12/12/2010: This quarter’s grades are now up for the UO administrators. Given that Chip Kelly only got an A-, our poll responders seem a bit on the tough side. You want to see more evidence of effort?
Regardless, whoever is in charge of this place should consider implementing a deadline, to encourage early withdrawal for some of these administrators, as we do for our under-performing students.
Yes, I know these are bullshit polls I am running. But while UO’s rules require in-depth evaluations of our top administrators, they ignore the rules. Go figure. So this is all we’ve got to go on.
The UO Faculty Handbook says:
C. Evaluating Administrators
Officers of administration, like their teaching colleagues, are entitled to an annual evaluation by the head of the department, dean, or director of the faculty member’s administrative unit. University policy requires that an in-depth evaluation be conducted every three years. …
And this HR webpage has this:
Performance appraisals are one of the most effective supervisory tools to communicate expectations, provide feedback, plan work, acknowledge contributions, and help employees gain the skills to be successful. They are especially important for Officers of Administration who often provide leadership to students, staff and colleagues in meeting the university’s mission and goals. …
Annual appraisals for OAs are required by the university president and vice presidents. This is especially important in the first few years in a new position to ensure clarity on expectations and performance.