Administrator Evaluation Surveys 2015
All Chairs and Other Mid-Level Administrators evaluated by All Faculty
Survey participation: 593 (41.9%)
1
2
Actively
Actively
promotes
promotes
research and
teaching
scholarly
excellence
excellence
Statistics
3
Actively
promotes
excellence in
institutional
and public
service
4
5
6
Seeks
Effectively Is responsive
faculty input
represents the
to faculty
in decision
department
interests
making
7
Supports
faculty
development
8
9
Conducts fair Actively
and rigorous promotes
tenure and
diversity
promotion
within the
processes
department
10
Overall, this
leader inspires
confidence
11
12
Has a clear
Conducts fair and
strategic plan
rigorous processes
and allocates
to hire new faculty
resources
members in the
consistently
department
with that plan
13
Effectively
manages
financial
resources
14
15
Administers
Has an effective
in an open
and competent
and
administrative
transparent
staff
manner
16
Promotes
cooperation
between
disciplines
within the
department
ALL
Count
Average
Maximum
Median
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Standard Error (±)
579
4.06
5
4
1
1.12
0.05
583
4.04
5
4
1
1.11
0.05
575
3.98
5
4
1
1.09
0.05
584
3.89
5
4
1
1.28
0.05
588
3.94
5
4
1
1.29
0.05
587
3.81
5
4
1
1.38
0.06
578
4.08
5
5
1
1.17
0.05
489
3.92
5
4
1
1.25
0.06
551
3.97
5
4
1
1.13
0.05
590
3.79
5
4
1
1.37
0.06
524
3.92
5
4
1
1.23
0.05
574
3.61
5
4
1
1.35
0.06
535
3.92
5
4
1
1.21
0.05
590
3.75
5
4
1
1.41
0.06
577
4.05
5
4
1
1.12
0.05
553
3.82
5
4
1
1.25
0.05
9057
3.91
5
4
1
1.24
0.01
No-Response out of : 593
14
2%
10
2%
18
3%
9
2%
5
1%
6
1%
15
3%
104
18%
42
7%
3
1%
69
12%
19
3%
58
10%
3
1%
16
3%
40
7%
431
5%
22
48
68
177
264
579
26
35
86
177
259
583
23
36
105
178
233
575
43
58
85
131
267
584
48
49
72
139
280
588
63
58
72
130
264
587
31
38
78
139
292
578
35
34
92
103
225
489
22
38
113
139
239
551
68
44
90
128
260
590
36
34
101
118
235
524
63
63
115
127
206
574
32
42
98
130
233
535
69
64
67
133
257
590
26
37
84
168
262
577
39
49
109
131
225
553
646
727
1435
2248
4001
9057
3.8%
8.3%
11.7%
30.6%
45.6%
100%
4.5%
6.0%
14.8%
30.4%
44.4%
100%
4.0%
6.3%
18.3%
31.0%
40.5%
100%
7.4%
9.9%
14.6%
22.4%
45.7%
100%
8.2%
8.3%
12.2%
23.6%
47.6%
100%
10.7%
9.9%
12.3%
22.1%
45.0%
100%
5.4%
6.6%
13.5%
24.0%
50.5%
100%
7.2%
7.0%
18.8%
21.1%
46.0%
100%
4.0%
6.9%
20.5%
25.2%
43.4%
100%
11.5%
7.5%
15.3%
21.7%
44.1%
100%
6.9%
6.5%
19.3%
22.5%
44.8%
100%
11.0%
11.0%
20.0%
22.1%
35.9%
100%
6.0%
7.9%
18.3%
24.3%
43.6%
100%
11.7%
10.8%
11.4%
22.5%
43.6%
100%
4.5%
6.4%
14.6%
29.1%
45.4%
100%
7.1%
8.9%
19.7%
23.7%
40.7%
100%
7.1%
8.0%
15.8%
24.8%
44.2%
100%
6.3
7.1
7.0
3.9
4.3
3.3
6.2
4.8
6.3
3.5
5.0
2.6
4.9
2.9
6.8
4.0
4.6
Ratings Distribution:
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Ratio of high ratings to
low ratings
(4+5)/(1+2)[all
agreements divided by all
disagreements)
Institutional Research, 1/25/2016, page 1 of 1