ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCEDURES
Version 3.0 (12/3/08 DRAFT)
OVERVIEW
In 2008-09, the following TWO processes will be incorporated into the existing procedures for
the Annual Report and Annual Performance Review of Academic Administrators.


Faculty and Staff Evaluation of the Managerial Effectiveness of Academic
Administrators (FSE)
Peer and Proximate Peer Evaluation of Administrators (PPE), 360 degree Review
These procedures apply to the following academic administrative positions and assume the
indicated reporting relationships:
Administrator:
Chairs
Assistant/Associate Deans
Directors of KSU Press/Siegel Institute/CETL/IGI
Deans/Associate Provost/Academic VPs/Asst. & Assoc. VPs
Provost
Supervisor:
Deans
Deans
Associate Provost
Provost
President
Procedures for Faculty and Staff Evaluation
of the Managerial Effectiveness of Academic Administrators (FSE)
The full-time Faculty and Staff Evaluation of the Managerial Effectiveness of Academic
Administrators (FSE) will be completed and results returned to Administrators and Supervisors
by XXXX each year. The FSE procedures are intended to introduce a faculty/staff evaluation
component into existing academic administrative review procedures; they are not designed to
replace existing procedures. The FSE process is intended to enhance transparency, increase
faculty and staff confidence in the integrity of the academic administrative review process, and
create a more robust academic administrative review process that takes into account faculty and
staff perspectives and knowledge regarding (among other things) program delivery, curriculum
development, policy development and implementation, and university leadership.
All faculty and staff reporting to the Administrator will receive the FSE instrument and be
encouraged to participate. All faculty and staff will have the opportunity to evaluate the Provost,
Associate Provost, Academic Vice Presidents, Assistant/Associate Academic Vice Presidents,
and/or Directors in their unit. All college faculty and staff will have the opportunity to evaluate
the college’s Dean and Assistant/Associate Deans. All departmental faculty and staff will have
the opportunity to evaluate the department Chair.
FSE questions will include but not be limited to those found in the attached instrument.
Colleges, departments and other units are encouraged to include additional evaluation tools as
needed. Department Faculty Councils may consult with their respective chairs to prepare
1
additional questions for the evaluation, and College Faculty Councils may consult with their
respective deans. The administrator being evaluated may also suggest additional questions for
the evaluation. Likewise the Faculty Senate Executive Committee may follow the same process
with the Provost and others for whom they serve as the evaluation committee. The supervisor of
the administrator being evaluated will make the final determination of the questions if the
administrator and his/her advisory committee cannot agree.
To assure the confidentiality of respondents, the FSE data will be collected and handled by the
Office of Institutional Research or a contractor not associated with KSU. Data will not be
collected and handled by an office or personnel operating under Academic Affairs.
Quantitative and qualitative data returned from the FSE will be provided to the Administrator,
the Administrator’s Supervisor, and the Review Committee (see Table 1).
It is the responsibility of the Administrator to maintain any FSE evaluation data he/she may
decide to use for longitudinal analysis.
FSE Review Committees and FSE Review by Faculty
FSE Review Committees shall be formed to review FSE results, and to develop a “Review by
Faculty,” document. The FSE Review Committees shall consist of three faculty elected from all
tenured members of the councils outlined in Table 1. Review Committee elections shall be
completed by XXXX.
Review by Faculty. The Supervisor will provide the Review Committee the results of the FSE
and the previous year’s APR for the administrator under review. After reviewing the results of
the FSE and the previous year’s APR, the Review Committee shall prepare a formal, written FSE
Review by Faculty document which includes perceived strengths and weaknesses of the
administrator under review (with copy to the Administrator) by XXXX.
Administrator’s Annual Report Document (ARD)
The Administrator shall address the results of the previous year’s FSE, the FSE Review by
Faculty, and progress toward meeting related management objectives in his/her Annual Report
(AR). The Annual Report will also include how an administrator’s perceived strengths and
weaknesses will be addressed.
Administrator’s Annual Performance Review (APR)
The Supervisor shall address the results of the FSE and the FSE Review by Faculty in the
Administrator’s Annual Performance Review (APR). The Administrator’s APR shall be
reviewed and discussed by the Administrator and Supervisor. The Administrator shall have the
opportunity to respond to the APR in writing within 10 days, with copies to the Supervisor, and
next level of Supervision. A copy of the APR shall be signed by both the Administrator and
Supervisor, and then submitted to the next administrative level for review and signature.
Availability of Data and APRs
Copies of each academic administrator’s APR, including the primary data, will be on file in the
Office of Institutional Research for review by appointment by all those who report (directly or
2
indirectly) to the Administrator. Copies of the Provost’s APR will be on file in the President’s
Office for review by appointment by all those who directly participated in the Provost’s
evaluation. It is the responsibility of the Supervisor the Office of Institutional Research to
maintain and make available for review the quantitative and qualitative FSE data and the APRs
on his/her Administrators for a period of one year. Primary and aggregated data and APRs will
be maintained according to the university’s records management and Board of Regent’s records
retention policies.
If we drop what I suggest out of the above, the paragraph would read like this: Copies of
each academic administrator’s APR, including the primary data, will be on file in the
Office of Institutional Research for review by faculty, staff, and administrators. It is the
responsibility of the Office of Institutional Research to maintain and make available for
review the quantitative and qualitative FSE data and the APRs for a period of one year.
Primary and aggregated data and APRs will be maintained according to the university’s
records management and Board of Regent’s records retention policies.
Administrator
Chairs
TABLE 1. Reporting Relationships and Review Committees
Supervisor
Next Level of Supervision
Dean
Provost
Assistant/Associate Deans
Dean
Provost
AVPs/KSU
Press/SI/CE/CETL/IGI
Deans/Provost/AVPs
Associate Provost
Provost
Provost
President
Provost
President
FSE Review Committee
3 faculty elected from the
tenured members of DFC1
3 faculty elected from the
tenured members of CFC
3 faculty elected from the
tenured members of FSEC
3 faculty elected from the
tenured members of CFC
3 faculty elected from the
tenured members of FSEC
Peer and Proximate Peer Procedures for Evaluation of Academic Administrators (PPE)
360 Degree Review
To provide broader data for professional development plans and annual performance reviews, a
Peer and Proximate Peer Evaluation of Academic Administrators (PPE) shall be completed every
three years as part of a Comprehensive Review. By XXXX, the Supervisor shall establish and
publish to his/her Administrators an appropriate rotation cycle for the PPE
In the year the Academic Administrator is to complete the PPE, the following procedures apply:
By XXX, each Administrator shall provide his/her Supervisor the names of four "peers
and approximate peers" and four "direct reports and approximate direct reports." The
Supervisor will invite two people from each of the two groups to respond to the PPE
questionnaire (for a total of four people). See PPE questionnaire attached.
Or “alternative body” as specified in section II.c. of the 16 April 2007 enabling measure, “Departmental Bylaws
and Department Faculty Council (DFCs),” available at http://www.kennesaw.edu/aaup/GovDFC.htm.
1
3
Additionally, the Supervisor shall invite two people who are "peers and approximate
peers" whose names were not submitted by the Administrator to complete the PPE
questionnaire, and two people who are "direct reports and approximate direct reports"
whose names were not submitted by the Administrator to complete the questionnaire (for
a total of four people). The Supervisor should seek reviewers who have a substantive
working relationship with the Administrator.
In sum, eight people will be invited to complete the PPE questionnaire.
The Supervisor shall provide an envelope addressed to him/her and marked
“confidential” in which the completed PPE questionnaire can be returned. Only the
Supervisor will have access to the completed PPE questionnaires.
Responses to the PPE shall be compiled in such as way as to ensure the anonymity of the
reviewers, and then provided to the Administrator by XXXXX.
The Administrator shall address the PPE results in his/her Annual Report to the
Supervisor.
The Supervisor shall address the PPE results in the Administrator’s Annual Performance
Review.
The Supervisor or the next highest level Administrator may recommend that the Comprehensive
Review be repeated annually. Such a recommendation should be made in the Administrator’s
Annual Performance Review.
4
Kennesaw State University
Faculty and Staff Evaluation of the Managerial Effectiveness of Academic Administrators
Rate the effectiveness of the Administrator on the following items that describe managerial
competencies and behaviors associated with each competency using the scale below. Not all
items may apply to your relationship with the Administrator as the instrument is meant to survey
both faculty and staff concerns. If you encounter an item for which you have no impression or
perception of the Administrator’s performance, then please select the No Opinion alternative. In
order to keep the instrument relatively short, you will note that several related behaviors are
described together in each item. If there is an item where you would prefer to rate the
Administrator highly on some behaviors but not on others, please make an overall rating but
provide a comment that describes your ratings of the individual behaviors in that item.
A - Very Effective Almost always demonstrates this set of behaviors
B - Effective Usually demonstrates this set of behaviors
C - Somewhat effective Sometimes demonstrates this set of behaviors
D - Ineffective Almost never demonstrates this set of behaviors
E - No Opinion Insufficient observations to evaluate behavior/not applicable
1. Vision and Goal Setting: Communicates a vision and goals that build upon the
College’s/Department's mission and identifies practical strategies for achieving the vision and
goals.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
2. Implementing Goals: Implements goals and strategies with appropriate levels of input and
support from faculty and staff.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
3. Institutional Strategic Planning: Communicates and advances key action steps in the
University's Strategic Plan within the Unit (e.g., developing undergraduate and graduate degree
programs; increasing off-site and online delivery of courses and programs; expanding global
learning opportunities for students, faculty, and staff; and implementing strategies to increase
student retention, progression, and graduation).
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
4. Advocacy: Advocates successfully for the Unit to obtain needed resources and favorable
decisions from the University's administration and from appropriate external constituents (e.g.,
prospective students, professional societies, accrediting agencies, state and local organizations,
and sources for external funding).
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
5. Setting Standards of Performance: Communicates clear, specific, and appropriate standards
of performance in teaching, research and creative activities, and service for faculty at various
career stages.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
5
6. Faculty Professional Development: Encourages, supports, and provides resources for the
professional development of faculty in teaching, research and creative activities, and service.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
7. Staff Training and Professional Development: Encourages, supports, and provides
resources for the training and professional development of staff and student assistants.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
8. Tenure and Promotion Decisions: Follows University tenure and promotion/post-tenure
review guidelines and collects sufficient information to make informed personnel decisions.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
9. Interpersonal Relationships: Demonstrates an understanding of the needs and concerns of
faculty, staff, and students; treats everyone with respect; and is open and accessible to all.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
10. Problem Solving and Conflict Resolution: Demonstrates awareness of current problems
and conflicts, takes appropriate steps to resolve them, and works proactively to reduce future
problems or conflicts.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
11. Student Relations: Provides sufficient direction and support for student advisement, career
planning and placement, student organizations within the College/Department, and handling
student complaints.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
12. Principles and Integrity: Takes a principled and informed stance on matters of concern to
the department, College,
and/or University and demonstrates integrity when interacting with others.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
13. Fairness: Demonstrates fairness in relations with faculty and staff (e.g., in scheduling classes
and other work assignments, allocating resources, handling conflicts, and responding to requests
in a timely manner).
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
14. Diversity: Demonstrates commitment to advancing and supporting equal employment
opportunities and sensitivity to diversity and equity concerns of faculty, staff, and students.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
15. Shared Governance: Provides faculty and staff sufficient levels of responsibility and
authority to participate effectively in shared governance, establishes appropriate Unit committees
and keeps apprised of their work, and involves students as appropriate in decision making.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
6
16. Unit Meetings: Plans and effectively conducts regularly scheduled Unit meetings.
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
17. Fiscal Responsibility: Demonstrates good fiscal responsibility in managing the departmental
budget and plans appropriately for future budgetary needs (e.g., for faculty, staff, space,
technology, and other resources).
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
18. Management, Program Monitoring, and Assessment: Monitors and addresses deficiencies
in program effectiveness/resourcefulness (i.e., registration, classroom scheduling, staffing,
assessment of student learning, needs of students and the community).
Please add any additional comments you may have on the above.
19. Overall Effectiveness: Please rate the overall effectiveness of the Administrator.
Please add any additional comments you may have regarding the effectiveness of the
Administrator.
7
Peer and Proximate Peer Questionnaire for Evaluation of Administrators
Administrator Being Reviewed:____________________________
1. How do you assess the over-all performance of the administrator?
 Excellent
 Above average
 Average
 Below average
 Far below average
No Opinion Insufficient observations to evaluate behavior/not applicable
2. How do you assess the administrator as a leader?
 Excellent
 Above average
 Average
 Below average
 Far below average
3. Does the administrator respond quickly to communications from you?
 Always
 Usually,
 Sometimes, i.e. on occasion
 Rarely
 Almost never, or never
4. When issues arise, does the administrator move promptly to resolve them?





Always
Usually
Sometimes, i.e. on occasion
Rarely
Almost never, or never
5. Is the administrator open to suggestions and ideas from you?





Always
Usually
Sometimes, i.e. on occasion
Rarely
Almost never, or never
8
6. Please provide your assessment of the over-all performance of the administrator.
7. In which areas, if any, does the administrator need to improve?
8. Please provide any other comments that you think may help me provide a fair, objective,
and constructive assessment of the administrator.
Thank you again for responding to this Peer and Proximate Peer Questionnaire. Your
responses will be key parts of my annual review of the administrator named above. I will
be the only person who sees your responses.
Sincerely,
NAME
9