mu provost evaluation survey 2012

7/31/2019 MU Provost Evaluation Survey 2012

1/25

EvaluationConductedby:

20112012MUFacultyCouncil

Evaluationcoordinatedby:JoeParcell(FCVice-Chair)


2/25

TABLEOFCONTENTS

1. ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................32. DemographicRespondentSummary..........................................................53. UnderstandingofUniversityIssues............................................................84. GeneralAdministration.............................................................................105. PersonnelIssues......................................................................................126. MUsMissionsandAcademicEnvironment..............................................147. CommunicationSkills...............................................................................168. BudgetandResourceManagement.........................................................189. AdministrativeOffices...............................................................................2010.SummaryofWrittenComments................................................................2211.OverallEvaluationAssessment................................................................24


3/25

The University of Missouri Faculty Council is charged to conduct periodic performance reviewsof 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.


4/25

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.


5/25

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 campus-

reported 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).


6/25

Non-tenure-trackassistantprofessor 8.2%

Non-tenure-trackassociateprofessor 7.5%

Non-tenure-trackprofessor 2.2%

Tenure-trackassistantprofessor 5.6% Tenuredassociateprofessor 24.3%

Tenuredprofessor 42.9%

Instructor 0.7%

Administration(atleast50%) 6.0%

Staff 1.9%

Otherfaculty(examplesincludeLibrarianoroff-campusExtension) 5.6%

Other(pleasespecify)

1-5years 17.6%

6-10years 19.5%

11-20years 29.4%

20+years 33.5%

18-25 0.7%

26-40 15.5%

41-60 59.4%

61-70 22.5%


7/25

Male 68.4%

Female 31.6%

Yes 18.5%

No 81.5%

Teaching 77.0%

Research 66.8%

Extension 4.0%

Service 17.9%

Administration 19.3%


8/25

Survey respondents were asked to rank their perception of the Provosts basic understanding ofuniversity 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.


9/25

9

MUcampuschallenges 14% 21% 17% 37% 12% 251

Missourihighereducationchallenges 10% 19% 18% 38% 15% 251

Sharedgovernancewithfaculty 25% 18% 18% 22% 17% 251

TheCollectedRulesandRegulationsofUM 12% 10% 14% 32% 31% 249

Issuesofyourcollegeorschool 30% 16% 22% 17% 14% 251HistoryandtraditionsofMU 7% 11% 17% 29% 36% 247

TherelationshipofMUtoColumbia 7% 9% 18% 28% 37% 250

TherelationshipofMUtothestate 8% 16% 20% 32% 24% 248

TherelationshipofMUtogovernmentagencies 10% 13% 16% 26% 36% 250

TherelationshipofMUtoprivateindustrypartnerships

8% 14% 19% 24% 35% 249

TherelationshipofMUtointernationalpartnerships 8% 10% 20% 23% 39% 248

TherelationshipofExtensiontotheColumbia

campus

7% 10% 18% 18% 47% 250

Nationaleducationissues 8% 14% 20% 32% 25% 250

Relationshiptosystemandsistercampuses 5% 9% 18% 27% 41% 248


10/25

Survey respondents were asked to rank their perception of the Provosts performance in thegeneral 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.


11/25

11

Guideshisactionswithprofessionalvalues 17% 14% 18% 36% 16% 241

Makeslogicaldecisions 26% 18% 18% 24% 15% 241

Actsstrategically 23% 18% 15% 28% 16% 240

Performsethically 14% 10% 16% 35% 25% 240

Quicklyidentifiesneedsonthecampus23% 18% 20% 16% 24% 238

Treatsallschools,colleges,anddivisionsequally 22% 17% 18% 12% 31% 240

Buildseffectiveteams 23% 14% 19% 16% 28% 240

Delegatesauthority 13% 14% 16% 22% 34% 239

ProvidesavisionforthefutureofMU 24% 20% 20% 24% 12% 241

HasmaintainedthequalityoftheMUphysicalfacility 13% 13% 29% 21% 25% 240

Acceptsadvice 23% 13% 15% 13% 36% 240

Createsaclimatefordiversity 10% 10% 25% 24% 30% 240

Supportsanefficientgrantsandcontractprocess 12% 12% 22% 19% 34% 239

Facilitatesintellectualpropertycommercialization 9% 10% 16% 14% 51% 239


12/25

Survey respondents were asked to rank their perception of how the Provost handles personnelissues, 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.


13/25

13

Recruitscampusleadership 20% 16% 19% 15% 29% 237

Holdscampusleadershipaccountable 22% 18% 19% 8% 34% 238

Facilitatesprofessionaldevelopment 13% 19% 22% 17% 29% 237

Respectsothers 15% 11% 19% 32% 23% 237

Respondsfairlytopersonnelgrievances 20% 12% 9% 12% 47% 237

Encouragesqualityperformancefromstaffandfaculty

20% 16% 17% 27% 19% 238

Respondstomoraleissues 29% 19% 14% 13% 26% 237

EncouragesprideintheUniversityofMissouri 14% 14% 24% 28% 21% 236

Fairlydealswithpeople 18% 16% 18% 23% 25% 239

Encouragesdiversityinhiring 7% 8% 20% 28% 36% 238

Earnsyourrespect 31% 14% 19% 25% 11% 237


14/25

Survey respondents were asked to rank their perceptions of how the Provost handles MUsmissions 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.


15/25

15

Isguidedbyhighacademicstandards 19% 17% 21% 30% 14% 233

Supportsacademicfreedom 18% 12% 18% 35% 18% 232

Isknowledgeableaboutacademicculture 17% 13% 21% 31% 18% 232

Supportsacademicneeds 21% 22% 18% 25% 13% 233

Encouragesinnovativeacademicapproaches 16% 16% 17% 31% 19% 231

EncouragesMU'steachingmission 16% 21% 22% 24% 18% 233

EncouragesMU'sresearchmission 16% 19% 19% 35% 11% 232

EncouragesMU'seconomicdevelopmentmission 8% 12% 20% 27% 33% 233

EncouragesMU'sextension/outreachmission 9% 13% 16% 17% 46% 232

EncouragesMU'sinternationalprograms 7% 10% 25% 20% 38% 230

Encouragesmulti-disciplinaryfacultyactivities 8% 13% 22% 40% 17% 232

Encouragesfacultyentrepreneurship 8% 11% 19% 29% 33% 230

Encouragesmulti-missionfacultyactivities 8% 11% 18% 24% 39% 228


16/25

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.


17/25

17

Communicateswiththefaculty 32% 25% 22% 16% 4% 232

Communicateswiththecampuscommunity 31% 25% 20% 15% 10% 232

Communicatestherole(s)oftheofficeofProvost 29% 28% 17% 16% 9% 230

ListenstotheMUcommunity 30% 20% 18% 14% 17% 230

Clearlyexpresseshisopinions 15% 18% 29% 25% 12% 231

CommunicatestheneedsofMUtothepublic 24% 20% 18% 13% 24% 231

RepresentsMUatthenationallevel 17% 10% 10% 14% 49% 231

Effectivelycommunicatestothefacultythroughthedivisionaladministration

29% 23% 18% 13% 18% 231


18/25

Survey respondents were asked to rank their perceptions of the Provosts budget and resourcemanagement, 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.


19/25

19

Usesfundingeffectively 27% 17% 15% 15% 26% 232

Fairlyallocatesfunds 27% 15% 19% 12% 26% 233

EffectivelymanagesUniversityresources 25% 15% 20% 16% 25% 232

EffectivelypursuesadditionalsupportfortheUniversity

16% 13% 13% 15% 43% 231


20/25

Survey respondents were asked to rank their perception of the Provost and similar offices thatserve 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.


21/25

21

OfficeofAdministrativeService 6% 12% 13% 15% 54% 216

OfficeofAdvancedStudies(graduateschool) 14% 10% 28% 26% 22% 221

OfficeofCommunityCollegePartnerships 5% 6% 11% 9% 69% 221

OfficeofExtensionandCooperativeExtension 5% 9% 17% 13% 57% 220

OfficeofDeputyProvost 14% 7% 16% 24% 38% 222

OfficeofEconomicDevelopment 8% 10% 17% 12% 53% 219

OfficeofEnrollmentManagement 4% 8% 19% 25% 44% 222

OfficeofInformationTechnology 7% 12% 30% 30% 21% 222

OfficeofInstitutionalResearch 8% 10% 23% 24% 36% 220

OfficeofInternationalPrograms 8% 10% 24% 19% 39% 221

OfficeofMUBudget 8% 12% 19% 32% 29% 219

OfficeofResearch 11% 11% 27% 32% 19% 221

OfficeofStudentAffairs 3% 7% 25% 26% 39% 219

OfficeofUndergraduateStudies 6% 6% 26% 26% 35% 220


22/25

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 samerespondents 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 poorimplementation. 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


23/25

A lot of frustration was expressed relative to the Provosts decision to overturn tenuredecisions. 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 MizzouAdvantage. 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 ofnon-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 theProvost Office.

Define role of Provost:

Most of those responding to this question indicated that the Provost is the chief academicofficer. The Provosts role is to ensure academic excellence.

To collaborate with faculty and the student body and to improve the quality of theeducational experience.

Several respondents felt that the role of the Provost is to allocate resources efficiently andeffectively.

Many respondents felt that an effective Provost should be transparent with on- and off-campus stakeholders.

A few respondents believe that the Provost should be motivational and inspirational in


24/25

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.


25/25

25

ProvostFoster 13% 16% 27% 17% 8% 20% 198

A 17.0% 37

B 23.9% 52

C 22.0% 48

D 17.0% 37

F 20.2% 44

mu provost evaluation survey 2012

Documents