Evaluation Of Deans (Policy 4520)

University Policy 4520

Download a Printiable Version of Policy 4520

Effective Date

July 1978

Last Revision Date

June 04, 2025

Responsible Party

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, (208) 426-1202

Scope and Audience

This policy applies to all Deans in Academic Affairs who report directly to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Additional Authority

Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.F. (Policies Regarding Nonclassified Employees)
Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.P.4 (General Policies and Procedures – All Employees)
Idaho Code Title 74, Chapter 1 (Idaho Public Records Act)
University Policy 7530 (Employee Files)
University Policy 4000 (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct)

1. Policy Purpose

To provide for the annual and comprehensive evaluation of the performance and effectiveness of academic Deans to ensure that:

All appropriate constituencies have input on the review of Deans in academic units. These constituencies include, but are not limited to, faculty (as defined in University Policy 7000 – Position Definitions) and staff from the college/school and other related units, academic administrative peers, advisory groups, and partnership boards;
Deans receive constructive recommendations for improving their success in the administration of the college/school; and
An appropriate balance between the rights of the college’s/school’s members to have input that is appropriately confidential and access to summary results disseminated in a timely way, and the right of the Dean to receive appropriate summary data and the same level of confidentiality normally associated with other related personnel processes at the university.

The Provost will decide whether or not to renew the Dean’s appointment upon the completion of either the annual or three (3)-year evaluation.

2. Policy Statement

Boise State University is committed to conducting annual employee evaluations as required by Idaho State Board of Education policy. These evaluations are intended to provide constructive feedback and assist in assessing the employee’s overall performance.

Each Dean in Academic Affairs will be evaluated annually by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs (“Provost”) and will have an in-depth review every three (3) years. The comprehensive review fulfills the annual performance evaluation for the dean(s) in that year. More frequent reviews may be conducted at the discretion of the Provost. The in-depth review may also be waived or delayed for sufficient cause as determined by the Provost and Human Resources and Workforce Strategy. An example of sufficient cause is when a Dean has indicated in writing to the Provost that they plan to retire, resign, or return to a faculty position within a year of a scheduled three (3)-year review. If an in-depth review is waived or delayed, the Provost will inform the faculty and staff of that decision.

3. General Criteria for the Evaluation

a. Deans will be evaluated using a framework that focuses on core competencies, priorities, and focus areas specific to the evaluation’s time frame.

b. In addition to the “general criteria” described below, there may be (and in most cases will be) performance factors unique to a particular college/school or to a particular Dean at a particular time in that college/school’s history. The Provost must give the Dean any additional criteria (see “Focus Areas” below) as soon as possible so the Dean is aware of and can work toward such expectations/criteria.

3.1 Core Competencies

The core competencies include leadership, fiscal and human resource management, fund-raising, open communication, and a set of values that embrace the notion of university citizenry. Additionally, a dean is expected to uphold university policies and actively support the principles of shared governance.

3.1.1 Leadership

Develops, communicates, and aligns others around a compelling vision and strategy for the future.
Creates an environment of trust and integrity by modeling the values of candor, openness, inclusiveness, and honesty and consistently acting in a way that is both trustworthy and trusting.
Demonstrates the ability to act in a decisive, urgent, and committed way, when needed, and commits to an agreed course of action, uses innovation, and leverages resources to reach that goal.
Leads the research, scholarly, and public engagement activities of their college/school through successful initiatives and support of innovative activities.
Recognizes when there is a need for change, communicates frequently and candidly during times of change, and demonstrates adaptability when dealing with ambiguous situations.
Demonstrates the ability to build commitment within and across functions and to maintain a broad set of solid relationships in the university and beyond while achieving common goals.
Embraces shared governance, fulfilling the shared responsibility of administrators, faculty, staff, and students to create an environment that supports the university’s mission.
Values continuous learning and fosters a climate for the learning and development of self and others.
Effectively adapts communication styles to engage with a variety of viewpoints and experiences, fostering a collaborative workplace.
Advocates for varied perspectives and embraces differing viewpoints and experiences.

3.1.2 Administration

Develops and implements procedures for the smooth operation of the college/school, demonstrated by an ability to plan, organize, establish priorities, and make decisions.
Manages staffing effectively. Recommends, and when delegated, approves recruitment, appointment, promotion, corrective action, and termination of academic personnel.
Contributes to the university’s mission and strategic goals and enhances its excellence.
Facilitates the development of research, performance, and enrichment activities and the effective mentoring of faculty, administrative faculty, and staff, as appropriate.
Supports participation in all levels of the assessment process.
Ensures compliance with regional and college/school or program-level accreditation standards, including program assessment and appropriate state regulations, where applicable.

3.1.3 Budget and Use of Resources

Makes budget decisions consistent with college/school goals.
Maintains fiscal responsibility. Develops strategies, for example, for efficient use of funds and, as appropriate, for generating revenue, striving for financial sustainability.
Works with other colleges/schools and units of the university to design budget-sharing strategies.
Identifies the division’s needs for faculty positions, establishes priorities, and makes recommendations.
Ensures proper management of and is responsible for the division’s space, facilities, and property.

3.1.4 Building Community

Models professional behavior and respectful treatment of others, especially when addressing differences in opinion or managing a challenging change process.
Provides opportunities for faculty and staff to use their abilities most effectively and productively.
Maintains effective interaction between faculty governance and academic administration with regard to division affairs.
Works with other Deans to maintain communication and cooperation among divisions, to explore possibilities for reciprocal and joint arrangements, and to review matters of common concern.
Maintains open lines of communication.
Involves appropriate stakeholders in decision-making and works to build consensus.
Negotiates conflict and facilitates discussions, demonstrating a commitment to mutual respect.
Collaborates on and contributes to the institution’s strategic objectives, promoting policies and practices that foster a supportive and welcoming environment for all stakeholders.
Promotes respectful and constructive workplace interactions, addressing inappropriate behavior as it arises.
Supports collaborative activities for the recruitment and retention of international students, robust international partnerships, and globally informed teaching and research programs.

3.2 Priorities

Priorities include student success, research and innovation, inclusive and global education, academic excellence, faculty and staff success, and college/school-specific goals and objectives.

3.2.1 Student Success

Supports a comprehensive array of academic advising and educational services designed to ensure student retention and success.
Coordinates with stakeholders across campus on student recruitment, retention, and graduation rates.
Ensures resolution of student academic concerns.

3.2.2 Advancement and Development/External Relations

Develops effective external partnerships that advance the mission of the college/school.
Works with the Boise State University Foundation to establish fundraising goals and ensure that such goals are accomplished.
Serves as an effective liaison with the local, regional, national, and international community and creates a positive image of the college/school in the local, regional, national, and international community.

3.3 Focus Areas

Includes specific strategic initiatives defined by the Provost and the President and additional expectations/criteria as the Provost deems appropriate.

4. Evaluation Procedures: Annual Review

All Deans who report to the Provost will be evaluated annually before May 1 of each year.

4.1 Material to be Included in the Review

The annual review will be conducted by the Provost. The Provost will include the following information in their evaluation:

a. Dean’s self-evaluation

b. Faculty/staff feedback on the Dean’s performance in the past twelve (12) months. The survey is administered by Institutional Effectiveness.

4.4.1 Purpose of the Feedback Survey

a. The feedback survey is the primary mechanism for gathering faculty and staff input during the annual evaluation of a Dean’s performance. As emphasized by the AAUP in its Faculty Evaluation of Administrators report, this structured process ensures that feedback is collected equitably, consistently, and confidentially, providing a comprehensive assessment of the Dean’s leadership, administrative effectiveness, and contributions to advancing the university’s mission and strategic priorities. By consolidating input through this formal mechanism, the evaluation process upholds the AAUP’s emphasis on a “scrupulously fair practice” that is structured, collaborative, and uses evidence-based performance evaluation practices.

b. Faculty and staff are encouraged to use the survey as their primary feedback method. Structured surveys ensure evaluations focus on professional responsibilities and align with criteria relevant to the Dean’s role. This process also facilitates inclusive participation, ensuring all voices are represented while maintaining the confidentiality necessary to foster candid and constructive input.

c. Faculty or staff have the right to submit additional comments directly to the Provost or through the Faculty Senate President, who will act as a neutral conduit, forwarding comments to the Provost anonymously and without interpretation or modification. To maintain equity and fairness in the evaluation process, input outside the survey process must align with the evaluation criteria in this policy and will not receive undue weight.

d. By providing both mechanisms for feedback, the university affirms its commitment to shared governance and its dedication to fostering effective leadership through fair and transparent evaluation practices.

4.4.2 Components of the Survey

The Faculty/Staff Feedback Survey will:

Focus on the Dean’s demonstration of core competencies and effectiveness in meeting priorities and strategic focus areas (as described in section 3) through a series of standard questions;
Will include opportunity for additional written comments; and
Will provide the opportunity to indicate the degree to which the respondent has confidence in the Dean’s continued leadership.

4.4.3 Respondents

The survey will be distributed to faculty/staff with administrative homes in the Dean’s college/school, regardless of rank and position, as detailed in this section.

For the Deans of the academic colleges/schools and the Library, all college/school faculty and staff will be surveyed.
For the Dean of the Graduate College, all college staff, including the graduate program directors and department chairs/heads/directors responsible for graduate programs, will be surveyed.
For the Dean of the Honors College, all college staff and department chairs/heads/directors will be surveyed.

Comments that harass, threaten, defame, libel, or otherwise fall outside the University Standards of Conduct and/or that evaluate the Dean on criteria not related to the Dean’s administrative performance and/or on a discriminatory basis will be disregarded and will be reported to the Office of Compliance and Ethics, if required.

4.2 Institutional Effectiveness Duties

The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will administer the Faculty/Staff Feedback Survey and compile the quantitative and qualitative information provided by the faculty and staff. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will not associate individual responses with the respondent’s identity in any reports provided to the Provost. Quantitative results are summarized and shared in the aggregate, and responses to open-ended questions are provided verbatim. Information about the process for maintaining the confidentiality of responses will be provided in the survey that is distributed.

4.3 Provost Responsibilities

4.3.1 During the Evaluation Process

a. For both the annual evaluation and the three (3)-year review, the Provost must inform the faculty and the staff of the college/school about the Dean’s evaluation, the evaluation framework and process to be used, and clarify the Dean’s duties and responsibilities for the evaluation.

b. The Provost will discuss the written evaluation and survey responses with the respective Dean according to the timeline in section 7. The Dean will have five (5) University business working days from receipt of the report to add a response, should the Dean choose to do so. A response is not required, but may be used to provide additional information and/or justification to the written report.

4.3.2 Communicating Outcomes to Faculty

The Provost will communicate the reappointment decision to the college/school faculty.

5. Evaluation Procedures: Three (3)-Year Review

a. Each Dean will undergo a comprehensive review by the Review Committee every three (3) years (see section 5.3 below). This review fulfills the annual performance evaluation for the dean(s) undergoing this comprehensive evaluation process. The review will occur in the fall after the completion of the third (3rd) year and then again every three (3) years. The purpose of this review is both formative and summative. In the fall of each year, the Provost notifies the Dean(s) who will be undergoing the three (3)-year review.

b. The review will evaluate the progress of the academic Dean, provide the opportunity for faculty and other constituencies to give constructive input, review the individual’s professional contributions and performance as a leader and as an administrator. The Provost will provide feedback to improve the Dean’s performance and, following the review, determine continuation of the Dean’s appointment.

5.1 Material to be Included in the Review

The three-year review will include the following:

5.1.1 Summary of Expectations and Accomplishments

The following will be sent out to all faculty and staff within the Dean’s school/college according to the timetable in section 7.

Written statement of achievements during the past three (3) years, including the goals and objectives that the Dean and the Provost agreed upon in previous years.
A summary of the expectations of the university administration under which the Dean has been operating.

Each Dean will submit the items under section 5.1.1 to the chair of the Review Committee and the Provost. The chair will then forward and/or organize accordingly.

5.1.2 Stakeholder Feedback Survey

Institutional Effectiveness will administer the Stakeholder Feedback Survey to ensure confidentiality. The Provost will summarize the survey results received from Institutional Effectiveness but will not share the survey reports with the Dean.

a. The survey is intended to evaluate the progress of the academic Dean, provide the opportunity for faculty, staff, students, and other constituencies to give constructive input, and review the individual’s professional contribution and performance as a leader and administrator. Gathering feedback from this broader group of stakeholders will follow the principles and procedures outlined in section 4.1.b.

b. Feedback will be gathered from a broader range of stakeholders than those surveyed in the annual review. This includes, but is not limited to:

Faculty and staff within the Dean’s college/school or unit, as outlined in section 4.1.b.
Students who have engaged with the Dean’s office or programs within the college/school, as appropriate.
University-level administrators and peers with whom the Dean interacts (e.g., other Deans, Executive Directors, Associate/Vice Provosts, Vice Presidents, etc.).
External stakeholders, such as advisory boards, industry partners, or community organizations directly engaged with the college.

5.2 Institutional Effectiveness Duties

The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will administer the Stakeholder Feedback Survey and compile quantitative and qualitative data from respondents. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will not associate individual responses with the respondent’s identity in any reports provided to the Provost or review committees; quantitative results are summarized and shared in the aggregate, and responses to open-ended questions are provided verbatim. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will submit reports to the Provost and the chair of the Review Committee, who will then share them with all Review Committee members. Information about the process for maintaining the confidentiality of responses will be provided in the survey that is distributed.

5.3 Review Committee Composition and Responsibilities

a. The Provost will select the Review Committee members, appoint the committee chair, deliver the formal charge to the committee, and establish a timeline for the evaluation. The Review Committee selection process will involve consultation with elected Faculty Senators for the college/school and a faculty council if the college/school has one.

b. For academic colleges, membership will be made up of:

One (1) to two (2) Chairs or faculty administrators
Three (3) tenured and/or tenure-track faculty members within the college/school of the Dean under review (depending on the size of the college)
One (1) Faculty Senator from within the college/school of the Dean under review (in addition to the above), if applicable
Two (2) non-tenure earning faculty members within the college/school of the Dean under review
One (1) staff member within the college/school of the Dean under review
One (1) community representative from the Dean’s Advisory Board, if applicable
One (1) Dean from outside the college
One (1) student representative from the college

c. At least one (1) of the committee members must have training or expertise in equitable evaluation practices (for example, continued professional development, scholarly expertise, etc.).

d. For non-academic colleges, membership will be made up of:

One (1) to two (2) Chairs or faculty administrators, either from within the college or who work directly with the Dean
At least three (3) faculty members of various ranks who work with the Dean
One (1) Faculty Senator from within the college/school of the Dean under review (in addition to the above)
At least one (1) staff member within the college/school of the Dean under review
One (1) community representative from the Dean’s Advisory Board, if applicable
One (1) Dean from outside the college
One (1) student representative from the college/school

e. In forming both committees above, the Provost may, at their discretion, include committee members from outside the college/school or the university.

f. To the extent practicable, the Provost will strive to include committee members who reflect the diversity of the college/unit.

g. With the provost’s approval, the committee membership may be expanded by adding representatives from non-faculty groups that the college serves.

h. At the Review Committee’s mandatory first meeting, members will learn key principles and practices for evaluating the performance of a Dean. Members who do not attend that first meeting may be removed from the committee and may be replaced at the discretion of the Provost.

i. Should a Review Committee member choose to withdraw from committee service at some point, the Provost has the discretion to replace them. If the Provost decides to fill the committee vacancy, the selection process described above will be used. The Provost will consult with the committee before deciding to fill a committee vacancy.

5.3.1 Committee Chair Responsibilities

The committee chair outlines the review process to the committee, schedules all meetings, forwards items under section 5.1.1 to the Review Committee, organizes materials accordingly, establishes meeting and other committee agendas, monitors progress toward fulfillment of the committee charge, and keeps the committee on task. The committee chair will have oversight responsibility for ensuring that the committee report accurately reflects the content of the deliberations, is supported by the feedback received on the Dean under review, and is submitted in a timely fashion.

5.3.2 Review Committee Duties

a. The Review Committee will review all documents, including the Dean’s written summary of accomplishments, a summary of the expectations of the university administration under which the Dean has been operating, and results of the Stakeholder Feedback Survey compiled by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (see section 5.2). The committee should have access to all relevant documents (i.e., college strategic plan, recent academic program reviews, accreditation reports, benchmark data on faculty productivity, surveys) as determined by the Provost.

b. A key responsibility of the committee is to ensure every effort is made to provide the relevant constituencies the opportunity to provide input and to ensure that the process was fair and impartial.

c. Absolute confidentiality is expected from the committee members concerning all evaluation materials, committee deliberations, and final recommendations. Confidentiality for committee members is a matter of both ethics and policy (see University Policy 4000 – Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, section 5.4.3.d; University Policy 7530 – Employee Files; Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.P.4 – General Policies and Procedures-All Employees; Idaho Code Title 74, and Chapter 1 – Idaho Public Records Act).

d. The committee’s recommendations are advisory in nature. The final decision resides with the Provost, subject to the approval of the President.

5.3.3 Review Process and Deliverables

5.3.3A Draft Report

The Review Committee will write a draft report for the Provost that will summarize strengths, weaknesses, and issues of substance that need to be addressed. The Review Committee should not consider survey comments unrelated to the professional responsibilities of the Dean, but instead refer them to the Provost for inquiry at the Provost’s discretion and/or as required by University policy. The committee should take into consideration particular situations and contexts that were present when the Dean began their appointment, as well as the potential for positive college/school development under the Dean’s leadership.

A template for the evaluation report is provided below:

a. Overview: summarizes key findings of the review.

b. Summary of review process: outlines the activities of the committee (e.g., meetings, dates, and key actions) and sources of data in the review (e.g., Dean’s performance report and Stakeholder Feedback Survey).

c. Summary of data and key findings: summarizes themes that emerged in the evaluation data and process, including:

Accomplishments and strengths: highlights key accomplishments and strengths of the Dean.
Shortcomings and weaknesses: highlights shortcomings and weaknesses that should be addressed.
Opportunities and challenges: highlights key challenges and opportunities for the college/school and the Dean over the next three (3)-year period.

d. Conclusion: overall assessment and impression of the committee. The committee is responsible for making a recommendation regarding the continuation of the Dean in their role. The final decision, however, will be made by the Provost.

e. Appendices: survey instruments and raw data, open-ended comments, other materials.

5.3.3B Distribution of Draft Report

A draft copy of this report will be provided to the Dean along with a copy of the final composite of the quantitative survey results and written comments. The Appendices will not be included in the draft report shared with the Dean. At this point, the Dean will be able to respond to the committee in writing to clarify misconceptions and provide further relevant information within five (5) university business working days of receipt of the draft report.

5.3.3C Final Report

After giving due consideration to any responses from the Dean and making any changes to the draft report, the Review Committee will produce a final copy of the report for the Provost with an overall recommendation for appointment or non-reappointment and will forward any response from the Dean to the Provost on or before the date stated in section 7.

5.3.3D Signatures

The final report must be signed by all committee members, including the chair, allowing for special provisions for missing signatures when a committee member is unavailable to sign.

5.3.3E Minority Report

If there is disagreement among committee members, the minority may choose to submit a minority report. This report and its content must be disclosed to all committee members, including the chair. The minority report will appear in full in an Appendix.

5.3.3F Votes

A separate letter from the committee to the Provost will contain the number of votes of the Review Committee members for or against recommending the reappointment of the Dean. No identification of any individual votes will be included.

6. Provost’s Responsibilities

6.1 During the Evaluation Process

6.1.1 Inform Faculty and Staff

a. For both the annual evaluation and the three (3)-year review, the Provost will inform the faculty and staff of the college/school about the Dean’s evaluation, the evaluation framework and process to be used, and clarify the Dean’s duties and responsibilities for the evaluation.

b. The Provost will seek advice about any college/school-specific issues relevant to the Dean’s evaluation.

6.1.2 Convene the Review Committee

For the three (3)-year review, the Provost or designee convenes the committee for the initial meeting to present the committee with its charge, discusses the review process and expected timeline, provides information regarding materials, responds to questions from the committee, and informs the committee of relevant university policies.

6.1.3 Meet with the Committee at the End of the Review Process

The Provost will meet with the full committee at the end of the review process and before the report is finalized.

6.1.4 Make Final Decision on Reappointment

The Provost, using the committee report as advisory in nature, will make a decision to renew or discontinue the appointment of the Dean under review. The Provost will discuss the decision with the Dean.

If the Dean is to be reappointed, the Provost discusses expectations of the Dean’s leadership moving forward.
If the decision is not to reappoint the Dean, then an acting Dean may be appointed at the discretion of the Provost until a search for a new Dean has been successfully completed.

6.2 Discussion of Evaluations with Respective Dean

The Provost will discuss the written report from the Review Committee and the Stakeholder Feedback Survey with the respective Dean according to the timeline in section 7. The Dean will have five (5) university business working days from receipt of the report to add a response. A response is not required, but may be used to provide additional information and/or justification to the written report.

6.3 Communicating the Outcome to Faculty