3.3.1 Evaluation of Academic Administrators

A. Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the annual and periodic evaluation of academic administrators at The University of Texas at Tyler. The information from the evaluation process will be used to assist in making decisions regarding:

  1. improving the academic administrator's job performance;
  2. awarding merit increases; and
  3. continuing the administrator in his/her position.

B. Persons Affected

Academic administrators, Faculty, Administrators.

C. Definitions

Academic administrators at UT Tyler include the provost, deans of colleges, chairs, directors, and assistant or associate deans who have management responsibilities for an academic unit/department/school.

In this document, when the term “chair,” is used, it also refers to the unit head of an academic department as well as director, who is the head of an organized school/unit/program.

D. Annual Evaluation of Academic Administrators

Every academic administrator shall be evaluated annually by his/her superior and the evaluation must include an opportunity for anonymous input from all faculty in that unit in addition to a review of administrative performance, teaching (if appropriate), research/creative scholarship (if appropriate), and service.

The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assist the administrator in identifying strengths and areas of improvement in administration, research and teaching (if appropriate) and service.

Results of the annual evaluation will be communicated in writing to the administrator being evaluated and to the Provost/President for review.

E. Comprehensive (Fourth-Year) Evaluation of Academic Administrators

Every academic administrator shall have a comprehensive (fourth year) evaluation every four years following initial appointment to the position. The comprehensive evaluation of academic administrators is focused on administrative activities and should provide a mechanism to facilitate the development of administrative excellence. The evaluation is intended to assist in identifying those areas of performance which are strong; those areas of performance in which improvement is needed; and those aspects of the position which contribute to or hinder administrative performance.

Having identified areas in need of improvement, the subject of the evaluation will be able to develop realistic short and long-range goals for improvement. The periodic nature of the evaluation will provide a means of assessing both the extent to which superior performance and skill areas are capitalized on and the extent to which progress toward needed improvements has been made.

The comprehensive evaluation of each academic administrator is the responsibility of the individual's immediate supervisor. In addition, the comprehensive evaluation will be more extensive and must provide an opportunity for significant anonymous input by all faculty members in the administrator’s unit(s).
The manner of the review should be agreed upon in advance by the administrator and the supervisor. While the opinions and participation of the faculty are required, the supervisor may solicit input from any source, including staff, students, and campus peers he/she believes may contribute to the evaluation.

After completion of the evaluation, the supervisor will prepare a draft of the report, discuss it with the administrator, make revisions if appropriate and forward it to the Provost/President for review. Consistent with the purpose of the evaluation, the final report will be distributed only to the person being evaluated and to those administrative officials to and through whom the report is submitted.

F. Responsibilities

Not applicable.

G. Review

The Divisional Head for this policy is the Provost. This policy shall be reviewed every five years or sooner if necessary by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the Faculty Senate.

ORIGINALLY APPROVED: 12/01/2001 

LAST AMENDED: 11/09/2011