You are on page 1of 25

MU Provost Evaluation Survey 2012

Evaluation Conducted by: 2011 2012 MU Faculty Council Evaluation coordinated by: Joe Parcell (FC Vice-Chair)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................3 2. Demographic Respondent Summary ..........................................................5 3. Understanding of University Issues ............................................................8 4. General Administration .............................................................................10 5. Personnel Issues ......................................................................................12 6. MUs Missions and Academic Environment ..............................................14 7. Communication Skills ...............................................................................16 8. Budget and Resource Management .........................................................18 9. Administrative Offices ...............................................................................20 10. Summary of Written Comments ................................................................22 11. Overall Evaluation Assessment ................................................................24

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The University of Missouri Faculty Council is charged to conduct periodic performance reviews of the Chancellor and Provost. The Faculty Council designed a web-based survey instrument to capture faculty and staff observations and feedback for the 2012 Provost Office performance review. The data collected from the Provost Office review was reported to and compiled by the Faculty Council. The results are then reported to the Provosts Office and to the Chancellors Office. Finally, the results are made public. The Faculty Council uses the review summary in facilitating the discussion of whether campus-wide administrator positions retain faculty support.

The procedures followed for the Faculty Council Administrative Review can be found on the Faculty Council web page, http://facultycouncil.missouri.edu/about/rules.html. The procedures call for the regular evaluation of all campus-wide administrators. One challenge with administering such a survey is being inclusive of all persons who have the right to provide feedback. Based on respondent rank status, there were some staff and administrators responding to this survey. The responses of these persons were included in the tabulations to ensure inclusiveness.1 Between 235 and 270 persons responded to every question asked on the survey. For many questions, a high percentage of survey respondents indicated no basis to answer the question. The high percentage of respondents indicating no basis to answer the question likely reflects general uncertainty about the Provosts vast responsibilities. All data are reported to provide the greatest degree of information to readers of this evaluation.

In general, the demographic factors of the respondents mirrored campus faculty with the exception of the low percentage of assistant professors responding and the high percentage of professors responding. This is to be expected given the relatively little and relatively greater institutional knowledge held by these two rank/status groups, respectively.

Fifty-two percent of respondents indicated that the Provosts performance had remained the same or had improved since his hiring. When asked to assign a grade to the Provost, respondents

Although statistical analysis was not carried out to determine the statistical significance of the incremental change in average response from excluding these groups, casual observation suggests no meaningful change in interpretation of the survey results.
3

indicated an average GPA of 1.707 on a 4.0 scale (no + or -). Forty-six percent of respondents gave a grade of B or C, 37 percent of respondents gave a grade of D or F, and 41 percent gave a grade of A or B.

Generalized conclusions from the Provost Evaluation Survey:

Areas or strength Provost possesses a good understanding of University issues. Provost has been a catalyst for diversity enhancement. Provost is ethical and takes pride in the University. Provost and Provost Administrative Offices are on track to support University missions.

Areas identified for improvement Provost should improve communications with the University community. Provost should take initiative to listen to the University community. Provost should take steps to facilitate boosting campus morale, i.e., improve communications. Provost should work to improve shared governance. Provost should develop means to improve transparency in funding allocations.

2. Demographic Respondent Summary Respondent demographic and academia background summary data can be found in Exhibits 2.1 through 2.6. Tenured associate professors and professors represented more than 67 percent of respondents. After adjusting the percentage status/rank breakdown for only non-tenure-track, tenure-track, and tenured professors, the percentages are slightly different from the campusreported values.2

Based on the campus-level statistics, both non-tenure-track assistant professors and tenure-track assistant professors were underrepresented in this survey. This is not surprising as these persons may lack the institutional knowledge necessary to respond to such an evaluation. Tenured professors were over-represented by nearly 2-to-1. Given the academic seniority of survey respondents, it is not surprising that a majority of respondents have been employed at MU for more than 11 years (Exhibit 2.2) and are older than 40 (Exhibit 2.3).

The percentage of male respondents (68.4 percent) and female respondents (31.6 percent) mirrors the 2011 campus faculty averages of 64.6 percent male and 35.6 percent female (Exhibit 2.4).3 The percentage of white and minority survey respondents is similar to the reported campus faculty distribution between minority and white faculty.4

Survey respondents were asked to mark two areas that correspond to their primary employment responsibility. Thus, the total response percent in Exhibit 2.6 sums to be greater than 100 percent. Persons with some level of administrative appointment did respond, though these administrative persons must have an administrative appointments less than 50 percent (i.e., see Exhibit 2.1 and breakdown of rank/status).

http://ir.missouri.edu/employment/s4-b.pdf http://ir.missouri.edu/employment/s4-c.pdf 4 http://diversity.missouri.edu/about/stats/faculty.php


3

Exhibit 2.1

What is your rank or status? (n = 268) Answer Options Non-tenure-track assistant professor Non-tenure-track associate professor Non-tenure-track professor Tenure-track assistant professor Tenured associate professor Tenured professor Instructor Administration (at least 50%) Staff Other faculty (examples include Librarian or off-campus Extension) Other (please specify) Response Percent 8.2% 7.5% 2.2% 5.6% 24.3% 42.9% 0.7% 6.0% 1.9% 5.6%

Exhibit 2.2
How many years have you been employed by the University of Missouri? (n=272) Answer Options 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 20+ years Response Percent 17.6% 19.5% 29.4% 33.5%

Exhibit 2.3
Please select your age from the ranges below. ( n= 271) Answer Options 18-25 26-40 41-60 61-70 70+ Response Percent 0.7% 15.5% 59.4% 22.5% 1.8%

Exhibit 2.4
What is your gender? (n = 269) Answer Options Male Female Response Percent 68.4% 31.6%

Exhibit 2.5
Beyond the items above, do you consider yourself a minority? (n=265) Answer Options Yes No Response Percent 18.5% 81.5%

Exhibit 2.6
Please offer your PERCEPTION of your PRIMARY employment responsibility by indicating the top TWO areas describing your primary University responsibility (mark only two): (n=274) Response Answer Options Percent Teaching Research Extension Service Administration 77.0% 66.8% 4.0% 17.9% 19.3%

3. Understanding of University Issues Survey respondents were asked to rank their perception of the Provosts basic understanding of university issues, and Exhibit 3.1 presents a tabulation of the responses. The response count for each question is listed. The descriptive summary below excludes responses indicating no basis to answer the question.

A majority of respondents indicated perceived satisfaction with the Provosts understanding of university issues. Only two categories show a majority of dissatisfied respondents, shared governance and issues of your college or school.

Exhibit 3.1
This question relates to the Provost's basic understanding of university issues. In your opinion, how well does the Provost understand: Answer Options MU campus challenges Missouri higher education challenges Shared governance with faculty The Collected Rules and Regulations of UM Issues of your college or school History and traditions of MU The relationship of MU to Columbia The relationship of MU to the state The relationship of MU to government agencies The relationship of MU to private industry partnerships The relationship of MU to international partnerships The relationship of Extension to the Columbia campus National education issues Relationship to system and sister campuses Poorly 14% 10% 25% 12% 30% 7% 7% 8% 10% 8% 8% 7% 8% 5% Somewhat poorly 21% 19% 18% 10% 16% 11% 9% 16% 13% 14% 10% 10% 14% 9% Somewhat well 17% 18% 18% 14% 22% 17% 18% 20% 16% 19% 20% 18% 20% 18% Well 37% 38% 22% 32% 17% 29% 28% 32% 26% 24% 23% 18% 32% 27% No basis to answer 12% 15% 17% 31% 14% 36% 37% 24% 36% 35% 39% 47% 25% 41% Response Count 251 251 251 249 251 247 250 248 250 249 248 250 250 248 252 23

answered question skipped question

4. General Administration Survey respondents were asked to rank their perception of the Provosts performance in the general administration of the university, and Exhibit 4.1 presents a tabulation of the responses. The response count for each question is listed. The descriptive summary below excludes responses indicating no basis to answer the question.

Respondent perception breakdown was generally bimodal to the Provosts performance in the general administration of the university. Five areas of respondent positive perception are: shows professional values, ethically performs, helps maintain appearance of physical facility, creates a climate for diversity, and supports an efficient grants and contract process. Respondents shared slightly negative perceptions in two areas: treats schools, colleges, and divisions equally and accepts advice.

10

Exhibit 4.1
This question relates to the Provost's performance in the general administration of the University of Missouri. How well do you feel Provost Foster: Answer Options Guides his actions with professional values Makes logical decisions Acts strategically Performs ethically Quickly identifies needs on the campus Treats all schools, colleges, and divisions equally Builds effective teams Delegates authority Provides a vision for the future of MU Has maintained the quality of the MU physical facility Accepts advice Creates a climate for diversity Supports an efficient grants and contract process Facilitates intellectual property commercialization Poorly 17% 26% 23% 14% 23% 22% 23% 13% 24% 13% 23% 10% 12% 9% Somewhat poorly 14% 18% 18% 10% 18% 17% 14% 14% 20% 13% 13% 10% 12% 10% Somewhat well 18% 18% 15% 16% 20% 18% 19% 16% 20% 29% 15% 25% 22% 16% Well 36% 24% 28% 35% 16% 12% 16% 22% 24% 21% 13% 24% 19% 14% No basis to answer 16% 15% 16% 25% 24% 31% 28% 34% 12% 25% 36% 30% 34% 51% Response Count 241 241 240 240 238 240 240 239 241 240 240 240 239 239 243 32

answered question skipped question

11

5. Personnel Issues Survey respondents were asked to rank their perception of how the Provost handles personnel issues, and Exhibit 5.1 presents a tabulation of the responses. The response count for each question is listed. The descriptive summary below excludes responses indicating no basis to answer the question.

Most categories received a bimodal response. Three areas of negative perceptions held by respondents were holding campus leadership accountable, responding fairly to personnel grievances, and responding to morale issues. Respondents had positive perceptions of the Provosts ability to facilitate professional development, to respect others, to encourage pride in MU, and to encourage diversity in hiring.

12

Exhibit 5.1
This question relates to how Provost Foster faces personnel issues. How well do you feel Provost Foster: Answer Options Recruits campus leadership Holds campus leadership accountable Facilitates professional development Respects others Responds fairly to personnel grievances Encourages quality performance from staff and faculty Responds to morale issues Encourages pride in the University of Missouri Fairly deals with people Encourages diversity in hiring Earns your respect Poorly 20% 22% 13% 15% 20% 20% 29% 14% 18% 7% 31% Somewhat poorly 16% 18% 19% 11% 12% 16% 19% 14% 16% 8% 14% Somewhat well 19% 19% 22% 19% 9% 17% 14% 24% 18% 20% 19% Well 15% 8% 17% 32% 12% 27% 13% 28% 23% 28% 25% No basis to answer 29% 34% 29% 23% 47% 19% 26% 21% 25% 36% 11% Response Count 237 238 237 237 237 238 237 236 239 238 237 240 35

answered question skipped question

13

6. MUs Missions and Academic Environment Survey respondents were asked to rank their perceptions of how the Provost handles MUs missions and academic environment, and Exhibit 6.1 presents a tabulation of the responses. The response count for each question is listed. The descriptive summary below excludes responses indicating no basis to answer the question.

For all categories but one, respondents indicated satisfaction with the Provosts ability to facilitate MUs missions and academic environment. Supporting academic needs received a bimodal response between the categories well and poorly.

14

Exhibit 6.1
This question relates to MU's missions and academic environment. How well do you believe the Provost: Answer Options Is guided by high academic standards Supports academic freedom Is knowledgeable about academic culture Supports academic needs Encourages innovative academic approaches Encourages MU's teaching mission Encourages MU's research mission Encourages MU's economic development mission Encourages MU's extension/outreach mission Encourages MU's international programs Encourages multi-disciplinary faculty activities Encourages faculty entrepreneurship Encourages multi-mission faculty activities Poorly 19% 18% 17% 21% 16% 16% 16% 8% 9% 7% 8% 8% 8% Somewhat poorly 17% 12% 13% 22% 16% 21% 19% 12% 13% 10% 13% 11% 11% Somewhat well 21% 18% 21% 18% 17% 22% 19% 20% 16% 25% 22% 19% 18% Well 30% 35% 31% 25% 31% 24% 35% 27% 17% 20% 40% 29% 24% No basis to answer 14% 18% 18% 13% 19% 18% 11% 33% 46% 38% 17% 33% 39% Response Count 233 232 232 233 231 233 232 233 232 230 232 230 228 234 41

answered question skipped question

15

7. Communication Skills Survey respondents were asked to rank their perceptions of how well the Provost communicates, and Exhibit 7.1 presents a tabulation of the responses. The response count for each question is listed. The descriptive summary below excludes responses indicating no basis to answer the question.

A majority of survey respondents indicated a negative perception with how well the Provost communicates and listens to the MU professional community. A majority of respondents do feel that the Provost clearly expresses his opinions.

16

Exhibit 7.1
This question relates to the Provost and his communication skills. How well do you believe the Provost: Answer Options Communicates with the faculty Communicates with the campus community Communicates the role(s) of the office of Provost Listens to the MU community Clearly expresses his opinions Communicates the needs of MU to the public Represents MU at the national level Effectively communicates to the faculty through the divisional administration Poorly 32% 31% 29% 30% 15% 24% 17% 29% Somewhat poorly 25% 25% 28% 20% 18% 20% 10% 23% Somewhat well 22% 20% 17% 18% 29% 18% 10% 18% Well 16% 15% 16% 14% 25% 13% 14% 13% No basis to answer 4% 10% 9% 17% 12% 24% 49% 18% Response Count 232 232 230 230 231 231 231 231 232 43

answered question skipped question

17

8. Budget and Resource Management Survey respondents were asked to rank their perceptions of the Provosts budget and resource management, and Exhibit 8.1 presents a tabulation of the responses. The response count for each question is listed. The descriptive summary below excludes responses indicating no basis to answer the question.

A majority of survey respondents to each question asked believe that the Provost could improve funding allocations and the use of funds.

18

Exhibit 8.1
This question relates to Provost Foster's budget and resource management. How well do you believe Provost Foster: Answer Options Uses funding effectively Fairly allocates funds Effectively manages University resources Effectively pursues additional support for the University Poorly 27% 27% 25% 16% Somewhat poorly 17% 15% 15% 13% Somewhat well 15% 19% 20% 13% Well 15% 12% 16% 15% No basis to answer 26% 26% 25% 43% Response Count 232 233 232 231 233 42

answered question skipped question

19

9. Administrative Offices Survey respondents were asked to rank their perception of the Provost and similar offices that serve faculty and campus needs, and Exhibit 9.1 presents a tabulation of the responses. The response count for each question is listed. The descriptive summary below excludes responses indicating no basis to answer the question.

Those respondents having a basis to answer generally indicated that theyre satisfied with the performance of administrative offices that operate under the Provosts leadership. Not surprisingly, many of those taking the survey indicated no basis to answer. If a question had greater than 50 percent of respondents having a basis to answer, then there was a strong satisfaction for those academic offices.

20

Exhibit 9.1
This question relates to the Provost Office and those administrative offices under the leadership of the Provost. How well do you believe the following offices serve faculty and campus needs? Answer Options Office of Administrative Service Office of Advanced Studies (graduate school) Office of Community College Partnerships Office of Extension and Cooperative Extension Office of Deputy Provost Office of Economic Development Office of Enrollment Management Office of Information Technology Office of Institutional Research Office of International Programs Office of MU Budget Office of Research Office of Student Affairs Office of Undergraduate Studies Poorly 6% 14% 5% 5% 14% 8% 4% 7% 8% 8% 8% 11% 3% 6% Somewhat poorly 12% 10% 6% 9% 7% 10% 8% 12% 10% 10% 12% 11% 7% 6% Somewhat well 13% 28% 11% 17% 16% 17% 19% 30% 23% 24% 19% 27% 25% 26% Well 15% 26% 9% 13% 24% 12% 25% 30% 24% 19% 32% 32% 26% 26% No basis to answer 54% 22% 69% 57% 38% 53% 44% 21% 36% 39% 29% 19% 39% 35% Response Count 216 221 221 220 222 219 222 222 220 221 219 221 219 220 224 51

answered question skipped question

21

10. Summary of Written Comments Three open-ended questions were provided for survey participant comments. Survey respondents provided considerable feedback, and this feedback was condensed into values statements. These values statements, by question, were summarized below. Please comment on any Provost administrative office:

Several respondents expressed a need to hold academic offices accountable. These same respondents indicated a lack of campus-wide transparency with respect to how these offices operate.

A few comments indicated that academic offices lack autonomy from the Provost. There were a couple of comments indicating low confidence in OSPA. A few comments indicated an appreciation for the Office of Undergraduate Studies. A few comments indicated concern for a lack of strategic vision and responsiveness from both the Graduate School and the Office of Undergraduate Studies.

Open comments regarding Provost Foster: A majority of the comments described that the Provost has good intentions but poor implementation. Many respondents offered their opinion about the reason for the poor implementation. A summary of these opinions include: has disorganized thoughts during communicating implementation, lacks follow-through on stated initiatives, lacks visibility to accomplish effective implementation, and fails to actively engage. Several respondents indicated that they felt the Provost is difficult to engage because he comes across as arrogant. Several respondents felt that the Provost has performed well with limited resources. Many comments suggest a lack of vertical communication with campus and a lack of horizontal communication with schools and colleges. Several comments alluded to the belief that the Provost does not consider faculty input during the decision-making process. A couple of comments related to concern that the Provost impedes faculty creativity.

22

A lot of frustration was expressed relative to the Provosts decision to overturn tenure decisions. Respondents indicated a feeling of demoralization that someone outside of their area of expertise knows more than they do.

Many comments were related to Mizzou Advantage. Two comments supported Mizzou Advantage. More than a dozen comments expressed concern that Mizzou Advantage monies have been spread too thin to have an impact, but most respondents realize this is due to limited financial resources. Most respondents felt that Mizzou Advantage fails to meet the goals of expanding impacts. Many respondents want to know why so many pizza parties.

Several persons offered appreciation that the Provost has championed the addition of non-tenure-track faculty, but these same persons tended to express concern that the Provost has failed at ensuring that the rights of non-tenure-track faculty are consistently applied across campus.

Two comments mentioned that the Provost has not gone far enough with diversity in the Provost Office.

Define role of Provost: Most of those responding to this question indicated that the Provost is the chief academic officer. The Provosts role is to ensure academic excellence. To collaborate with faculty and the student body and to improve the quality of the educational experience. Several respondents felt that the role of the Provost is to allocate resources efficiently and effectively. Many respondents felt that an effective Provost should be transparent with on- and offcampus stakeholders. A few respondents believe that the Provost should be motivational and inspirational in leading a campus toward excelling at the various University missions.

23

11. Overall Evaluation Assessment Survey respondents were asked to rank their perceptions of the Provosts growth since joining the University and assign a grade for his performance. A tabulation of those responses is found in Exhibits 11.1 and 11.2. Fifty-two percent of respondents indicated that his performance had remained the same or improved since his hiring (Exhibit 11.1). When asked to assign a grade to the Provost (Exhibit 11.2), respondents indicated an average GPA of 1.707 on a 4.0 scale (no + or -). Forty-six percent of respondents gave a grade of B or C, 37 percent of respondents gave a grade of D or F, and 41 percent gave a grade of A or B.

24

Exhibit 11.1
Provost Foster came to the University of Missouri in August, 2005. We ask that you rate his growth in performance since that time. Answer Options Provost Foster Declined very much 13% Somewhat declined 16% Remained the same 27% Improved somewhat 17% Improved very much 8% No basis to answer 20% Response Count 198 198 77

answered question skipped question

Exhibit 11.2
What grade would you give Provost Foster? Answer Options A B C D F Response Percent 17.0% 23.9% 22.0% 17.0% 20.2% Response Count 37 52 48 37 44 218 57

answered question skipped question

25