1	Administrative Evaluation Survey Spring 2006 Briefing for the University Senate 3 April 2006 Joseph J. Molnar, Committee Chair Yifang Gu, Graduate Research Assistant, Computer Science
2	2005-6 Administrative Evaluation Committee Joseph J. Molnar, Chair Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Brenda Allen, Forestry Judy Sheppard, Communication and Journalism Charles Mitchell, Agronomy and Soils Herb Rotfeld, Marketing Steve Murray, History Jenny Swaim, Facilities Administration
3	Agenda for Presentation Review background and purpose Summarize data collection process Present main findings
4	Background and Purpose Assessment last conducted in 2002 2006 is first web-based version 2006 focus is on department and college-level administrators Strengths-verbatim comments Areas in need of improvement-verbatim Fairness ratings Effectiveness ratings
5	Data Collection Process Web-based survey with unique URL key Target population 1,353 faculty Multiple contacts Response Analysis
6	Five Contacts Message from Provost with URL key and instructions –February 15, 2006 Reminder with URL key and instructions 2/17 Reminder with URL key and instructions 2/20 Reminder with URL key and instructions 2/20 Final call for participation 2/23 Web site closed 3/1
7	Web Survey Please click on the following URL or copy it in its entirety to your browser to start the Web survey: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/enpl//auburnorganics/survey2006/index.php?survey=###########
8	Response Target population 1,353 faculty 453 used their URL keys Two small departments with no response Colleges ranged from 18% to 58% Overall 33.5% used URL key
9
10	Percent of Each College Who Used URL Key
11	Data Dissemination Strategy Provost received all results Deans receive verbatim comments on themselves and the subordinate deans, chairs, and heads that report to them Chairs and heads receive verbatim comments and ratings of faculty they lead Oral report and own-college data to Deans Oral report to the University Senate
12	Main Findings
13	Main Findings Chairs and Heads Combined Deans Combined Extension Administrators
14	Chairs and Heads
15
16
17
18
19
20	Chair’s Main Strengths 1/2 A dedicated and hard worker A great coordinator with vision and passion A really dedicated and intelligent person who is doing this thankless job because the department needs him A vision for the future of the department and taking action to move in that direction; a genuine interest in all the students & faculty in our department Ability to effectively engage public constituents; ability to effectively represent and communicate departmental programs, issues, etc to higher administration
21	Chair’s Main Strengths 2/2 Ability to handle a diverse array of personalities in a department that is as deeply divided (faculty interests and priorities) than the federal government Ability to work with people. Can be an effective mediator between conflicting parties. Outstanding organizational abilities. Very capable of working with the higher administration Ability to get goals accomplished Able to talk and listen to anybody
22	Chair Areas in Need of Improvement 1/2 Be more open to new ideas and avenues for change and improvement of the department Be less biased toward own research area in the hiring of new faculty in the present searches Becomes argumentative and defensive rather than allowing other faculty to voice their opinions, views or recommendations. This tends to stifle the potential for effective input in departmental issues Becoming more familiar with AU policies and procedures, which will surely happen with the passage of more time on job Better at listening to input/suggestions. Willing to try new approaches
23	Chair Areas in Need of Improvement 2/2 Better cross feed of information regarding activities among faculty members Better delegation of responsibilities to area coordinators. Takes on too much responsibility on self Better planning and better management of commitments. Better marketing of the department. Better decision making regarding salary adjustments Better, more concise communication with faculty Bit too "bean counting" in evaluating faculty. Needs broader knowledge of what it means to be productive in diverse sub disciplines
24	Combined Deans
25
26
27	Dean Strengths 1/2 Ability to effectively engage public constituents Ability to interact meaningfully and sensitively diverse academic areas and personalities; scholarly demeanor, articulate communicator, sensitive and responsive to students and faculty Ability to listen and take in to serious consideration what has been asked ability to organize student matters Ability to professionally and authoritatively represent college to public constituents, especially parents and prospective students; knowledge of details of academic programs and curricula; enthusiasm, affability, interpersonal skills, sincerity Accessibility and ability to communicate goals of dean and provost
28	Dean Strengths 2/2 Accessibility, good person to talk with, willing to listen to individuals Accessible and fairly egalitarian. Fair. Firm in convictions Accessible to faculty. Institutional perspective and knowledge. Pleasant personality Actually seems to want departments and member of college to succeed! You get a very strong sense that will do whatever can for you and that can do a lot Advocate for college and faculty Very transparent in decisions made available for faculty Promptly responds to faculty concerns Listens to what faculty want and tries to help rather than imposing wishes on faculty and departments
29	Dean Areas in Need of Improvement 1/2 Could be more visible as a spokesperson on campus for the value of graduate education Could communicate better Could do a bit better at communicating between administration and grad faculty Could encourage innovative and new initiatives in college Could facilitate faculty contacts with government and industrial sponsors. Needs to take care to eradicate the appearance of continuing strong links with the previous department research faculty members Could interact more on occasion at the departmental levels. Without us dean would not be needed. Without dean we are in a fog. We need better one-on-one awareness of each other
30	Dean Areas in Need of Improvement 2/2 Could reply to e-mails promptly Could try to relax a little and communicate more with departments Credibility. Ability to relate to our constituents which are our graduates Dean needs to be able to project a better image in the public and legislative arenas Dean also lacks fairness in dealing with people from various departments showing favoritism to the department from which dean came and to people that agree with actions Dean discriminates against those that speak out
31	Extension Administrators
32
33
34
35
36	Thank You