FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W94590218> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W94590218 abstract "Under the administrator evaluation program adopted at Vincennes University, all faculty and professional staff are invited to evaluate each administrator above them in the chain of command. Originally based on the Purdue University system, this evaluation model has been used biannually for 10 years. In an effort to simplify the system, a single evaluation form was developed. This form includes: (1) a rank-ordered set of 22 statements covering the basic requirements of managerial responsibility; (2) a five-point Likert scale response legend; (3) a check-off to indicate the level of each person responding; and (4) a code for every administrator on campus. The cover letter accompanying the survey explains that up to six administrators can be evaluated per page, and th...t participation is voluntary and confidential. A flat file of responses is built and analyzed with the statistical analysis system. The cross-tabulations for each question by each level of respondents are entered onto a spreadsheet, and an evaluative index is developed, yielding an overall positive or negative response value. Group norms are developed based on all responses regarding deans, department heads, and vice presidents. Although most responses to the revised form were positive, overall evaluation response was lighter than desired and lower than previous years. The evaluation will be repeated in 1996. The paper includes 13 references, copies of the cover letter, evaluation form, and norms for academic department heads. (KP) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied b!, EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** A Model for Administrative Evaluation by Subordinates U S DEPARTMEN1 OF EDUCATION °ESOLIRCPC INFORMATION CENTER ERIC, WThs documeni has been ,e:Yeat.cei JS ecetved horn Me rersc, co .):9a,,,ra!,,,, Mno, chao9e5 have boon 111,10t .r,Pove .eprclocl.oh Qu,71,1), Ponts et wets or ,V+P.enS Mik)6 (10Cur,ent do ncl --ecessard, feprose,: OERI vots.1.00 pet,cv A Paper presented at the 1995 AIR Forum May 29 June 1, 1995 Boston, Mass PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY J. Budig TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER IERIC1 Dr. Jeanne E. Budig Assistant to the President for Research and Planning Vincennes University Vincennes Indiana 47591 812-888-4377 email jbudig@vunet.vinu.edu 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE A Model for Administrative Evaluation by Subordinates Abstract: Colleges and universities routinely evaluate students, faculty, and support staff. But a system for evaluating administrators is less well defined. This paper describes a microcomputer-analyzed model of administrative evaluation whereby all professional faculty and staff are invited to voluntarily evaluate all administrators above them in their chain of command, right up to the president of the college. Colleges and universities routinely evaluate students, faculty, and support staff. But a system for evaluating administrators is less well defined. This paper describes a microcomputer-analyzed model of administrative evaluation whereby all professional faculty and staff are invited to voluntarily evaluate all administrators above them in their chain of command, right up to the president of the college. Fair and creative ways to measure effectiveness of those who administer higher education is a universal but elusive goal. Barnard (1938), Katz (1955), Likert (1958), Drucker (1964), and many others helped define what is expected of good managers and suggested how to evaluate effectiveness. Fisher (1978) applied the principles of administrative evaluation to higher education. Trow (1982) published a Practical Manual and the Educational Research Services (1985) a comprehensive Report. Administrator evaluation was a 'hot topic' for Phi Delta Kappa in 1985. (Barber). Purdue University published a cafeteria to instructional evaluation in 1974. This approach was adapted for evaluation of administrators by subordinates at West Virginia University (Goodwin and Smith, 1981). Budig reported on one application (1986). Miller (1993) describes administrative evaluation in a shared governance environment, which includes an element of evaluation by subordinates. Description of this study Vincennes University has adopted a system whereby all faculty and professional staff are invited to evaluate, on a voluntary and confidential basis, each administrator above them in their chain of command, right on up to and including the president." @default.
• W94590218 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W94590218 creator A5039927954 @default.
• W94590218 date "1995-01-01" @default.
• W94590218 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W94590218 title "A Model for Administrative Evaluation by Subordinates." @default.
• W94590218 cites W1999686839 @default.
• W94590218 cites W2196576 @default.
• W94590218 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W94590218 type Work @default.
• W94590218 sameAs 94590218 @default.
• W94590218 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W94590218 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W94590218 hasAuthorship W94590218A5039927954 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C105776082 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C28719098 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C42475967 @default.
• W94590218 hasConcept C71745522 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C105776082 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C127413603 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C138496976 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C15744967 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C177264268 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C199360897 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C2524010 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C28719098 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C33923547 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C38652104 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C41008148 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C42475967 @default.
• W94590218 hasConceptScore W94590218C71745522 @default.
• W94590218 hasLocation W945902181 @default.
• W94590218 hasOpenAccess W94590218 @default.
• W94590218 hasPrimaryLocation W945902181 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W13146029 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2050424588 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2061423172 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2107866954 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2256498260 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W226483583 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2462158910 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2473683610 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2725052173 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2728029360 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2730291333 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W273156097 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W3110231112 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W326963300 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W334563849 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W49847336 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W71625034 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W92910149 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W2860688932 @default.
• W94590218 hasRelatedWork W301687232 @default.
• W94590218 isParatext "false" @default.
• W94590218 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W94590218 magId "94590218" @default.
• W94590218 workType "article" @default.