PROVOST EVALUATION SUMMARY 2006-2007

 

A total of 192 out of 605 Provost/Academic Vice-President surveys were completed (compared to 316 out of 605 last year [52.7% return rate]), resulting in a 31.7% return rate.  In the two comparison years, the survey was conducted on-line by e-mailing each eligible faculty member a link to complete the document.  As shown by the return rate, the response rate declined by 21%.  This could have been caused by the Academic Vice-President announcing during the survey period that he was leaving the University.

 

Questions on the evaluation survey were divided into three focus areas: Total Campus Enterprise, Academic Goals, and Personnel, Faculty Relations and Campus Issues. Demographic information along with open comment sections were also included on the survey.  The results of the survey can be seen in the attached document, referred to as the Summary Report (Appendix A). 

 

            The Summary Report provides a quantitative review of the Provost/Academic Vice-President’s job performance for the Academic years of 2005/06 and 2006/07.  This section starts with the question number in column one, followed by the actual question in the second column.  There is no difference in the wording of the questions between the two years shown.  The mean scores along with standard deviations (SD) and the number of respondents (N) that answered each question for both periods (2005/06 and 2006/07) appears.

 

Additionally, each focus area was broken down and analyzed based on demographic information. From the analysis of the demographic information, statistically there were no significant differences relating to gender, college/academic unit, and years of service on the responses for the focus areas.  Opinions taken from the comments section were typed as written and will be provided to the Provost/Academic Vice-President.

 

*Standard deviation is a measure of dispersion.  In other words, it measures the degree to which responses are dispersed about the mean.  The larger the standard deviation, the more the scores differ from the mean.  Alternatively, if the standard deviation is small, this indicates that the scores were very close to one another.  A t-test is used to assess whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other.

 

Executive Summary

 

The third annual faculty-initiated survey of the Provost/Academic Vice-President's performance was implemented.  One hundred and ninety-two faculty members participated in the survey out of a possible 605 eligible faculty members, resulting in a 31.7% return rate.  All questions were scored on a scale of 1 to 7 with 7 being very effective. The mean scores ranged from 3.60 to 4.91.

 

On questions 2 (4.53), 19 (4.91), and 24 (4.76), the faculty responded with the highest mean scores.  Question two deals with the total campus enterprise, whereas the last two questions where in the area of  personnel, faculty relations, and campus issues.  Questions 19 and 24 where also two of the highest means in 2005/06.

 

On questions 5 (3.67), 6 (3.60), and 13 (3.34), the faculty responded with the lowest mean scores.  The first two questions dealt with the total campus enterprise, whereas the last question was in the area of academic goals. These same exact questions where also the lowest mean score on the 2005/2006 evaluation.

 

From the analysis of the demographic information, statistically there were no effects of gender, college/academic unit, and years of service on the responses

Appendix A: Summary Report

 

 

 

Faculty Survey of the Provost/Academic Vice-President

Please respond to the following items by circling the number on the scale that best reflects your perception of Provost/Academic Vice-President Rallo’s effectiveness in dealing with the issues outlined below.  The scale ranges from 1 (not effective) to 7 (highly effective).  If you feel that you do not have enough information to form an opinion please circle “No Opinion”.

                    

 

Question

Question

 

2005/06

 

 

2006/07

 

Number

 

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

1

Overall, the Provost/Academic Vice President facilitates the academic mission of Western Illinois University.

4.34

1.76

280

4.46

1.91

185

2

The Provost/Academic Vice President initiates polices and programs that support the mission of the University with regard to long-term strategic planning.

4.31

1.85

276

4.53

1.89

181

3

The Provost/Academic Vice President initiates policies and programs that support the mission of the University with regard to short-term strategic planning.

4.14

1.87

274

4.28

1.86

172

4

The Provost/Academic Vice President promotes the positive development and enrichment of faculty.

3.67

2.00

284

3.78

2.03

182

5

The Provost/Academic Vice President creates and supports an academic environment that is rewarding to work in.

3.41

2.00

284

3.67

2.09

184

6

The Provost/Academic Vice President supports policies and programs that facilitate the activities of your department and/or academic unit.

3.47

1.99

284

3.60

2.01

179

7

The Provost/Academic Vice President is an effective speaker and advocate for the University's academic mission to the local community and the Western Illinois region.

4.37

1.95

252

4.30

2.01

165

8

The Provost/Academic Vice President provides leadership in budget management and resource development in academic affairs.

4.08

2.01

241

4.08

2.02

157

9

The Provost/Academic Vice President supports and advances the highest academic standards of students at Western Illinois University.

4.62

1.72

269

4.52

1.82

171

10

The Provost/Academic Vice President works effectively with the President and Deans in identifying and providing the resources necessary for your department and/or academic unit to accomplish the mission of Western Illinois University.

3.52

1.95

254

3.75

2.04

156

11

The Provost/Academic Vice President works effectively with President and Deans in anticipating the future needs of Western Illinois University students (i.e., technology infrastructure and student services).

3.98

1.89

245

3.92

1.95

155

12

The Provost/Academic Vice President works effectively with Student Services in developing programs and policies that foster student leadership and co-curricular participation.

4.61

1.82

132

4.38

1.86

99

13

The Provost/Academic Vice President provides the resources necessary for your department and/or academic unit to accomplish the research mission of the faculty.

3.32

1.88

275

3.34

2.01

173

14

 The Provost/Academic Vice President provides leadership in planning, developing, implementing, and assessing academic programs at the Quad Cities campus.

4.31

2.06

166

4.28

2.05

112

15

The Provost/Academic Vice President supports faculty governance at all levels.

3.81

1.99

259

4.23

1.97

167

16

The Provost/Academic Vice President promotes excellence and diversity in faculty, staff, and student activities through management practices.

4.26

1.91

250

4.43

1.86

161

17

The Provost/Academic Vice President is accessible and open to faculty concerns.

3.87

2.17

273

4.02

2.06

171

18

The Provost/Academic Vice President is accessible and open to staff concerns.

4.25

2.16

101

4.22

2.12

72

19

The Provost/Academic Vice President is accessible and open to student concerns.

4.71

2.00

93

4.91

1.95

64

20

The Provost/Academic Vice President provides leadership in planning, developing, implementing, and assessing all academic programs and units.

4.02

1.93

263

4.19

1.89

165

21

The Provost/Academic Vice President works effectively with the Union to administer the Collective Bargaining Agreement

3.92

1.98

186

4.46

1.94

123

22

The Provost/Academic Vice President provides effective leadership in the area of International Education.

4.77

1.95

217

4.45

1.97

131

23

The Provost/Academic Vice President provides effective leadership in the area of life-long learning.

4.31

2.02

161

4.13

2.04

112

24

The Provost/Academic Vice President promotes the continued growth of the Centennial Honors College.

5.10

1.73

153

4.76

1.84

99

25

The Provost/Academic Vice President provides effective supervisory leadership of the Dean or Director of your academic unit.

3.78

2.00

210

3.93

1.99

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments from the Provost/Academic Vice President’s Performance Survey

            As part of the 2006-2007 Annual Faculty Survey of the Provost/Academic Vice President, the 192 faculty respondents provided 133 comments in the three categories of review in the survey (Total Campus Enterprise; Academic Goals; and Personnel, Faculty Relations, and Campus Issues).  The Provost/Academic Vice President has received a print copy of all comments.  The Committee on Provost and Presidential Performance has reviewed the comments, and an Executive Summary of those comments is hereby being shared with the faculty.  While the current Provost/Academic Vice President will be leaving WIU at the end of the current academic year, the Faculty Senate concluded that this Executive Summary of the comments of the faculty should be kept in mind during the search process for the next Provost/Academic Vice President and should be made available to the next Provost.

 

Total Campus Enterprise:

            Several faculty members expressed their appreciation for the extra work the Provost undertook during the President’s medical absence during the Fall 2006 semester, although the Provost was taken to task by several respondents for his delay in deciding to cancel classes the morning of the December 1 snowstorm.

            While several faculty members acknowledged the difficulties the Provost faced in operating within limited budgetary constraints, quite a few indicated their frustration with his handling of budget decisions, particularly singling out insufficient transparency and consistency in the budgetary process.

            A number of respondents observed that while the Provost continues to generate new ideas for the University, he does not always provide follow-through sufficient to implement the new programs adequately.  Faculty members also repeatedly expressed their misgivings about the tendency of the Provost to inadequately demonstrate and articulate support for WIU’s ongoing existing programs, rather than merely supporting new initiatives at the expense of valued existing programs.

 

Academic Goals:

            Several faculty members were troubled by a perceived decline in the overall academic quality of incoming students.  Inadequate support for enhancing the academic rigor of students’ educational experiences also came in for repeated criticism.  While the Provost’s support of the FYE program’s small class size was appreciated, some respondents were bothered that the size of other courses increased as a result.  Other faculty members articulated their uneasiness about the future of the Honors and ISP programs, given the Provost’s current policies in those areas.

            While a few faculty members applauded the Provost’s heightened emphasis on faculty research, more common was the view that the Provost expected more faculty research productivity without providing the necessary funding for research expenses and conference travel.  Considerable uneasiness among the respondents stemmed from the widespread perception that the Provost insufficiently appreciated the University’s historic (and contractual) commitment to high quality teaching as the primary mission of the WIU faculty.

 

Personnel, Faculty Relations, and Campus Issues:            

            Several faculty members highlighted the need for greater attention to improving WIU’s current infrastructure, including both building repairs and academically-necessary enhancements, before scarce resources are diverted to plans for new structures.  Several faculty members deplored the recent disappearance of the faculty research carrels in the Library, a decision they credited in part to the Provost.  Others complained that the Provost had insufficiently addressed the problem of inter-departmental (or inter-collegiate) inequities in regular access to teaching technologies.    Other respondents decried the development of various non-academic facilities for students rather than using available resources to improve instructional technology or other educationally-relevant infrastructure.

            While the Provost was credited by a few respondents with adept handling of sensitive personnel matters and with raising expectations for faculty performance, he was also criticized by several faculty members for interfering with departmental and college decisions on personnel issues.  Respondents were more frequently upset about what they perceived as the increasing number and decreasing quality of the administrators hired by the Provost, as well as the belief that the Deans received insufficient direction from the Provost on a variety of matters.  Several faculty members also conveyed their disappointment in the Provost’s level of familiarity with the UPI contract.

            Fairly consistent anxiety was communicated by faculty respondents on a variety of issues relating to faculty morale.  Some found the Provost’s communication style to be insufficiently respectful to faculty members and others; respondents were also disturbed that the appearance of accessibility was not believed to be matched by a genuine interest on the Provost’s part in considering alternative perspectives.  While the Provost was credited by several respondents with an improvement in his attempts to seek faculty input and feedback on curricular and programmatic matters, he was still criticized for frequently attempting to bypass faculty governance structures.  The Provost’s “top-down” management style continued to distress a variety of faculty members, who expressed a preference for a more collegial and collaborative style of leadership.  Most often condemned was the Provost’s perceived lack of commitment to WIU and its continuing success in the future; he was widely denounced for using WIU as a stepping stone to advance his personal career plans rather than evincing support for the long-term interests of this university.

            Faculty morale issues also arose in the context of the Quad Cities campus.  A number of respondents divulged their concern that the Quad Cities faculty were being neglected and felt unappreciated by the Provost, who was perceived to lack a clear and attainable vision for the Quad Cities campus.  Ironically, quite a few other faculty imparted their apprehension that the Provost was diverting valuable faculty resources and attention from the main campus in Macomb to fund and support the Quad Cities branch campus.           

 

Conclusion:

            Several consistent themes emerge from the faculty comments on this survey.  Faculty members continued to be concerned that the Provost’s handling of the budget did not reflect a sufficiently strong commitment to enhancing WIU’s existing programs.  Overwhelmingly the most frequent comments concerned the low level of the Provost’s commitment to this University and its future.  Many faculty respondents were disturbed that the motives of the chief academic officer of the University seemed more attuned to his career advancement than to collaborating with the faculty to accomplish goals that would best serve this University and its students.