Assessing the Performance of Academic Presidents

View/ Open
Date
1998Author
Schwartz, Merrill Pellows
Advisor
Birnbaum, Robert
DRUM DOI
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Previous research on assessing the performance of college and
university presidents reveals little about the procedures used or the
consequences of those reviews, beyond that most presidents are evaluated
annually by the governing board. Much of the literature is based on anecdotal
evidence and claims that reviews are often poorly conducted and harmful to
presidents. Though the practice is widespread, and potentially destructive,
little is known about presidents' experiences with performance reviews.
This study posed three research questions: 1) What are the processes
used to evaluate the performance of academic presidents?; 2) What are the
outcomes of these reviews, according to presidents and board chairs?; and 3) What are the relationships between how assessments are conducted and the
outcomes reported? A national survey was conducted, using questionnaires
developed by the researcher; respondents included 1,348 college and
university presidents (64 % response rate) and 535 governing board chairs
(33% response rate).
Findings revealed that most presidential assessments were
confidential, limited in participation to trustees, completed in about one
month, included a self-assessment statement and face to face meetings with
members of the board, and resulted in an increase in compensation. This
described an informal review process and was similar to the process
recommended for most corporate CEOs.
Contrary to the claims of critics, most presidents were satisfied with the
way their review was conducted and found it to be useful; very few presidents
or board chairs reported any negative impact for presidents from reviews.
Bivariate analyses revealed that the most useful reviews for presidents
were those that: provided the president with more adequate performance
feedback from the board; were conducted less than once a year; and were used
to set goals, clarify criteria for good performance, and evaluate performance
against agreed upon goals. Presidents were most satisfied with reviews which
were used to set goals and clarify criteria for good performance, and allowed
greater participation of presidents in the review process. Significant
relationships were also found between: presidents seeking critical
performance feedback and both higher performance ratings and greater
improvement in performance; and residents seeking positive performance
feedback and lower performance ratings .
Based on the research and data, the study suggests that: presidential
assessments should have as the primary purpose improving the president's
performance; presidents should be actively involved in developing the
process and conducting the review, including a self-assessment statement;
reviews should be used to plan future goals and agree upon the criteria for
evaluating future performance; previously agreed upon goals should be used
as criteria; presidents should routinely receive performance feedback from the
board; boards should consider less frequent, more thorough reviews; and
presidents should actively seek critical performance feedback, but avoid
asking for positive feedback.