Richmond Home

Department Chair Evaluation Form

This feedback form is used during the evaluation of department chairs. After the Dean of Arts & Sciences reviews a department's responses, the dean will discuss their substance with the department chair, keeping the names of individual respondents confidential (the respondent's name field is optional and you may submit the form without your name).

As spelled out in the 1987–1988 mandate from University Faculty Council, the purpose of this evaluation is to assist department chairs in performing chair responsibilities more effectively and to assist the dean in evaluating the administrative portion of a chair's activities. Although your numerical ratings for each item on the form will convey a general sense of your satisfaction with the various aspects of your chair's performance, your written explanations of these ratings will significantly increase the dean's understanding of your evaluation.

If you would prefer to simply send a memo or email to the dean in lieu of this form, please feel free.

Direct any questions concerning the form to Patrice Rankine directly. Your responses to this form will be collected electronically by Kirsten Petrocelli and then passed along to the dean.


This review is intended to provide an evaluation that will lead to improved administrative performance. Strengths as well as weaknesses should be identified. While explanations of ratings are always useful, ratings falling at the unsatisfactory level of 1 and 2 as well as the superior level of 6 and 7 require explanation. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

*Please select the department/program for this review:

*Name of chairperson being reviewed:

Name of reviewer (optional):

*Frequency of contact with chairperson:

*Date of review:

Reviewer's years at the University of Richmond (optional):
1-5   6+

Please rate your chairperson in the following areas and select the appropriate number.

*I. Leadership
Fosters good teaching and research, communicates departmental needs effectively, improves the departmental image, attempts to meet individual needs of faculty
(1=Unsatisfactory; 7=Superior)
    1       2       3       4       5       6       7  

Explanation of rating (required for rating of 1, 2, 6, 7):

*II. Management Ability
Delegates effectively, makes appropriate decisions, handles administrative responsibilities efficiently and in a timely fashion, plans for change
(1=Unsatisfactory; 7=Superior)
    1       2       3       4       5       6       7  

Explanation of rating (required for rating of 1, 2, 6, 7):
 

*III. Communication Skills
Shares appropriate information, consults the faculty, welcomes faculty ideas, explains decisions, gives faculty appropriate credit about jobs well done, understands and communicates expectations of administrators
(1=Unsatisfactory; 7=Superior)
    1       2       3       4       5       6       7  

Explanation of rating (required for rating of 1, 2, 6, 7):
 

*IV. Personal Relations
Gets along with people, handles conflict, listens to all views, is honest, has positive relationships with the department faculty, staff, and students
(1=Unsatisfactory; 7=Superior)
    1       2       3       4       5       6       7  

Explanation of rating (required for rating of 1, 2, 6, 7):

*V. Fairness
Treats faculty, staff, and students equally and equitably, is consistent, understands individual strengths and weaknesses of faculty
(1=Unsatisfactory; 7=Superior)
    1       2       3       4       5       6       7  

Explanation of rating (required for rating of 1, 2, 6, 7):
 

*VI. Overall Evaluation
(1=Unsatisfactory; 7=Superior)
   1       2       3       4       5       6       7  

Explanation of rating (required for rating of 1, 2, 6, 7):
 

VII. Other Comments