mgmt
160
120
80
40
0
40
0
9. Promotes
Diversity
12345
10. Inspires
Confidence
160
120
80
40
0
12345
15. Effective
Staff
12345
11. Fair and
rigorous
12345
12. Strategic
plan
160
120
80
40
0
12345
12345
16. Promotes
cooperation
ALL Questions
2000
1500
1000
500
0
12345
6. Seeks Fac
input
160
120
80
40
0
160
120
80
40
0
160
120
80
40
0
12345
5 .Responsive
Fac Interest
160
120
80
40
0
80
160
120
80
40
0
12345
160
12345
12345
14. Open and
transparent
4. Represents
120
160
120
80
40
0
160
120
80
40
0
12345
3. Institinl. &
Public service
12345
12345
Regarding Deans. As evaluated by chairs, associate/assistant deans, and other mid-level
academic leaders, deans earned a 3.84 (±0.04) rating.
Only nine deans had enough ratings for reporting individually. Of those, three had overall rating
averages between 4.23 and 4.66. The leaders of Agriculture and Human Sciences had all the 16
questions scored above 4.0 and College of Education Dean had 12 questions scored at 4.0 or above.
And the college of Agriculture Dean had two unanimous 5.0 ratings. The lowest overall average
was for the Dean of Rawls College of Business 3.02 (±0.16). None of the deans where rated below
3.0 by the chairs.
Overall, the mid-level administrators judged deans best at promoting research & scholarly
excellence (4.37), while being weakest at Administering in an open and transparent manner (3.26)
and inviting faculty input into decision making (3.32) is another area needing some improvement.
The general faculty tended to be much more critical of deans. The average rating was (3.25, ±0.02).
The highest ratings went to Dean Perlmutter of Media & Communication (4.16, ±0.07). The next
best is Dean Galyean of Agriculture (4.11, ±0.04). Also well regarded were Dean Gerlich of
Library (3.90, ±0.05), Dean Hoover of Human Sciences (3.77, ±0.05) and Dean Edwards of Visual
& Performing Arts (3.68, ±0.04).
However, three deans had overall rating averages a little below 3.0 by the faculty: Dean Nail of
the Rawls College of Business (2.91, ±0.06), Dean Vernooy of the College of Architecture (2.81,
±0.08), and Dean Lindquist of the College of Arts & Sciences (2.68, ±0.02).
The primary weakness as viewed by the faculty and chairs was on two counts. One was “seeks
faculty input in decision making” and the other one was “administers in open and transparent
manner”. Out of 21 ratings, 10 ratings (48%) evaluated below 3.0 score.
Summative charts regarding Deans appear on the following pages:
Mean Evaluation Scores of all Deans by all Chairs
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores of all Deans by all Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Question Data for Deans by Evaluator:
Deans by Chairs and Other Administrators
1. Research &
Scholarship
45
36
27
18
9
0
2.Teaching
Excellence
45
36
27
18
9
0
45
36
27
18
9
0
12345
12345
7. Supports Fac
devel
8. Promotion &
Tenure
45
36
27
18
9
0
45
36
27
18
9
0
12345
13. Financial
Mgmt
45
36
27
18
9
0
12345
12345
10. Inspires
Confidence
11. Fair and
rigorous
45
36
27
18
9
0
12345
16. Promotes
cooperation
ALL Questions
500
400
300
200
100
0
12345
12345
12. Strategic
plan
45
36
27
18
9
0
12345
45
36
27
18
9
0
6. Seeks Fac
input
45
36
27
18
9
0
12345
12345
15. Effective
Staff
5 .Responsive
Fac Interest
45
36
27
18
9
0
45
36
27
18
9
0
45
36
27
18
9
0
12345
45
36
27
18
9
0
9. Promotes
Diversity
12345
14. Open and
transparent
4. Represents
12345
45
36
27
18
9
0
45
36
27
18
9
0
12345
3. Institinl. &
Public service
47% Response
12345
12345
Deans by Faculty
1. Research &
Scholarship
200
150
100
50
0
39% Response
2.Teaching
Excellence
200
150
100
50
0
200
150
100
50
0
12345
12345
7. Supports Fac
devel
8. Promotion &
Tenure
200
150
100
50
0
200
150
100
50
0
12345
13. Financial
Mgmt
200
150
100
50
0
50
0
9. Promotes
Diversity
12345
10. Inspires
Confidence
200
150
100
50
0
12345
15. Effective
Staff
12345
11. Fair and
rigorous
12345
12. Strategic
plan
200
150
100
50
0
12345
12345
16. Promotes
cooperation
ALL Questions
2000
1500
1000
500
0
12345
6. Seeks Fac
input
200
150
100
50
0
200
150
100
50
0
200
150
100
50
0
12345
5 .Responsive
Fac Interest
200
150
100
50
0
100
200
150
100
50
0
12345
200
12345
12345
14. Open and
transparent
4. Represents
150
200
150
100
50
0
200
150
100
50
0
12345
3. Institinl. &
Public service
12345
12345
Deans as Evaluated by Chairs and Faculty by College
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Agricultral Science and Natural
Resources by Chairs and Other Mid-level Administrators
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Agricultral Science and Natural
Resources by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
College of Architecture
Charting by chairs is not applicable for this college.
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Architecture by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Arts and Sciences by Chairs and Other
Mid-level Administrators
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Arts and Sciences by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean Rawls College of Business by Chairs and Other
Mid-level Administrators
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean Rawls College of Business by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Education by Chairs and Other Midlevel Administrators
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Education by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Engineering by Chairs and Other Midlevel Administrators
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Engineering by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Human Sciences by Chairs and Other
Mid-level Administrators
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Human Sciences by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
School of Law
Charting by faculty is not applicable for this college.
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean School of Law by Chairs and Other Mid-level
Administrators
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Library
Charting by chairs is not applicable for this school.
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean of the Library by Faculty of the School
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Media and Communication by Chairs
and Other Mid-level Administrators
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Media and Communication by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Visual and Performing Arts by Chairs
and Other Mid-level Administrators
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - Dean College of Visual and Performing Arts by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Regarding Chairs:
Regarding Chairpersons, Directors, Coordinators, etc. The faculty awarded department heads a 3.91
(±0.01) overall mean.
Twenty two departments out of 46 had rating averages above 4.0 and as high as 4.99 (for the Department
of Public Relations).
The leaders of the following units earned high ratings on all 16 dimensions:
1
AG-AGCO - Fraze
2
AG-NRM - Wallace
3
AS-HIST - Cunningham
4
AS-PSY - Morgan
5
AS-SASW - Houk
6
BA-FIN - Mercer
7
HS-CFAS - Shumway
8
MC-PR - Seltzer
9
VPA-MUSIC - Ballenger
Another five departments had 15 of the 16 questions averaging at or above 4.0.
1
AG-PSS - Hequet
2
AS-PHIL - Webb
3
BA-ACCT - Ricketts
4
HS-PFP - Hampton
5
MC-MCOM - Ott
Another three departments had 14 of the 16 questions at or above 4.0
1
AS-MATH - Toda
2
BA-MGT - Fried
3
HS-DOD - Parkinson
Actively promotes research and scholarly excellence earned 25 of 46 units had a 4.0 rating or better and 21
rating in the Mid-level ratings resulting into none of the ratings below 3.0.
Actively promotes teaching excellence is the best characteristic overall. This earned 29 of 46 units had a 4.0
rating or better. Although actively promotes teaching excellence has the best score it has earned one rating
below 3.0 from EN- CS, Hewett.
Strategic planning was the most common weakness of department leaders and this earned 8 rating below
3.00. And the second one is administering in a transparent manner earned 6 rating below 3.0.
Out of 46 ratings only two departments earned below 3.0.
1
AR-AR - Ellis
2
EN-CS - Hewett
Mean Evaluation Scores of all Chairs by all Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Question data for all the Chairs by Evaluator:
Chairs by all Faculty
1. Research &
Scholarship
300
225
150
75
0
2.Teaching
Excellence
300
225
150
75
0
300
225
150
75
0
12345
12345
7. Supports Fac
devel
8. Promotion &
Tenure
300
225
150
75
0
300
225
150
75
0
12345
13. Financial
Mgmt
300
225
150
75
0
75
0
9. Promotes
Diversity
12345
10. Inspires
Confidence
300
225
150
75
0
12345
15. Effective
Staff
12345
11. Fair and
rigorous
12345
12. Strategic
plan
300
225
150
75
0
12345
12345
16. Promotes
cooperation
ALL Questions
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
12345
6. Seeks Fac
input
300
225
150
75
0
300
225
150
75
0
300
225
150
75
0
12345
5 .Responsive
Fac Interest
300
225
150
75
0
150
300
225
150
75
0
12345
300
12345
12345
14. Open and
transparent
4. Represents
225
300
225
150
75
0
300
225
150
75
0
12345
3. Institinl. &
Public service
Response Rate 593 (41.9%)
12345
12345
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
College of Arts and Sciences by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
College of Agricultral Science and Natural Resources by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
College of Architecture by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
Rawls College of Business by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
College of Education by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
College of Engineering by Faculty
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
College of Human Sciences by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
Library by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
College of Media and Communication by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Mean Evaluation Scores - All Chair and Other Mid-level Administrators in the
College of Visual and Performing Arts by Faculty
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
This concludes the Executive Summary.