Academic Administrative Rating Report RESULTS

 

 

 

Administrator Rated:	Jack B. Quick, Ph.D.
Administrative Position:	Chair, Candle Stick Design and Production
Constituency Group:	Faculty within the department.
Total Potential Respondents:	19
Total Respondents for this Rating:	16

 

*Comment:

If the Total Potential Respondents cell is Unknown, or the ratio of Total Respondents for this Rating to Total Potential Respondents is less than 51%, please note that insufficient data exists to conclude that the perceptions of the constituency group are accurately represented.

                                                                                                                              

Subscores (4.00 is the highest possible rating and 1.00 is the lowest).

Organizational Leadership	External Relations	Human Relations	Faculty Values	Personal Integrity	TOTAL RATING
3.2	3.7	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.5

                                              

The following pages include an INTERPRETATION GUIDE as well as graphic representations of the responses to all items in the rating form, including the comments.  In interpreting the graphs please note the representations of the responses to ALL choices including the NO BASIS FOR JUDGMENT choice.  Use the Legend in the upper right hand corner of every chart to identify the color used for each response choice in the charts.    A printout of the actual rating form is included for your convenience at the end of this Report.

Academic Administrator Rating Report

INTERPRETIVE GUIDE

 

 

 

Organizational Leadership 

This dimension addresses the perceptions of the respondents relative to the administrators skill and ability in leading the organization by means of systematic planning.  Such leadership also involves the careful integration of the organizations goals and objectives into specific tasks and priorities that the administrator sets and carries out. 

 

• Administrators with a high score on this dimension (2.75 or higher) are generally seen as being organized and pursuing the organizations mission in a systematic manner.

 

• Administrators with a low score on this dimension (2.00 or lower) may be seen as disorganized or pursuing goals that may contradict one another or not be in support of the organizations overall mission.

 

 

External Relations 

This dimension addresses the perceptions of the respondents relative to the administrators skill, attitude  and performance in representing the organization to the åoutside world both as an åambassador promoting the organization and as a åscout searching for external threats to, or opportunities for, the organization.

 

• Administrators with a high score on this dimension (2.75 or higher) are generally seen as being willing and skilled in promoting a positive image of the organization within the community, and recognizing and/or using information from outside the organization that may represent a threat or an opportunity.

 

• Administrators with a low score on this dimension (2.00 or lower) may be seen as being either unable or unwilling to promote a positive image of the organization, or failing to recognize and/or use information from outside the organization that may represent a threat or an opportunity.

 

 

Human Relations

This dimension addresses the perceptions of the respondents relative to the administrators personal characteristics in dealing with others within the organization. 

 

• Administrators with a high score on this dimension (2.75 or higher) may be seen as being open-minded, considerate, willing to delegate authority, and generally skillful in dealing positively with subordinates in the work environment.

 

• Administrators with a low score on this dimension (2.00 or lower) may be seen as being close-minded, lacking in consideration of others, playing it åclose to the vest, and generally not very skillful in dealing positively with subordinates in the work environment.

 

 

 

Faculty Values 

This dimension addresses the perceptions of the respondents as to the degree that the administrator supports and promotes a supportive, collaborative working relationship with the faculty.

 

• Administrators with a high score on this dimension (2.75 or higher) may be seen as seeking out a collaborative working relationship with faculty, promoting an overall atmosphere of mutual trust, and generally being supportive of faculty growth and development.

 

• Administrators with a low score on this dimension (2.00 or lower) may be seen as being generally unsupportive and distrustful of faculty, inhibiting faculty participation in institutional governance, and not sharing the same values as faculty relative to the administration of the organization.

 

Personal Integrity 

This dimension addresses the perceptions of the respondents regarding the administrators fairness and personal integrity.

 

• Administrators with a high score on this dimension (2.75 or higher) may be seen as being honest, fair and unselfish in dealing with others in the work environment as well as being supportive of the personal professional growth of subordinates.

 

• Administrators with a low score on this dimension (2.00 or lower) may be seen as being disingenuous in dealing with others, somewhat selfish in putting their own personal needs ahead others, unfair in evaluating or appropriately rewarding subordinates work.

 

Total Rating

The TOTAL RATING is simply the average of the responses to all items on the form. The TOTAL RATING should be considered simply a general indicator and should be interpreted with caution, and only in conjunction with the specific sub-scores presented. 

 

RESPONDENT DATA

The Academic Administrator Rating form also gathers data concerning the respondents knowledge of the administrators duties and responsibilities, frequency of interaction with the administrator, employment status, faculty rank, and tenure status.  This information may be used to further interpret the rating data.