3.12.B.5 - Post-Tenure Review for Administrative Faculty

All employees who are defined as administrative faculty in Section 1.1 of Kennesaw State University’s Faculty Handbook are not subject to the Post-tenure Review process described in Section 3.12.B.4 for tenure-track teaching faculty.

Such individuals will undergo the following process, known as “Administrative Post-Tenure Review” (Administrative PTR). Although all administrators are subject to Administrative PTR, there will be occasional differences between those administrators within Academic units (such as department chairs/directors and college deans) and those who are not (such as those in Academic Affairs, the Office of Research, etc.). The former are herein referred to as “Academic Administrators” and the latter as “University Administrators”. Unlike the Post-Tenure Review process for tenure-track teaching faculty, Administrative PTR is largely developmental, reflecting the fact that individuals in these positions serve at the discretion of their supervisors. Per BoR Policy 3.2, their tenure protects their faculty position, but their administrative position is not “protected”. As such, performance reviews inform supervisory decisions, but do not result in formal remediation or improvement plans in the same manner as tenure-track teaching faculty reviews. 

I. Purpose of Administrative Post-Tenure Review 

1. The intent of Administrative PTR is to ensure accountability for those administrators who hold tenure, and to provide comprehensive developmental feedback regarding an individual’s administrative duties and job performance. This will be accomplished through an inclusive collection of data at multiple levels, known as a “360 degree” review, which ensures a full perspective of one’s performance, strengths, and areas for improvement.

II. Frequency of Administrative Post-Tenure Review

1. All eligible administrators shall be reviewed in the second full academic year in their position inclusive of “interim” years, and every five years thereafter. If an individual is permanently assigned to a different administrative position, the timeline shall be reset. If administrators are hired by October 1, then this will be considered their first year and they will be reviewed in the following year.
2. Applications for promotion in rank are separate from Administrative PTR and subject to the regular procedures outlined in (Section 3.12.B.2).
3. This process shall commence in Fall 2023, with the Administrative PTR Committee (see below) collaborating with Academic Affairs to ensure staggered reviews and appropriate review loads for units and supervisors.
4. In exceptional circumstances, the Administrative PTR committee may recommend to the Provost to conduct a 360 review outside of the timeline in 2.a. above.

III. Management of Administrative Post-Tenure Review 

1. Management of the Administrative PTR process shall be led by a Faculty PTR Coordinator appointed by the Provost. 
2. The Faculty PTR Coordinator shall work with a committee to facilitate the Administrative PTR process, and separately to resolve discrepancies should they occur. This committee shall be known as the Administrative PTR Committee, consisting of the Faculty PTR Coordinator and:
   1. Chair of the Chairs and Directors Assembly
   2. President of the Faculty Senate
   3. Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
3. The responsibilities of the Faculty PTR Coordinator include:
   1. Collaborating with Academic Affairs on developing and maintaining the Administrative PTR review calendar. 
   2. Collaborating with Academic Affairs on developing and maintaining the timeline for each year’s Administrative PTR. 
   3. Facilitating all activities, communication, and responsibilities with an outside firm that will conduct the data collection for Administrative PTR.
   4. Communicating with reviewee and supervisor about development of reviewer list, consulting with the Administrative PTR Committee if necessary.
   5. Working with the Administrative PTR Committee to consider changes to process, to be developed in consultation with appropriate shared governance bodies and approved by the Provost and the President.
   6. Coordinating with supervisor and, if applicable, shared governance committees, for contextual meetings and feedback. 
   7. Providing training and consultation, as needed, with all stakeholders in the process, including reviewees, supervisors, and reviewers. 
   8. Working with supervisor to ensure appropriate survey is sent to respondents. 

IV. Timeline of Administrative Post-Tenure Review 

1. The Faculty PTR Coordinator shall collaborate with Academic Affairs to determine which  administrators are to be reviewed each year. This list shall be completed by the end of August, and all individuals on the list shall be notified by the Faculty PTR coordinator. 
2. During September and October, the Faculty PTR Coordinator shall work with reviewees and their supervisors to complete the necessary tasks in Section 5 below. 
3. The surveys for 360 reviews shall be distributed by an outside contractor during November.
4. The survey results shall be distributed during December, or as soon as the outside firm is able. 
   1. A secure data link shall be distributed to the Faculty PTR Coordinator, who will forward secure links containing relevant data and reports to:
      1. The reviewee
      2. The supervisor
      3. The relevant shared governance body (if applicable of Academic Administrators)
   2. Only responses from faculty and staff will be shared with shared governance bodies
5. The survey results shall be compiled into a summary report by the outside contractor, and in the case of Academic Administrators, responses from faculty and staff shall be   reported separately from other respondents. Raw data shall also be provided if requested for specialized analysis.
6. Reviewed administrators shall meet with their supervisor as early as feasible in the spring, according to the timeline approved by the Provost. This meeting serves as both the annual review and the Administrative PTR meeting and shall cover topics traditionally associated with the annual review, as well as the feedback collected as part of the 360 review.
7. Supervisors of  “Academic Administrators” shall meet with relevant shared governance bodies (such as Department Faculty Councils, College Faculty Councils, and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee) prior to meeting with the reviewee. Each shared governance body will include one staff member for this review. In cases where an entire department serves as the Department Faculty Council, the department will identify three individuals to serve as the review committee and name a chair. This meeting is meant to provide greater context to the responses from faculty and staff, and to explore areas for growth and development in the administration of the academic unit. Supervisors are encouraged to meet with these bodies during the spring of non-review years as well, to maintain communication and to collect informal feedback about the performance of Academic Administrators. Supervisors are also encouraged during the spring of non-review years to meet with other relevant stakeholders to discuss the context of the reviewees’ performance. For instance, it may be useful to meet with a college curriculum committee chair to discuss the performance of an associate dean who handles curriculum matters.
8. Supervisors of “University Administrators” are encouraged to meet with relevant individuals and stakeholders prior to meeting with the reviewee, though this will vary greatly across the university.
9. A hard copy of all data and/or summaries shall be placed in the University Archives by the Faculty PTR Coordinator no later than June 30 each year.

V. Participants in Administrative Post-Tenure Review 

A. University Administrators

1. University Administrators serve in a variety of capacities, with diverse organizational structures to consider. As such, their 360 reviews will vary and be highly individualized. Reviews of these individuals should seek to sample five respondents from “above”, five respondents considered “peers” and ten respondents considered subordinates or customers of the service they provide to the university. Each position is unique, but reviewers from “above” may include university administrators above their position, external stakeholders, or peers of their supervisor. Reviewers considered “peers” would be other university administrators not above their administrative rank. Reviewers considered subordinate or customers would include all direct reports, and, if appropriate, colleagues from around the university below their administrative rank who work regularly with the administrator.
2. The administrator and supervisor develop a list of potential reviewers, ideally twice the minimum required in each group, with the administrator under review supplying at least half of the names on the list. The goal is to develop a mutually acceptable list of reviewers who have sufficient experience working with the administrator to provide valid responses.
3. The supervisor shall narrow the list of reviewers to no fewer than ten. The overall number of reviewers shall ensure appropriate representation based on the position. Ideally, reviewees shall only exceed twenty when the number of direct reports from below exceeds ten. In exceptional circumstances, the number may be fewer than outlined above. Exceptions must be approved by the Provost or Provost designee. The Administrative PTR Committee may be consulted in such instances. The Committee shall resolve disputes regarding reviewers. 

B. Academic Administrators

1. Academic Administrators serve in positions that are more consistent across the university, though there are certainly variations in job descriptions and portfolios. Most Academic Administrators are:
   1. department/school chairs/directors;
   2. associate/assistant deans;
   3. deans;
   4. provost.
2. Reviews of academic administrators shall mirror those of university administrators, attempting to secure five reviews from “above” and five from “peers”. However, all faculty and staff in their unit shall also be invited to complete review surveys. All permanent, full-time department/school faculty and staff will have the opportunity to evaluate a chair/director. All permanent, full-time college faculty and staff will have the opportunity to evaluate assistant/associate deans and deans. All permanent, full-time university faculty and staff under the umbrella of Academic Affairs will have the opportunity to evaluate the provost.
3. In all cases above, the supervisor may decide to expand the list of eligible reviewers. In exceptional circumstances, the number may be fewer than outlined above. Exceptions must be approved by the Provost or Provost designee. The Administrative PTR Committee may be consulted in such instances.

VI.Outcomes of Administrative Post-Tenure Review 

1. Supervisors shall write a narrative that is inserted in the annual review document highlighting the findings of the Administrative PTR. It shall also be sent to the chair of the relevant shared governance body, if applicable.