Policy 4.12 - Review of Administrators

BLACK HILLS STATE UNIVERSITY

Policy and Procedure Manual

SUBJECT: Review of Administrators

NUMBER: 4:12

Office: Office of the President

Purpose

This policy and its procedures establish the protocols for the 360 degree reviews of university administrators in order to assess administrative effectiveness, provide feedback to assist supervisors in their evaluation responsibilities, assist in planning and decision-making, and help facilitate the evaluation of the administrator鈥檚 employment.

Policy

The Administrator review provides input into the systematic evaluation of the performance of individuals serving as vice presidents, college deans and chairs at least every five years, using a standard process. Assistant or associate vice presidents and deans are typically not evaluated via this process. Those positions should be evaluated via the standard annual evaluation for their position. The results of the performance evaluation should be available no later than the middle of the spring semester of the fifth year of service and every following fifth year. A systematic performance evaluation and thus a review may be conducted prior to the fifth year if requested by an administrator or if deemed appropriate by the supervisor.

Procedures

The Process
1. The survey will be initiated and conducted by Human Resources in the Fall semester for each applicable employee.
2. Responses will be anonymous and shared with the direct supervisor, including the Vice President of the area if applicable, and the President.
Procedures Plan for the Review
1. Human Resources will maintain a tracking mechanism for who is due for review each year.
2. Employees will be notified by August in each review year that they will be evaluated.
3. The survey will be sent out by September 15 with a completion deadline of October 15.
4. All results will be released to the direct supervisor, including the Vice President of the area if applicable, and President by October 31.
5. The supervisor, Vice President, or President responsible for providing feedback shall meet with the employee evaluated no later than December 1 to provide results and coaching for possible areas of improvement.
If any areas of opportunity are noted in the evaluation, the supervisor shall document that in the next annual evaluation, along with any goals created to improve in those areas.
Survey Questions (The University reserves the right to add or modify the standard list of questions below. Any modification will be disclosed up front to the employee being evaluated.) The Faculty Senate reserves the right to suggest new questions or to suggest modifications of current questions, due by the first May meeting of the school year.
1. Chair
  1. The chair is accessible.
  2. The chair works well with others.
  3. The chair encourages participation in decision-making.
  4. The chair communicates both regularly and effectively, and promotes transparency, where/when appropriate.
  5. The chair is open to new ideas and suggestions.
  6. The chair is organized.
  7. The chair is concerned about the unit's curriculum.
  8. The chair represents the unit and its programs effectively.
  9. The chair has prioritized and is engaged with accreditation.
  10. The chair is an advocate for and engaged with assessment.
  11. The chair is an effective administrator and leader.
  12. Overall this chair has provided excellent leadership
  13. I have confidence in the chair鈥檚 ability to provide future leadership in this position.
  14. Free Form Questions:
    1. What should this chair do more of and/or do better?
    2. What has this chair done especially well?
2. Dean
  1. The dean is accessible.
  2. The dean works well with others.
  3. The dean encourages participation in decision-making.
  4. The dean communicates both regularly and effectively, and promotes transparency, where/when appropriate.
  5. The dean is open to new ideas and suggestions.
  6. The dean is organized.
  7. The dean is concerned about the unit's curriculum.
  8. The dean represents the unit and its programs effectively.
  9. The dean has prioritized and is engaged with accreditation.
  10. The dean is an advocate for and engaged with assessment.
  11. The dean is an effective administrator and leader.
  12. The dean is effective at creating new resources through fundraising activities.
  13. Overall the dean has provided excellent leadership
  14. I have confidence in the dean鈥檚 ability to provide future leadership in this position.
  15. Free Form Questions:
    1. What should the dean do more of and/or do better?
    2. What has the dean done especially well?
3. Vice Presidents, AVP, Associate Provost
  1. The administrator is accessible.
  2. The administrator works well with others.
  3. The administrator displays knowledge/expertise required for this position.
  4. The administrator makes wise decisions, judgements, and recommendations.
  5. The administrator encourages participation in decision-making.
  6. The administrator communicates both regularly and effectively, and promotes transparency, where/when appropriate.
  7. The administrator earns the trust and respect of others.
  8. The administrator contributes positively to the institution鈥檚 image.
  9. The administrator is open to new ideas and suggestions.
  10. The administrator is organized.
  11. The administrator is an effective administrator and leader.
  12. Overall, this administrator has provided excellent leadership
  13. I have confidence in the administrator鈥檚 ability to provide future leadership in this position.
  14. Free Form Questions:
    1. What should the administrator do more of and/or do better?
    2. What has the administrator done especially well?
Input into the Review
1. Faculty, Staff and Students: Input from the faculty and staff of the school/department is very important. All direct reports will be asked to participate in the survey. Additional employees from within the department, or the administrator鈥檚 downline, may be asked to participate in the survey as well. When appropriate, students should be included in the process, drawing input from the students most likely to have had significant engagement with the individual under review.
2. Campus colleagues: Selected colleagues who would be able to provide meaningful feedback, and peers in comparable positions on campus should be asked for input.
3. External input: When appropriate, perspectives from relevant external audiences, peers, and stakeholders may be useful.
Confidentiality of Input into the Review
1. Confidentiality is critical and essential for the success of the review. All input shall be confidential and no individual or person contributing input shall be identified with the input they provide. Likewise, the results of the review are also confidential and shall only be shared with the supervisor, applicable Vice President, and the President.
Use of Results
1. Once the evaluation is completed, a summary report of feedback will be produced and disseminated by the Office of Human Resources to the applicable supervisor, Dean (if applicable), Vice President, Provost, and the President.
2. The supervisor shall meet with the employee to provide individual feedback which should be shared with the chair, dean, or administrator.
3. If needed, the supervisor and the employee will establish specific goals and training opportunities for improvement. The employee, for whom the survey is conducted, should be included in the goal setting process to aid in buy-in and successful implementation.
4. Results and any goals/instructions for improvement should be documented in the upcoming performance evaluation.
5. 360 degree surveys will not be used as the sole criterion for the annual evaluation and/or any personnel actions.

Responsible Administrator

The University President or designee is responsible for annual and ad hoc review of this policy and annual review of procedures. The University President is responsible for annual approval

Source and Revision History

Adopted by President 2021.10.28; Revised 2022.06.16; Revised 2026.06.30

黑料网