Editor’s note: This is the last in an eight-part series describing the evaluations of Ohio University deans. Seven of the 10 deans who head OU’s colleges were formally evaluated this year and an eighth called for his own review.

Despite taking the job just 10 months ago, Ohio University’s College of Business dean requested an informal review from his faculty and staff.

Hugh Sherman received at least an 81 percent approval rating in all five categories in the survey and received his only negative votes in communicating with constituents, which totaled 5 percent. In other areas, the remaining respondents selected “cannot evaluate.”

Sherman was also evaluated on providing leadership and direction, supporting faculty hiring and retention, and improving the overall direction of the college.

“I said I was looking for some feedback as to what they thought were areas I’m doing well (in) and areas where I need to improve,” he said.

Deans are not ordinarily evaluated in their first year and the provost did not review Sherman this year. Ann Fidler, dean of the Honors Tutorial College, said deans need a year to get to know their colleges.

“It’s because when you come in during your first year as dean that’s the year when you get to know the college, get to know the faculty and set goals for the college,” Fidler said. “Deans are evaluated on goals, so you need an opportunity to create a set of goals to work toward.”

Fidler said Sherman’s situation was different because he taught in the college for 11 years before becoming dean of the College of Business at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Sherman said he understands the policy.

“(It) makes some sense in my opinion because if a new dean comes and is only here for six months, there is less evidence people can use in the evaluation,” he said.

But Faculty Senate Chairman Sergio López-Permouth said he talked with the provost at the beginning of the year about changing the procedure.

“We did have some conversations early in the fall with the provost trying to talk her out of giving the honeymoon that the deans don’t get evaluated when they first arrived,” López said. “And we talked about this for a long time, but I couldn’t persuade her that this was a good idea.”

Instead, Sherman asked the president of the college’s faculty to set up an informal review. Sean McGann, who set up the process, explained that he worked with three other faculty members and two associate deans to compile the survey.

The college used an online survey to evaluate Sherman. Although faculty senators have resisted such systems fearing anonymity could not be ensured, McGann said he did not hear any such comments from the business faculty.

After the evaluation committee compiled the data, Sherman wrote to his faculty and staff responding to trends in the comments. Most concerns fell into two areas: communication and future plans. Sherman explained in his e-mail response, and in a later interview, that he has already made changes to address those concerns.

“I think that for all deans one of the hardest things is to provide (faculty) with all the information they need to know,” he said. “I do consider that to be a really significant responsibility.”

Sherman began speaking at each faculty meeting and scheduling appointments with individual faculty. He also meets once a quarter with untenured tenure-track faculty and with classified and administrative staffs.

Sherman said he might start sending out more updates about his fundraising activities, but doesn’t want to annoy faculty.

“My fear is I’ve got to find that place where they’re satisfied but don’t feel they’re getting more information than they want,” he said.

The dean has also established a Student Advisory Council that is working with him to develop new faculty evaluations and rework the college’s advising procedures.

Other faculty wrote they weren’t sure of the dean’s goals for the college. Sherman said he understood the issue, and said one of his plans for this year was to develop and clearly articulate his goals.

Among those goals is returning the college to a focus on teaching. One respondent said the dean might face some opposition in achieving his objectives.

“It will be a challenge to drag us kicking and screaming into the new model and it will require a lot of communication,” it stated.

Sherman said he hopes the transitions won’t be too difficult.

“Hopefully, they are not coming screaming and kicking — that’s not fun for me,” Sherman said. “If you believe that research is everything … you may feel uncomfortable about us talking about excellence in teaching.”

The dean added that he’s excited by the level of enthusiasm his faculty and staff has shown for his initiatives.

McGann said he was pleasantly surprised by the comments on the evaluations, especially because respondents took the time to write positive comments.

“I wasn’t surprised to see the dean get a positive evaluation because I think that is well deserved, but I was surprised a lot the people spoke up positively,” he said, explaining that usually those who are dissatisfied write more.

McGann also said he and other faculty and staff were impressed that Sherman called for an evaluation.

“For me, it was significant that he didn’t have to do that. He just wanted some feedback,” McGann said. “That certainly was something we were all pretty impressed with … that type of initiative and that type of pro-activity is being viewed pretty positively.”