University Times

Is Faculty of Arts and Sci- ences (FAS) Dean Peter Koehler a great asset to Pitt? A Solomon-like arbiter of tenure and promotion cases? A good listener? Or is Koehler a poor communicator? A procrastinator? A micro-manager? Those were among the extreme opinions gathered by a committee of FAS professors who participated in a review of Koehler's job performance.

The six-member "fact-finding committee," chaired by sociology professor Patrick Doreian, was part of an evaluation process spelled out in a 1993 Pitt policy called Guidelines for Performance Review of Academic Administrators.

The overall portrait of Koehler that emerges from the fact-finding committee's final report to Provost James Maher is that of a decent, bright, fair-minded — and very cautious — administrator working hard to perform a job that may be too massive and complex for any one person to handle.

The dean himself called the report "reasonably fair and accurate," and said the job performance review had nothing to do with his recent decision to resign as FAS dean in 1998.

Koehler said that most of the criticisms of his office's efficiency, as reported by the fact-finding committee, will be addressed by a restructuring of the FAS administration that will take effect Sept. 1.

See related stories on this page and page 13.

Provost Maher said he will report the results of Koehler's evaluation to FAS faculty in September, either in writing or at a public meeting.

While a fact-finding committee is a key player in the evaluation process, its job is to solicit opinions, not to make recommendations. The senior administration also plays a major role. In Koehler's review, for example, Maher solicited central administration opinions of the dean and personally evaluated Koehler's work on the Deans Council and the University Planning and Budgeting Committee, which the provost chairs.

The evaluation guidelines state that each Pitt dean (and every other academic official below the rank of provost and above that of department chairperson) should undergo a performance review every five or six years. The Pitt senior administration has pledged to complete two Provost area reviews and one in the Health Sciences during each academic year.

Because of FAS's complexity, the administration set aside two semesters for Koehler's evaluation, which began in February 1995. But even that timetable was insufficient — partly because of the loss of the fact-finding committee's original chairperson, Norman Hummon, who left the committee last summer to chair the sociology department, and partly because of the unprecedented scale of the committee's fact-finding work.

The committee was assigned to solicit the views of the FAS faculty and Board of Visitors, along with those of deans and directors who work closely with Koehler.

In its report, a copy of which was obtained by the University Times, the fact-finding committee summarized responses to questionnaires distributed to hundreds of FAS faculty and chairpersons. It also summarized some 30 interviews with deans and directors, students, representatives of faculty councils from FAS's three divisions, and others.

"According to the majority of the individuals interviewed, the dean has a massive responsibility as both a fiscal manager and an academic leader of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences," the committee concluded.

"He is expected to be proactive and innovative in enhancing academic programs and in fundraising, though his tasks may be constrained by the sheer magnitude of the position and by problems of morale and disorganization among the higher administration.

"Because of the wide scope of his responsibilities, there was a consensus that changes in the FAS structure were desirable, if not imperative, and that these changes could considerably alter for the better the definition and administration of the dean's responsibilities in relation to both budgetary and academic priorities." Almost all of the interviewees agreed that Koehler's good characteristics "far outweigh any negative qualities," the fact-finding committee wrote.

The committee also summarized responses to a questionnaire that the committee sent by campus mail last fall to three main FAS groups: current and former department chairpersons and program directors; tenured and tenure-stream faculty; and non-tenure stream and part-time faculty.

Among the 87 chairpersons and directors, 76 returned completed questionnaires (an 87.4 percent response rate); 268 of 463 tenured and tenure-stream faculty did so (57.8 percent), as did 51 of 104 non-tenure stream and part-time faculty (49 percent).

The questionnaires asked respondents to rate the dean's performance in a wide variety of categories, including: * Administrative style. Among chairpersons and tenured/tenure stream faculty, Koehler was viewed as being considerably more reactive (52 percent of faculty, 55 percent of chairpersons) than proactive (20 percent of faculty, 7 percent of chairpersons). In making decisions, he was seen as being more concerned with allocating resources (40 percent of faculty, 57 percent of chairpersons) than with academic issues (12 percent for both faculty and chairpersons).

Note: Percentages given in these examples do not include responses of non-tenure stream and part-time faculty, many of whom said they were unable to evaluate Koehler's job performance in detail.

* Faculty tenure and promotion. About 87 percent of faculty and 90 percent of chairpersons rated Koehler as fair, consistent and reasoned when making tenure and promotion recommendations for their departments. Most saw the dean as being moderately to highly effective in tenure decisions (84 percent of faculty, 85 percent of chairpersons) and promotion decisions (78 percent of faculty, 82 percent of chairpersons).

* Fundraising. A majority of respondents rated Koehler as moderately to highly effective in obtaining University resources for FAS as a whole (60 percent of faculty, 67 percent of chairpersons) and for arts and sciences departments, centers and programs (53 percent of faculty, 63 percent of chairpersons). But the dean was seen as being much less effective in raising funds for FAS from outside the University; 52 percent of faculty and 63 percent of chairpersons said Koehler was not an effective external fundraiser.

* Working relationship with the dean. Almost 53 percent of faculty and 66 percent of chairpersons described their relationships with Koehler as collegial; 3 percent saw them as uncollegial. About 59 percent of faculty and 70 percent of chairpersons described their relationships with the dean as productive. The fact-finding committee wrote the following summaries of Koehler's strengths and weaknesses, as indicated by written comments on the questionnaires: Strengths: "Many responses from both chairs and other faculty commented positively on the dean's personal qualities, including his integrity, fairness, honesty, thoughtfulness and intelligence. Others commented that he is business-like and task-oriented, committed to excellence and a good listener.

"He is also thought to be accessible, a good advocate for FAS, and firm in his decision-making. A few chairs and faculty commented that the dean is open to persuasion, has good financial judgment, has a strong commitment to women and minorities, provides good support for junior faculty, provides much-needed stability within the University, and has good intellectual values." Weaknesses: "Many chairs and faculty commented on the slowness of the dean's decision-making, and stated that he is a micro-manager and delegates responsibilities poorly. He was also seen as having difficulty in making tough decisions.

"He was perceived as having failed to raise external funds. Some said that he lacks vision, creativity and the necessary academic experience, and that he communicates poorly with distinguished faculty. He was also perceived as considering budgetary decisions more important than academic ones and as having a poor understanding of some departments.

"It was also stated that the dean procrastinates, is not proactive, and is generally a poor communicator. Certain individuals commented that he is 'tainted with the corruption of [former Chancellor Wesley] Posvar's quasi-Stalinist regime' and is 'autocratic.'" The committee added: "A few faculty felt strongly negative and recommended that the dean should be fired; others thought that the dean was doing a magnificent job. The majority fell between those poles." Comments from regional campus presidents and Pittsburgh campus students and deans generally were positive, the committee stated.

One dean called Koehler "a great asset to the University. The University should do more to acknowledge his many strong contributions. Too often he is taken for granted and given more committee assignments and responsibilities…His fellow deans rely on him very heavily, as do the provost and chancellor." The committee included three members appointed by the provost (Doreian of sociology; N. John Cooper of chemistry, and Ann Sutherland Harris of history of art and architecture) and three members elected by their fellow FAS faculty members (Kathleen M. Allen of anthropology, Graham Hatfull of biological sciences, and Marcia Landy of English).

— Bruce Steele