Printed on: 04/21/2019. Please go to http://policy.umn.edu for the most current version of the Policy or related document.
Procedure

Reviewing the Performance of Senior Leaders

Administrative Procedure

Introduction

The University is committed to fostering the success of its senior leaders (as defined in Board of Regents Policy: Reservations and Delegations of Authority) and enhancing their effectiveness. In addition to annual performance reviews, conducting periodic developmental and evaluative reviews of senior leaders are a means to support this commitment and are the responsibility of the appropriate responsible supervisor (president, provost, chancellor, or vice chancellor, as appropriate).

Developmental Reviews

The 360 Degree Developmental Review of senior leaders is developmental in nature, and can incorporate a coaching component, the focus of which is determined by the developmental review outcomes.

  1. Purpose

    The purpose of a standardized 360-degree web-based instrument is to assess a senior leader’s capabilities against leadership criteria and in so doing provide developmental feedback from individuals who have opportunity to observe and interact on a regular basis with the senior leader being reviewed.  The following individuals may be given an opportunity to participate in a web-based survey:

    • collegiate faculty and staff;
    • collegiate student leaders;
    • participants in faculty and staff governance:
    • senior leaders and deans;
    • others from within the University but outside of the college; and
    • individuals from outside the University who have regular interaction with the leader.
  2. Methodology

    The senior leader being reviewed selects, in collaboration with his/her supervisor, a group of raters. Raters should be individuals with whom the senior leader being reviewed regularly interacts. In addition to others providing review data, the senior leader being reviewed also completes a self-assessment.

    All raters will be informed that this is a developmental review.  The feedback will be anonymous unless a rater chooses to identify themselves.  No labels, i.e. supervisor, will be used that would allow a senior leader to identify the rater.

  3. Frequency

    For new senior leaders, a 360-degree developmental review is recommended between 12-18 months following the date of hire. If a formal assessment was completed at the time of hire, this 360-degree is optional. A developmental review may occur at any time during any senior leader appointment if the responsible administrator determines that it would be beneficial.

  4. Feedback

    Once a 360-degree tool is administered, the senior leader will receive a copy of the results, and have the opportunity to meet with the reviewer to discuss the review. The senior leaders have the option to decide whether to share the results with their supervisor.

  5. Coaching

    A senior leader may choose to request the assistance of a coach to enhance their professional development. This must be done with the knowledge and agreement of the supervisor.  The supervisor may also require that a senior leader receive coaching.

II. Evaluative Reviews

Senior Leaders Who Are Not Collegiate Deans

  1. Purpose

    The purpose of the periodic evaluative review is to evaluate a senior leader’s capabilities against leadership criteria. Three elements contribute to this evaluation:

    1. annual performance reviews that have occurred since the last comprehensive review;
    2. the responsible administrator's personal observations and gathering of feedback over time; and
    3. results of a survey in which review data is solicited from multiple reviewers internal to the University, as appropriate. The survey should be relevant to the role of the senior leader.
  2. Frequency

    The evaluative review will be conducted three years following the date of hire and every 3-5 year thereafter by the responsible supervisor for the senior leader.

  3. Process

    The responsible administrator will inform the senior leader to be reviewed that a Comprehensive Review is being initiated. The responsible administrator will schedule a meeting with the senior leader to discuss:

    • communications planned around the review;
    • intent of the review to include identifying performance strengths as well as areas for development;
    • leadership competencies with which the senior leader will be evaluated within the survey, as well as any additional criteria to be evaluated;
    • assistance in identifying potential reviewers, both inside and outside the University:
    • outline of the process and projected timelines;
    • opportunity for the senior leader to discuss any specific circumstance that might prove important in which insight into the context of the situation may be helpful and should be considered throughout the review process;
    • right of the senior leader to review the official Evaluative Review file following the conclusion of the review, and to submit written information to the official file to supplement or refute materials contained therein;
    • reminder to the senior leader that they will be held to the strictest standards of professional and ethical behavior and to not retaliate against any person who has participated in the review process, retaliation including any form of intimidation or harassment; and
    • opportunity for the senior leader to ask questions and raise further points of discussion.

    The Evaluative Review from start to completion will take place either during the fall or spring semester and will not take more than a semester.

  4. Participants

    The following individuals may be given an opportunity to participate in a web-based survey:

    • collegiate faculty and staff;
    • collegiate student leaders;
    • participants in faculty and staff governance:
    • senior leaders and deans;
    • others from within the University but outside of the college; and
    • individuals from outside the University who have regular interaction with the leader.
  5. Report

    The supervisor will complete an Evaluative Review Report to include the following information:

    1. Copy of the survey instrument (provided to University reviewers) and the questionnaire (sent to external reviewers); and
    2. Data collected containing all responses to the web-based survey in aggregate and letters of evaluations.

    The Evaluative Review Report will be provided to the senior leader, who will be given an opportunity to submit written information to the official file to supplement or refute materials contained therein. The Evaluative Review will be made a part of the senior leader’s personnel file.

  6. Communications

    Upon conclusion of the review, the supervisor and senior leader being evaluated will determine how and what will be communicated regarding the Evaluative Review. Due to state data privacy laws, the review may not be shared publicly without written authorization from the senior leader being evaluated.

  7. Confidentiality

    All University faculty and staff from whom evaluations are solicited will be informed that their identity and responses will be kept completely confidential. External reviewers must have evaluative comments attributed. The University will not accept individual letters of evaluations submitted anonymously by indirect reports or external reviewers.

  8. Compliance

    Senior leaders being evaluated will be held to the strictest standards of professional and ethical behavior and are not to retaliate against any person who has participated in the review process. Retaliation includes taking an adverse action against an individual, whether faculty, staff, or student, because of the individual's good faith participation in the review process. Examples of retaliation include, but are not limited to: harassment, impeding academic advancement, departing from any customary academic or employment practice regarding the individual, and termination of position, demotion, threats, and marginalization of the individual. A causal relationship between the participation in the evalauation process and an adverse action is needed to demonstrate the retaliation has occurred.

    If any information is received relative to allegations of serious misconduct or illegal action, whether the source is identified or not, the responsible administrator is charged with determining what, if any, investigation is appropriate.

Senior Leaders Who are Deans

  1. Purpose

    The purpose of the survey is three-fold:

    1. to provide the responsible administrator with data and feedback from dean’s constituents about the performance and effectiveness of the dean;
    2. to inform decisions regarding future work plans, as well as decisions regarding continued appointment; and
    3. to develop group norms over time, and in so doing gain a better understanding of areas where focused development efforts are needed.
  2. Methodology

    Review data will be sought from both internal to the University faculty, staff and administrators.

    For internal to the University reviewers, a standardized web-based survey will be used. Questions included in the survey address core performance criteria associated with the University’s leadership competencies. 

    For external to the University reviewers, evaluative comment will be requested through a questionnaire. The questionnaire includes a short series of standardized open-ended questions.

  3. Frequency

    The review will be conducted three years following dean appointments and in recurring intervals of five years, unless it is determined by the responsible administrator that it is needed earlier.

  4. Process

    The responsible administrator will inform the dean to be reviewed that a Comprehensive Review is being initiated. The responsible administrator will schedule a meeting with the dean to discuss:

    • communications planned around the review, including announcement of the review and how and to whom the results of the review will be shared;
    • intent of the review to include identifying performance strengths as well as areas of concern, and noting that the survey is one important element of several used in deciding regarding continued appointment;
    • leadership competencies with which the dean will be reviewed within the survey, as well as any additional criteria to be evaluated;
    • assistance in identifying potential reviewers, both inside and outside the University:
    • outline of the process and projected timelines;
    • opportunity for the dean to discuss any specific circumstance that might prove important in which insight into the context of the situation may be helpful and should be taken into account throughout the review process;
    • request for a performance background statement, which will be shared with the members of the review committee and survey participants, to include the following:
      • dean’s leadership philosophy;
      • major accomplishments since the last evaluative review;
      • challenges and opportunities of the college since the last evaluative review; and
      • dean’s vision for the college for the next 3-5 years.
    • right of the dean to review the official Comprehensive Review file following the conclusion of the review, and to submit written information to the official file to supplement or refute materials contained therein;
    • reminder to the dean that they will be held to the strictest standards of professional and ethical behavior and to not retaliate against any person who has participated in the review process, retaliation including any form of intimidation or harassment; and
    • opportunity for the dean to ask questions and raise further points of discussion.

    The responsible administrator will work with the survey administrator to establish the time frame for delivery of the web-based survey to participants internal to the University. The responsible administrator will send a questionnaire requesting evaluative comment from external reviewers, who will return their comments to the responsible administrator. The responsible administrator will compile the responses and provide the unattributed compilation to the survey administrator for inclusion in the report for the review committee and the responsible administrator. The Comprehensive Review from start to completion will take place either during the fall or spring semester and will not take more than a semester.

  5. Participants
    1. The following individuals internal to the University will be given an opportunity to participate in the web-based survey
      • collegiate faculty and staff (all);
      • collegiate student leaders (selected);
      • deans (all); and
      • others from within the University but outside of the college (selected).
    2. Where relevant, the following individuals external to the University would be invited through questionnaire to provide evaluative comment:
      • key alumni, donors, advisory board members, legislators, community members; and/or
      • peer administrators such as deans from other higher education institutions.

      Individuals with a conflict of interest with regard to the dean being reviewed should not participate in the review. A conflict of interest occurs when a relationship between two employees could directly or indirectly compromise their professional judgment in carrying out University activities.

  6. Committee

    A 5-member standing review committee will be appointed to include a dean as chair and at least 3 tenured faculty members, each from different colleges, and one of whom will be a past chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee. Members will serve for a staggered period of four years. The responsible administrator will seek nominations for review committee membership from the Faculty Consultative Committee.

    Five additional individuals from the college will be appointed to the committee for each review to include at least 3 tenured faculty members, each from different departments. The responsible administrator will seek nominations for college representatives from the collegiate faculty consultative committee, or in the absence of a faculty consultative committee, from the faculty senators of the college.

    The names of the review committee, including the names of the college representatives, will be included in the responsible administrator’s invitation to collegiate faculty, staff, and others to participate in the survey. 

    The role of the committee is to meet with the responsible administrator conducting the evaluation to review the results, share feedback on how results have contributed positively to, or adversely impacted, dean performance and success, suggest further analysis if needed, and track commonalities in review questions and outcomes from different reviews over time. The committee is also charged with helping to assess the validity and effectiveness of the survey instrument over time.

    Members of the review committee, and college representatives, are expected to maintain the highest standards of confidentiality and should refrain from sharing survey results and committee discussion with anyone outside of the committee.

  7. Report

    The multiple-source evaluation report may be supplemented by additional evaluation and comment from the responsible administrator. Major accomplishments since the last Comprehensive Review are to be included along with an overall summary of administrative strengths and areas that need attention. The responsible administrator will maintain Comprehensive Review Reports to include the following information:

    1. Copy of the survey instrument (provided to University reviewers) and the questionnaire (sent to external reviewers); and
    2. Data collected containing all responses to the web-based survey in aggregate and letters of evaluations.

    The Comprehensive Review Report will be available to the dean being reviewed for inspection at the conclusion of the review. The dean being reviewed may submit information to the file to supplement or refute materials contained in this file.

  8. Communications

    Upon conclusion of the review, the responsible administrator and dean being reviewed will determine how and what will be communicated regarding the Comprehensive Review. Due to private personnel data laws, to share summary or other information from the review requires written authorization from the dean being reviewed. However, deans are strongly encouraged to share a summary of the feedback with the college.

  9. Confidentiality

    All persons from whom evaluations are solicited should be informed that while their X.500 identification is necessary to validate they are invited to take the survey; their identity and responses will be kept completely confidential. Because the survey given to University respondents is web-based, the X.500 numbers of survey recipients are required for access to the survey to ensure that responses received are from authorized respondents. Once the data is aggregated and summarized, any linkages between the X.500 and the individual survey will be destroyed. External reviewers are surveyed through a separate questionnaire that is not web-based and must have evaluative comments attributed. The University will not accept individual letters of evaluations submitted anonymously by indirect reports or external reviewers.

  10. Compliance

    Deans being reviewed will be held to the strictest standards of professional and ethical behavior and are not to retaliate against any person who has participated in the review process. Retaliation includes taking an adverse action against an individual, whether faculty, staff, or student, because of the individual's good faith participation in the review process. Examples of retaliation include, but are not limited to: harassment, impeding academic advancement, departing from any customary academic or employment practice regarding the individual, and termination of position, demotion, threats, and marginalization of the individual. A causal relationship between the participation in the review process and an adverse action is needed to demonstrate the retaliation has occurred.

    If any information is received relative to allegations of serious misconduct or illegal action, whether the source is identified or not, the responsible administrator is charged with determining what, if any, investigation is appropriate.

Document Feedback