Review of Campus Senior Administrators

Scope

This policy applies to Chancellors, Chief Academic Officers, Vice Chancellors, Vice Provosts, Deans of Administrative Units, and College, School, and Core School Deans of all campuses.  

For review of academic degree programs, see ACA-65: Annual and Comprehensive Program Review.  

A foundational principle of Indiana University is its enduring partnership across its units, including faculty and librarians, to collectively advance the institution's mission. The establishment, revision, and retirement of academic policies will occur with consultation and input from the University Faculty Council.  

Pursuant to Indiana Code (IC) 21-38-11, faculty governance organization actions are advisory only.  

This policy shall supersede all campus, school and college, program, department, center, institute, and unit policies on any core or regional campuses of Indiana University. 

Back to top

Policy Statement

Immediate supervisors are responsible for evaluating their direct reports and for organizing all processes associated with that evaluation. In carrying out these responsibilities, the supervisor will collaborate with the relevant faculty governance organizations. The evaluation sequence will include:  

1. Formative Reviews: Conducted at the beginning of the employee’s second year of appointment.  
2. Comprehensive Reviews: First conducted at the beginning of the employee’s fifth year of appointment. After this initial review, ongoing comprehensive evaluations occur every four years, or sooner if circumstances warrant an earlier assessment.  

Formative Review  

The formative review is intended to support professional growth, clarify performance expectations, and identify specific areas for improvement that advance university and unit goals.  

The review will consist of a constituent survey coordinated and supported by the relevant University Administration (UA) office in consultation with the respective university or campus supervisor and campus faculty governance organization.  

A qualified third-party unit will design and administer the survey and will provide the resulting report to the responsible supervisor.   

Comprehensive Review  

The university conducts periodic comprehensive reviews of administrators to ensure effective leadership, accountability, and alignment with institutional goals. These reviews assess performance and strategic impact, incorporate stakeholder feedback as appropriate, and inform decisions regarding reappointment and leadership continuity in support of institutional excellence.  

The responsible supervisor has discretion in determining which areas to emphasize in the review. However, the supervisor is encouraged to consider the following factors, using them as written, modifying, and/or substituting as necessary to reflect the specific responsibilities of the administrator under review:  

• Execution of institutional priorities and goals as articulated by the Board of Trustees and the President   

• Administration of academic, faculty, and student programs   

• Financial performance of the campus or unit   

• Academic progress and outcomes of the campus or unit   

• Engagement with and service to the geographic region served by the campus or unit   

• Staff and faculty development, including all associated human resources matters  

Principles for Administrator Reviews

The evaluation will be based on the administrator’s current job description, as provided by the responsible supervisor, as well as on reports from prior reviews, including the recommendations from the formative review.  

The administrator under review will submit a written assessment of their campus-specific and personal performance goals to the Review Committee. In addition, the administrator will meet with the Review Committee to:  

• Provide an overview of their role, responsibilities, and major activities  

• Discuss key issues facing the campus or unit  

• Identify the primary constituencies engaged in their work  

• Recommend individuals or groups from whom the Review Committee should solicit input 

The relevant UA office will coordinate review procedures and provide support, such as staffing and financial resources, to the responsible university or campus supervisor and the relevant campus faculty governance organization.  

Review Committees should be constructed to ensure broad and appropriate representation. Committees should reflect:  

• Relevant campuses, units, and disciplines  

• Multiple viewpoints and perspectives  

• Appropriate ranks and appointment categories  

• Faculty and/or staff with expertise aligned with the responsibilities of the senior administrators being hired  

Individuals serving on Review Committees must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest with the administrator under review and/or the review process. Before the review begins, the Review Committee's proposed membership will be shared with the administrator under review. The administrator may object to any nominee for cause, and the responsible supervisor will consider such objections when determining the final composition of the Committee.  

Chancellors  

• Because the responsibilities of a Chancellor directly affect the teaching and research mission of the campus, at least half of the Review Committee members must be faculty from the relevant campus.  

• Faculty should be representative of the multiple viewpoints and perspectives of the campus community.  

• To ensure appropriate representation of campus constituencies and the broader community, the Committee may also include non-faculty members.  

Chief Academic Officers  

(e.g., Provost, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs)  

• A majority of the Review Committee members must be faculty from the campus led by the Chief Academic Officer under review.  

• Faculty should be representative of the multiple viewpoints and perspectives of the campus community.  

• To ensure appropriate representation of campus constituencies and the broader community, the Committee may also include non-faculty members.  

Vice Chancellors, Vice Provosts, and Deans of Administrative Units  

• The proportion of faculty representation on the Review Committee is based on the academic responsibilities of the position and its direct relationship to the campus’s teaching and research mission. When appropriate, faculty will comprise a majority of the committee.  

• For non-academic administrative positions, committee membership will include individuals whose responsibilities and expertise are directly connected to the operational functions of the relevant campus or unit.  

College, School, and Core School Deans  

• A majority of the Review Committee members must be faculty from the college, school, or Core School led by the Dean under review.  

• When conducting a review of a Core School Dean, the faculty members serving on the Review Committee must be representative of all campuses overseen by the Dean.  

• Additional members of the university community may be nominated as appropriate to ensure relevant and balanced representation.  

Review Components  

The review will include the following:  

1. Information collected by the responsible supervisor, as deemed appropriate for the purposes of the review.  
2. A summary submitted by the administrator under review outlining their accomplishments, goals, and objectives.  

The review process may also include input from one or more peers—internal or external, as appropriate—who are familiar with the responsibilities and duties of the administrator under review.  

All reports and relevant data compiled during the review will be submitted to the responsible supervisor. These materials will be used by the supervisor in accordance with this policy and any applicable institutional guidelines.  

Back to top

Reason for Policy

The purpose of administrator reviews is to provide supervisors and other stakeholders with comprehensive information about the quality of an administrator’s leadership. These reviews serve not only to recognize and reinforce successful performance but also to identify areas in which improvement may be needed. Through this process, appropriate constituencies are given the opportunity to offer their perspectives on the effectiveness of university and campus administrators, ensuring that feedback is both broad and meaningful. 

Back to top

Procedures

Comprehensive Review Procedures 

Timing 

The responsible supervisor will convene the Review Committee far enough in advance to allow at least one full academic semester for the committee to complete its work, and the review must be conducted within the academic year. At the committee’s inaugural meeting, the faculty leader of the campus faculty governance organization or a member of its executive committee will be invited to participate.  

Peer Reviewers 

One or more peer reviewers, who may include a higher education consultant, may be appointed by the responsible supervisor to advise the Review Committee. Peer reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest with the administrator under review and/or the review process. Each peer reviewer must be an administrator with knowledge of comparable roles at similar institutions, ensuring that their perspective aligns with the responsibilities of the position under review.  

The responsible supervisor, in consultation with both the chair of the Review Committee and the administrator under review, will select the peer reviewer(s). The peer reviewer(s) will prepare a single written report and submit it directly to the chair of the Review Committee and to the responsible supervisor. The Review Committee’s final report will incorporate and acknowledge the peer reviewer’s findings, which also may be included in the Committee’s final report.  

Review Questions 

The Review Committee should seek to address the following questions using them as written, modifying, and/or substituting as necessary to reflect the specific responsibilities of the administrator under review:  

1. To what extent has the administrator provided leadership in establishing clear goals and objectives for the campus or unit, and are these goals appropriate for its mission and needs?  
2. Has the administrator appropriately involved relevant constituencies in the development and adoption of these goals?  
3. How effectively does the administrator support and facilitate progress toward meeting the established goals?  
4. How effectively does the administrator represent the campus or unit to external stakeholders, including individuals and organizations outside the immediate unit?  
5. How successful has the administrator been in managing the campus or unit in the context of various internal and external pressures?  
6. What are the administrator’s key strengths and weaknesses, and how do these factors influence their overall effectiveness?  
7. How is the campus or unit perceived by its constituents, including students, faculty, and staff? When applicable, how is it perceived within the broader university system and, if relevant, at the local, state, or national level?  

Information Collection, Confidentiality, and Impartiality 

The Review Committee is responsible for collecting the information necessary to conduct a thorough and fair review. To do this, the Committee may draw on a range of sources. These include documentary materials, constituent surveys, and letters, as well as group and individual interviews, which can provide insight into the administrator’s performance. Interviews may involve:  

• Campus and university-level administrators  

• Chancellors and/or Chief Academic Officers from other IU campuses  

• Staff, students, community members, and faculty from the administrator’s campus or unit  

• Members of relevant faculty governance organizations  

In addition, the Committee will gather information from groups and individuals specifically identified by the administrator under review. While the Committee seeks broad input, open meetings for collecting review information are discouraged because they may inhibit candid feedback or compromise confidentiality.  

To carry out its work, the Review Committee will establish procedures that ensure all relevant perspectives are welcomed and fairly considered. These procedures will also help participants understand how their information will be evaluated. The precise data collected will depend on the administrator’s responsibilities and the context of their campus or unit.  

To maintain accountability and integrity in the process, all individual comments must be submitted by identifiable individuals. The Committee will not include anonymous comments.    

Except as required by Indiana law, the review process and all documents solicited and created in the process must be treated confidentially.  

Survey 

Note: These requirements apply to both formative and comprehensive reviews.  

The responsible supervisor will appoint a qualified third-party unit to design, manage, and administer the survey. The survey will include three sections:  

1. Core Questions (approximately 10)  
   Developed by the executive committee of the relevant faculty governance organization, in consultation with the survey agent. These questions should align with those used to evaluate administrators in comparable roles and will emphasize:  

• Leadership  
• Administrative effectiveness  
• Faculty engagement  
• Program development  

2. Unit-Specific Questions (approximately 5)  
Prepared by the relevant unit level body representing the administrator under review and tailored to the unique context of the unit. 

3. Qualitative Comment Section  

A section will be included to allow respondents to provide open-ended narrative feedback. 

The survey agent will distribute the survey to the appropriate identified audience and collect responses within a defined timeframe. After collection, the agent will tabulate the results and compile all comments. To ensure anonymity, all names and identifying information will be removed before the results are shared with the administrator under review, the responsible supervisor, or other appropriate stakeholders.  

Formative Review Reporting  

Each campus will develop reporting processes that ensure the results of the formative review are shared with the administrator under review, the responsible supervisor, and any other stakeholders, as appropriate.  

Comprehensive Review Reporting  

Each campus will, at minimum, follow the below steps to report results of the comprehensive review. Campuses may develop additional reporting processes.  

Pre-report Meetings 

Before submitting its final report to the responsible supervisor, the Review Committee will:  

1. Meet separately with the administrator under review  
2. Then meet with the responsible supervisor  

The purpose of both meetings is to discuss the committee’s findings. 

The administrator under review will be given an opportunity to respond to these findings.  

Preparation of and Access to the Final Report 

• After considering the administrator’s response, the Review Committee will prepare its final written report and submit it to the responsible supervisor.  

• If significant disagreements arise within the Review Committee regarding the content of the final report, a minority report may be submitted alongside the committee’s final report.  

• The administrator under review will have access to the final report and any accompanying minority reports.  

Executive Summary   

• The Review Committee will produce an executive summary of its findings.  

• The responsible supervisor will determine which elements are included in the executive summary.  

• The executive summary must accurately reflect the survey results and must not include direct quotations from any documents in the final report.  

Distribution and Presentation   

• The executive summary will be made available to both the administrator under review and the responsible supervisor.  

• The summary will be provided to the executive committee of the relevant faculty governance organization.  

• After receiving the summary, the president of that faculty governance organization will deliver an oral summary in executive session to the relevant councils.  

Back to top

History

This policy became effective by approval of the Board of Trustees.

(Board of Trustees, November 3, 2006)

In July 2024, a reference to the renamed IU Indianapolis campus was updated in this policy.

June 2025- Substantive revisions and update Responsible Office and Responsible Administrator

May 2026- Substantive revisions

Back to top