Appointment and Review of Administrative Officers

1. Introduction

East Carolina University is a major national doctoral university. High quality, effective leadership is instrumental to the future of ECU. We are committed to ensuring that great leaders come to ECU, are successful, and remain at ECU for an appropriate time period. Because leadership transition is a given, the university is also committed to developing tomorrow’s leaders and to ensuring leadership succession.

• 1.1 This policy governs vice chancellors, academic deans (including the graduate dean), library directors, department chairs, and selected other leaders. It is consistent with the chancellor’s authority as specified by UNC Code and by bylaws and policies of the ECU Board of Trustees.
• 1.2 The purpose of this policy is to enhance the quality of leadership at ECU. Philosophically, it is formative; it is meant to foster the development and continuous improvement of leadership. Because all institutions must consider termination of administrative officers, guidelines for removal are also included. Termination of employment is the responsibility of the appointing officer, with appropriate input from relevant constituencies.

2. Guiding Principles

• 2.1 The strength, empowerment, and continuous development of leadership are essential to the university’s future.
• 2.2 This policy is based on national best practices and the experiences of ECU’s peer institutions and sister institutions within the UNC system.
• 2.3 Evaluation and assessment ranging from immediate to annual to five-year are essential for continuous improvement.
• 2.4 Responsibility and control of the policy rest with the appropriate appointing officer.
• 2.5 The evaluation should be a collaborative endeavor involving students, faculty, administration, and other campus constituencies as appropriate.
• 2.6 The appropriate level of faculty involvement in evaluation should be determined by the nature of the administrative post (e.g., faculty input should be weighted more heavily in the evaluation of deans and department chairs than in the evaluation of positions above the level of dean).
• 2.7 The evaluation must be constructive and developmental; its ultimate purpose should be to offer guidance on improving performance.
• 2.8 All leaders are expected to engage in professional development or other best practices that help to improve leadership competencies.

3. Policies for the Recruitment, Selection, Retention, and Development of Administrators

These policies will vary according to four primary levels of university administration: divisions, colleges, schools, and departments. The following policies apply to all levels. Specific policies related to each classification follow these general guidelines.

• 3.1 Recruitment, Selection, and Hiring
  • 3.1.1 Hiring of administrators is the primary responsibility of the appointing officer, with appropriate input from relevant constituencies. Constituencies vary significantly by position.
  • 3.1.2 The primary functions of search committees are to develop robust recruitment plans, strong applicant pools and identify strong finalists to bring to campus. Committees should solicit applications from the best candidates who appear to possess effective leadership qualities.
  • 3.1.3 It is the responsibility of the appointing officer to select the top candidate from all campus finalists based on both feedback from all relevant constituencies and the appointing officer’s assessment of the leadership characteristics of the finalists.
    • 3.1.3.1 Only the appointing officer has this responsibility.
  • 3.1.4 It is expected that the search will be re-opened or re-started unless the appointing officer is satisfied that an excellent leader has been found. As part of this process, clearly defined expectations and outcomes for the person to be hired are articulated.
  • 3.1.5 Compensation for the person to be hired is the responsibility of the appointing officer based on Board of Governors policy, the qualifications of the candidate, and the appointing officer’s assessment of what is appropriate for the success and retention of the candidate.
    • 3.1.5.1 Compensation will be based on relevant comparisons from public doctoral universities, the experience of the candidate, and the responsibilities of the position.
• 3.2 Annual evaluations
  • 3.2.1 The appointing officer will conduct annual written evaluations of each administrator and will base merit increases on this evaluation.
  • 3.2.2 Each annual evaluation will be available for the five-year review (specified below) and will be an important consideration in the development of the administrator.
  • 3.2.3 Annual evaluations should identify elements of leadership development, areas of strength and needed improvement, and how to achieve better performance of the leader.
• 3.3 Five-year review
  • 3.3.1 Each senior administrator will undergo a comprehensive assessment every five years, or earlier if requested by the appointing officer. Subject to the chancellor’s discretion, some campus leaders may be excluded from a five-year review.
    • 3.3.1.1 Subject to the chancellor’s discretion, vice chancellors will undergo a comprehensive assessment as described in this policy during the third academic year of their appointment. Those reviewed will then begin the five-year comprehensive review cycle (i.e., unless the chancellor determines otherwise, the next regularly scheduled review is during the eighth academic year).
  • 3.3.2 The purpose of the five-year review is formative. Specifically, the goals are to improve the performance of the leader and to identify areas of necessary leadership development.
  • 3.3.3 The five-year review is the responsibility of the appointing officer, who shall determine its conduct, conclusions, and necessary actions resulting from the review.
  • 3.3.4 Elements of the five-year review will include:
    • 3.3.4.1 Criteria for Evaluating Administrators:
      Each administrator under review will be evaluated based on a predetermined set of criteria that reflect the nature of the division, unit, or office and the specific responsibilities of that administrator. The established review criteria will be used in addition to the clearly defined outcomes and expectations for the administrator. The criteria to be used by members of the review committee are established with input by the appointing officer.
    • 3.3.4.2 Process for Evaluating Administrators: The following process is prescribed for the general evaluation of all administrators:
      • 3.3.4.2.1 The process begins by a statement by the appointing officer of the job expectations, goals, major constraints, and factors affecting the administrator during the preceding five years. All other elements of the process are directly related to the expectations and conditions specified by the appointing officer.
      • 3.3.4.2.2 The second stage of the process is a detailed self-assessment by the administrator, which will include a personal leadership development plan and an administrative portfolio that documents his or her performance during the review period.
      • 3.3.4.2.3 The five-year review will include a “survey instrument” using primarily Likert scales to address the major dimensions of the job duties and expectations. Final responsibility for the instrument rests with the appointing officer.
      • 3.3.4.2.4 A review committee will be constituted according to the specific guidelines developed for each administrative role (i.e. vice chancellors, deans, chairs, etc.) For each role, the constituency of the review committee will change, as well as the process for selection of committee members.
      • 3.3.4.2.5 Feedback will be solicited from internal and external constituencies of the division or unit. (External constituencies may include major donors, external clients, the local community, business interests, etc.).
      • 3.3.4.2.6 The appointing officer is responsible for a written report summarizing the review. This report will be shared with the leader and others as determined by the appointing officer.
    • 3.3.4.3 At the end of the process, the administrator under review has the opportunity to review the draft report and respond in writing to the appointing officer prior to the completion of the final report.
• 3.4 Retention
  • 3.4.1 Retention of good leaders is vital to the institution, and the appointing officer is responsible for maximizing the opportunity for retaining strong leaders or, alternatively, finding a better leader. Among the essential elements of retention are:
    • 3.4.1.1 Identification of training and professional development needs and providing the resources necessary to access training and development.
    • 3.4.1.2 Support and encouragement for national best practices in leadership development.
    • 3.4.1.3 Appropriate compensation, consistent with UNC policy and Board of Trustees guidelines.
    • 3.4.1.4 Annual review of leadership skills and identification of the conditions for success of the administrator.

4. Termination

Administrators serve at will and may be terminated at any time in accordance with UNC policy.

• 4.1 A negative comprehensive review can result in a recommendation for removal. No formal process is required for termination.

5. Leadership Succession

• 5.1 It is the responsibility of the leader (dean, vice chancellor, or direct report) to develop a plan for leadership succession in her or his unit, division, or office. Leadership succession recognizes the importance of developing the next generation of leaders for the division, unit, or office and ensures that plans are in place for the emergence of strong new leaders.
• 5.2 Every administrator should be developing the leaders within his/her division, unit, or office to ensure that the organization is ready for inevitable transition in leadership.
• 5.3 Leadership succession plans shall be reviewed during annual evaluations and during the five-year review.