The state of the art in evaluating the performance of assistant and associate deans as seen by deans and assistant and associate deans

David G Dunning, Timothy Mark Durham, Mert N. Aksu, Brian M Lange

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This study explores the little-understood process of evaluating the performance of assistant and associate deans at dental colleges in the United States and Canada. Specifically, this research aimed to identify the methods, processes, and outcomes related to the performance appraisals of assistant/associate deans. Both deans and assistant/associate deans were surveyed. Forty-four of sixty-six deans (66.7 percent) and 227 of 315 assistant/associate deans (72.1 percent) completed surveys with both close-ended and open-ended questions. In addition, ten individuals from each group were interviewed. Results indicate that 75-89 percent of assistant/associate deans are formally evaluated, although as many as 27 percent may lack formal job descriptions. Some recommended best practices for performance appraisal are being used in a majority of colleges. Examples of these best practices are having at least yearly appraisals, holding face-to-face meetings, and setting specific, personal performance objectives/benchmarks for assistant/associate deans. Still, there is much room to improve appraisals by incorporating other recommended practices. Relatively high levels of overall satisfaction were reported by both assistant/associate deans and deans for the process and outcomes of appraisals. Assistant/associate deans rated the value of appraisals to overall development lower than did deans. Qualitative data revealed definite opinions about what constitutes effective and ineffective appraisals, including the use of goal-setting, timeliness, and necessary commitment. Several critical issues related to the results are discussed: differences in perspectives on performance reviews, the importance of informal feedback and job descriptions, the influence of an assistant/associate deans' lack of tenure, and the length of service of deans. Lastly, recommendations for enhancing performance evaluations are offered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)458-471
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of dental education
Volume72
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 1 2008

Fingerprint

Job Description
Practice Guidelines
assistant
Benchmarking
Canada
performance
Tooth
job description
Research
best practice
length of service
lack
commitment
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Assistant deans
  • Associate deans
  • Dental colleges
  • Performance appraisal
  • Performance evaluation
  • Performance review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

The state of the art in evaluating the performance of assistant and associate deans as seen by deans and assistant and associate deans. / Dunning, David G; Durham, Timothy Mark; Aksu, Mert N.; Lange, Brian M.

In: Journal of dental education, Vol. 72, No. 4, 01.04.2008, p. 458-471.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ed7c18211da9435792ee6aa6f7301390,
title = "The state of the art in evaluating the performance of assistant and associate deans as seen by deans and assistant and associate deans",
abstract = "This study explores the little-understood process of evaluating the performance of assistant and associate deans at dental colleges in the United States and Canada. Specifically, this research aimed to identify the methods, processes, and outcomes related to the performance appraisals of assistant/associate deans. Both deans and assistant/associate deans were surveyed. Forty-four of sixty-six deans (66.7 percent) and 227 of 315 assistant/associate deans (72.1 percent) completed surveys with both close-ended and open-ended questions. In addition, ten individuals from each group were interviewed. Results indicate that 75-89 percent of assistant/associate deans are formally evaluated, although as many as 27 percent may lack formal job descriptions. Some recommended best practices for performance appraisal are being used in a majority of colleges. Examples of these best practices are having at least yearly appraisals, holding face-to-face meetings, and setting specific, personal performance objectives/benchmarks for assistant/associate deans. Still, there is much room to improve appraisals by incorporating other recommended practices. Relatively high levels of overall satisfaction were reported by both assistant/associate deans and deans for the process and outcomes of appraisals. Assistant/associate deans rated the value of appraisals to overall development lower than did deans. Qualitative data revealed definite opinions about what constitutes effective and ineffective appraisals, including the use of goal-setting, timeliness, and necessary commitment. Several critical issues related to the results are discussed: differences in perspectives on performance reviews, the importance of informal feedback and job descriptions, the influence of an assistant/associate deans' lack of tenure, and the length of service of deans. Lastly, recommendations for enhancing performance evaluations are offered.",
keywords = "Assistant deans, Associate deans, Dental colleges, Performance appraisal, Performance evaluation, Performance review",
author = "Dunning, {David G} and Durham, {Timothy Mark} and Aksu, {Mert N.} and Lange, {Brian M}",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "72",
pages = "458--471",
journal = "Journal of Dental Education",
issn = "0022-0337",
publisher = "American Dental Education Association",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The state of the art in evaluating the performance of assistant and associate deans as seen by deans and assistant and associate deans

AU - Dunning, David G

AU - Durham, Timothy Mark

AU - Aksu, Mert N.

AU - Lange, Brian M

PY - 2008/4/1

Y1 - 2008/4/1

N2 - This study explores the little-understood process of evaluating the performance of assistant and associate deans at dental colleges in the United States and Canada. Specifically, this research aimed to identify the methods, processes, and outcomes related to the performance appraisals of assistant/associate deans. Both deans and assistant/associate deans were surveyed. Forty-four of sixty-six deans (66.7 percent) and 227 of 315 assistant/associate deans (72.1 percent) completed surveys with both close-ended and open-ended questions. In addition, ten individuals from each group were interviewed. Results indicate that 75-89 percent of assistant/associate deans are formally evaluated, although as many as 27 percent may lack formal job descriptions. Some recommended best practices for performance appraisal are being used in a majority of colleges. Examples of these best practices are having at least yearly appraisals, holding face-to-face meetings, and setting specific, personal performance objectives/benchmarks for assistant/associate deans. Still, there is much room to improve appraisals by incorporating other recommended practices. Relatively high levels of overall satisfaction were reported by both assistant/associate deans and deans for the process and outcomes of appraisals. Assistant/associate deans rated the value of appraisals to overall development lower than did deans. Qualitative data revealed definite opinions about what constitutes effective and ineffective appraisals, including the use of goal-setting, timeliness, and necessary commitment. Several critical issues related to the results are discussed: differences in perspectives on performance reviews, the importance of informal feedback and job descriptions, the influence of an assistant/associate deans' lack of tenure, and the length of service of deans. Lastly, recommendations for enhancing performance evaluations are offered.

AB - This study explores the little-understood process of evaluating the performance of assistant and associate deans at dental colleges in the United States and Canada. Specifically, this research aimed to identify the methods, processes, and outcomes related to the performance appraisals of assistant/associate deans. Both deans and assistant/associate deans were surveyed. Forty-four of sixty-six deans (66.7 percent) and 227 of 315 assistant/associate deans (72.1 percent) completed surveys with both close-ended and open-ended questions. In addition, ten individuals from each group were interviewed. Results indicate that 75-89 percent of assistant/associate deans are formally evaluated, although as many as 27 percent may lack formal job descriptions. Some recommended best practices for performance appraisal are being used in a majority of colleges. Examples of these best practices are having at least yearly appraisals, holding face-to-face meetings, and setting specific, personal performance objectives/benchmarks for assistant/associate deans. Still, there is much room to improve appraisals by incorporating other recommended practices. Relatively high levels of overall satisfaction were reported by both assistant/associate deans and deans for the process and outcomes of appraisals. Assistant/associate deans rated the value of appraisals to overall development lower than did deans. Qualitative data revealed definite opinions about what constitutes effective and ineffective appraisals, including the use of goal-setting, timeliness, and necessary commitment. Several critical issues related to the results are discussed: differences in perspectives on performance reviews, the importance of informal feedback and job descriptions, the influence of an assistant/associate deans' lack of tenure, and the length of service of deans. Lastly, recommendations for enhancing performance evaluations are offered.

KW - Assistant deans

KW - Associate deans

KW - Dental colleges

KW - Performance appraisal

KW - Performance evaluation

KW - Performance review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=44049086260&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=44049086260&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 72

SP - 458

EP - 471

JO - Journal of Dental Education

JF - Journal of Dental Education

SN - 0022-0337

IS - 4

ER -