Periodic Review of Senior Administrative and Academic Officers

I would like the review to be yearly. Thank you!

How about once a year like faculty and with an administrative action plan that is reviewed yearly

My colleagues have offered good suggestions for clarifying and revising the policy. My concern is that the questions currently asked do not providing useful review and feedback. For example, I have completed a lot of these for people, and I often cannot provide answers to questions that directly address internal workings of the unit. I can, however, answer questions that are externally facing. It seems as if the questions identified in the process section are somewhat different, but the general principle still applies--not everyone will be able to provide feedback on internal or external questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed policy changes to the periodic evaluations of academic administrators. Below are areas that I believe need to be strengthened before final approval:

1. Relationship to the Existing Policy on Periodic Review of Administrators
   The university already has an existing policy titled Periodic Review of Administrators. It appears this proposed policy is intended to replace that policy with a narrower focus on senior positions only. There should be greater transparency about the intent to narrow evaluations of administrators and limit the 360 evaluation of these critical roles.
2. Terminology Alignment with Job Families and/or Position Titles
   The proposed policy does not use the same terminology as the newly developed job families and levels. For example, Deans are categorized as Academic Administrator Level 4, but the policy refers to them as “Senior Academic Officers.” Aligning the policy language with official job family terminology would provide consistency, avoid confusion, and ensure straightforward application.
3. Inclusion of Research Leadership
   The policy lists certain areas of institutional leadership but omits Research. Considering the centrality of research to the university’s mission, it is important that covered research leadership roles (e.g., Vice Provost for Research, Associate/Assistant Vice Presidents for Research, Directors of research) be explicitly included. Using job families and levels to define Senior Administrative Officers would make coverage clearer and more transparent.
4. Scope of Positions Covered
   The existing policy titled Periodic Review of Administrators specifically names positions such as Deans, Associate/Assistant Deans, Department Chairs, Vice Provosts, Vice Presidents, Associate/Assistant Vice Presidents, etc. In contrast, this proposed policy uses more general language, making it unclear whether some roles will continue to be subject to evaluation. With “Supervisor” defined as only the President or Provost, it appears this may apply only to their direct reports. If that is the intent, the policy should state so explicitly. If not, a more detailed list of covered roles should be restored.
5. Relationship to Annual Performance Evaluations
   The draft policy does not clarify whether periodic evaluations are meant to occur in addition to the annual evaluation required by HR Policy: Employee Performance Evaluation Procedures, or in lieu of them. Clear guidance is needed to avoid policy violations.

Recommendation:
I recommend that the proposed policy be revised to (a) align with official job family titles and levels, (b) explicitly include research leadership, (c) clarify which positions are covered, and (d) explain how the periodic evaluation relates to existing annual evaluation requirements. These changes will ensure the policy is transparent, consistent, and broadly applicable across the university.

In the defined terms: 

Evaluators are "(1) persons who are "direct reports" of the next lower level in the organization structure…"

Is that supposed to be "direct reports in the next lower level…? As written, it sounds like NOT direct reports, but direct reports once removed. :) 

(This is also noted in the procedure section 2.2)

Periodic review is defined as “A summative evaluation of Senior Administrative and Academic Officer positions is…” 

We aren't evaluating the positions, but the people, so should that be "A summative evaluation of Senior Administrative and Academic Officers is…?