University Policy 4530
Effective Date
July 1978
Last Revision Date
August 19, 2025
Responsible Party
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, (208) 426-1202
Scope and Audience
This policy applies to all Academic Administrators below the level of academic deans, including those elected by faculty and appointed by a dean (e.g., department chairs) and those appointed by university leadership (e.g., associate deans, vice provosts).
This policy does not apply to centers and institutes as defined in University Policy 5000 (Centers and Institutes) or to non-degree-granting units within Academic Affairs and Student Affairs.
For the evaluation of Deans, see University Policy 4520 (Annual Evaluation of Deans)
Additional Authority
- University Policy 7530 (Employee Files)
- Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Sections II.B, II.F., II.G, II.P
- University Policy 4000 (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct)
- University Policy 4520 (Annual Evaluation of Deans)
- University Policy 7000 (Position Definitions)
- University Policy 7060 (Employee Records)
1. Policy Purpose
To establish a comprehensive procedure for the multi-dimensional evaluation of Academic Administrators that incorporates input from faculty, students, staff, and other relevant stakeholders. This evaluation will assess the Administrator’s leadership, administrative effectiveness, alignment with institutional goals, and contributions to student and faculty success while fostering opportunities for professional growth and accountability.
2. Policy Statement
Boise State University is committed to ensuring that its Academic Administrators receive regular and constructive evaluations that provide meaningful feedback, promote professional growth, and enhance the University’s overall effectiveness. This policy establishes a fair, transparent, and structured evaluation process that incorporates input from relevant and appropriate stakeholders.
3. Definitions
3.1 Academic Administrator
For the purposes of this policy, regardless of title, Academic Administrator means
a. Any person employed by Boise State University who holds a faculty contract for an administrator with faculty rank or
b. Any person who otherwise serves as an administrator of an academic department, academic program, or other academic unit, regardless of whether the person maintains faculty rank or has contracted regular faculty responsibilities
And who meets one (1) or both of the following criteria:
a. Has either direct and significant responsibility for the determination of the duties, support, and/or compensation for faculty, or
b. Has supervisory responsibilities over major academic support functions such as the library and research.
The terms “Academic Administrator” and “Administrator” are used interchangeably throughout this policy.
3.2 Supervisor
The individual who evaluates and supervises a direct report. For purposes of this policy, the college dean or designee is typically the supervisor for associate deans, assistant deans, department or program leaders, and any position that includes staff evaluation, workload assignment, or resource allocation within their college. The Provost is typically the supervisor for assistant provosts, associate provosts, and vice provosts.
4. Evaluation Process
Each Academic Administrator, including both elected and appointed roles, will be evaluated annually by their direct supervisor. Academic Administrators who serve more than three (3) years will have a comprehensive in-depth review. More frequent reviews may be conducted at the discretion of the supervisor. Comprehensive reviews may be waived or delayed for sufficient cause, such as pending retirement or resignation, with notice provided to faculty and staff by the direct supervisor.
4.1 Purpose for Evaluating Academic Administrators
- To fulfill Idaho State Board of Education requirements for the annual evaluation of employees
- To provide constructive feedback for the professional development of Administrators
- To guide the updating of administrative role responsibilities
- To document justification for reappointment or removal from administrative roles
4.2 Authority and Responsibility for Evaluations
a. The President has authority and responsibility, directly or through designees, for appointment, review, and dismissal of all administrative officers, per Idaho State Board of Education Policy, Section II.B. Such authority will generally be delegated to the immediate supervisor of Academic Administrators.
b. The Provost and Deans are generally responsible for reviewing the Academic Administrators they supervise. The Provost may delegate some aspects of the review process to a Vice or Associate Provost.
c. The roles of supervisees and stakeholders of Administrators in the evaluation process are specified below in Section 5.
5. Guiding Principles
5.1 Constructive Feedback
The evaluation of Administrators is:
a. An opportunity to offer actionable insights to support leadership effectiveness and professional development.
b. An opportunity for Administrators and their supervisors to clarify:
- The responsibilities of the Administrator
- The resources provided by the supervisor for meeting responsibilities
- How these responsibilities and resources should be regularly updated to serve the needs of the academic unit.
5.2 Fairness
a. Evaluations will consider the context of:
- The divergent roles and responsibilities of different Administrators, as defined by the appointing authority;
- Their respective contributions to the University’s mission and goals; and
- Their activities in the context of the present and emerging needs of the University;
b. All appropriate constituencies will have input into the review of Academic Administrators in academic units. These constituencies include, but are not limited to, faculty and staff from the department or program and other related units, academic administrative peers, advisory groups, and partnership boards.
c. Feedback surveys are to be used as one element of a multi-faceted, comprehensive evaluation protocol in which multiple measures of performance are reviewed. They cannot be used as the sole piece of evidence in which to base a personnel action (e.g., hiring, promotion, denial of promotion, contract renewal, contract non-renewal, merit awards, or disciplinary action).
5.3 Confidentiality
The evaluation process must reflect an appropriate balance between 1.) the rights of the units members to have input that is appropriately de-identified and 2.) access to summary results disseminated in a timely way and the right of the Academic Administrator to receive appropriate summary data and the same level of confidentiality normally associated with other related personnel processes at the university.
5.4 Flexibility
The evaluation process provides sufficient flexibility to allow individual colleges or units to continue or develop their own procedures to review college or unit-specific issues. Such procedures must be consistent with campus-wide guidelines.
6. Evaluation Criteria
a. The general criteria that must be used to review Academic Administrators includes:
- Achievement of goals that support the mission of the department/division, the campus, college or administrative unit, and the University;
- Competencies appropriate to job expectations;
- Responsible leadership, management, and use of the University’s human, physical, and financial resources.
b. Additional review criteria will vary depending on the nature of the position and the unit in which it is located.
7. Evaluation Materials
The specific materials used during an Administrator’s evaluation depend on whether the review is an annual or comprehensive evaluation. The supervisor will use these materials as evidence in the supervisor’s evaluation report.
7.1 Job Descriptions
Both annual and comprehensive evaluations require comprehensive job descriptions. These job descriptions should be developed at the unit level (department for chairs, college for associate deans, etc.) where a clear and thorough job description does not already exist. The Office of the Provost will maintain templates for these job descriptions that units may use in developing their own.
7.2 Materials for Annual Evaluations
- Copy of Administrator’s job description
- Administrator’s self-evaluation and evidence of accomplishments (as defined by the supervisor)
- Faculty/staff feedback on the Administrator’s strengths and accomplishments and areas for improvement during the past twelve (12) months collected by survey.
7.3 Materials for Comprehensive Evaluations
Each school/college must develop comprehensive evaluation guidelines that further define its expectations regarding an Academic Administrator’s comprehensive performance. The purpose of this evaluation is both formative and summative. Materials will include:
a. Copy of Administrator’s job description
b. Summary of expectations and accomplishments:
- Written statement of achievements during the past three (3) years, including the goals and objectives that the Administrator and their supervisor agreed upon in previous years.
- A summary of the expectations of the university administration under which the Academic Administrator has been operating
c. Faculty/staff feedback on the Administrator’s strengths and areas of improvement during the period under review. Such feedback must be collected by a survey administered at the college level.
d. Additional feedback from constituencies inside and outside the unit gathered through a confidential, equitable, and consistent method, aligned with the principles and practices from the AAUP’s Faculty Evaluation of Administrators. Such feedback may be gathered at the discretion of the supervisor.
8. Evaluation Procedures
8.1 Frequency
To simplify the schedule of Academic Administrator reviews and provide substantial feedback, every Academic Administrator at the University will be formally reviewed annually and comprehensively reviewed no less than every three (3) years after the initial administrative appointment.
8.2 Timelines
The Academic Administrator’s immediate supervisor will generally initiate the review according to the timelines outlined by University Policy 4290 (Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation), University Policy 4520 (Annual Evaluation of Deans), and/or Human Resources and Workforce Strategy. The immediate supervisor will be responsible for developing a timetable for the review process. The timetable must include dates for:
a. Assigning a review committee, if applicable (comprehensive review)
b. Soliciting feedback (See Section 8.3)
i. Annual Review: Faculty, staff, (if appropriate) student feedback survey
ii. Comprehensive Review:
- Faculty, staff, (if appropriate) student feedback survey
- Additional feedback from constituencies inside and outside the unit that is gathered through a confidential, equitable, and consistent method gathered at the discretion of the supervisor.
c. Aggregating survey responses into the evaluation report (comprehensive review)
d. Providing the evaluation report to the Administrator
e. Conducting the evaluation meeting between the supervisor and the Administrator
f. Providing an optional response that allows the Academic Administrator seven (7) days from receipt of the report to add a response to the report, should they choose to do so. Such a response is not required but may be used to provide additional information and/or justification.
g. Acknowledging or replying to the response by the supervisor within seven (7) days from receipt of the optional response.
h. Notifying the Administrator of their reappointment that must be sent fourteen (14) days after the supervisor’s evaluation has been finalized.
i. Communicating the reappointment decision in writing following the supervisor’s evaluation of the Academic Administrator, including a general rationale based upon the Administrator’s leadership, administrative effectiveness, alignment with institutional goals, and contributions to student and faculty success, as allowed under personnel policies, to the faculty members and direct report staff in the relevant academic or administrative unit within fourteen (14) days of the Administrator’s notification of reappointment.
8.3 Feedback Collection and Management
Each college/school must determine the methods for gathering feedback, apply those methods consistently within the school/college, and ensure their alignment with the following:
a. For both annual and comprehensive reviews, input must be gathered on the Administrator’s fulfillment of job responsibilities in the context of their assigned workload, which must be collected by anonymously surveying faculty, staff, and students when appropriate.
b. Comprehensive reviews may also include, where appropriate, alumni, community leaders, and other sources identified in the charge to the committee from the President, Provost, Dean, or designee.
c. A survey soliciting feedback on the Administrator’s strengths and areas for improvement, including substantial opportunity for additional written comments and the opportunity to indicate the degree to which the respondent has confidence in the Administrator’s continued leadership.
d. A survey distributed to faculty/staff with administrative homes in the Administrator’s unit (department, college, or school), regardless of rank and position.
e. To the extent allowed by law, the supervisor must anonymize sources of any written comments received in connection with the review of an Academic Administrator.
f. Only feedback corresponding to this policy will be considered for the review.
g. The supervisor must review the survey data and comments for personally identifiable information and ensure that it is removed to the extent possible.
h. Comments that harass, threaten, or otherwise fall outside the University’s Standards of Conduct and/or that evaluate the Administrator on criteria not related to their administrative performance and/or on a discriminatory basis related to protected class will be disregarded, as appropriate.
8.4 Performance Management
Academic Administrators serve at the pleasure of the supervisor and can be removed at their discretion if it is believed to be in the best interest of the University. If the Administrator is removed from the position, the supervisor should communicate that decision to the department/unit members and, if legally permissible, explain the rationale for the decision while maintaining the confidentiality expected for personnel matters.
8.5 Optional Comprehensive Review Committee
a. Per Section 7.3, each college/school must develop guidelines that further define the college/school’s expectations regarding an Academic Administrator’s comprehensive performance. Comprehensive reviews may involve the use of Review Committees. Responsibilities include:
- Facilitating the evaluation process and providing an advisory summary of feedback that summarizes the strengths, weaknesses, and substantive issues that need to be addressed by the supervisor.
- Ensure that every effort is made to provide the relevant constituencies with the opportunity to give input and that the process is followed fairly and impartially.
- Maintaining required confidentiality for personnel procedures, evaluation materials, committee deliberations, and final recommendations.
- Reviewing all materials submitted as part of the comprehensive review process.
- Flagging comments unrelated to the professional responsibilities of the Administrator for redaction at the discretion of the supervisor and/or as required by University policy.
- Taking into consideration particular situations and contexts that were present prior to and during the Administrator’s appointment as well as the potential for unit development under the Administrator’s leadership.
b. In units with fewer than ten (10) faculty and staff members, all members of the unit may need to comprise the review committee. For units with ten (10) or more faculty and staff members, the review committee policies/procedures must make every effort to include the following:
- Representation from a variety of faculty positions/ranks
- Staff member(s)
- Member(s) with comparable administrative experience
- Member(s) of the advisory board, if applicable, or external stakeholder(s) with whom the Administrator works regularly
- Student(s)
c. The unit’s policies/procedures should also describe the shared governance method for selecting members and who is responsible for assembling the review committee.
9. Related Information
- AAUP’s Faculty Evaluation of Administrators
- University Policy 4500 (Department Chair Evaluation)
Revision History
July 1995; April 1996; March 2004; August 19, 2025