xt7jq23qws84 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7jq23qws84/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 2012 minutes  English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Report to the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, First Year Evaluation of Dr. Eli Capilouto, President, 2012-07-23 text Report to the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, First Year Evaluation of Dr. Eli Capilouto, President, 2012-07-23 2012 2014 true xt7jq23qws84 section xt7jq23qws84 Report to the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees
July 23, 2012

First Year Evaluation of Dr. Eli Capilouto, President
University of Kentucky

By
David C. Hardesty, Jr.
Consultant

This report is a confidential personnel record and may be protected by applicable law.

* Executive Summary of the Evaluation
The evaluation process described in this report was agreed to at the time President Eli Capilouto
(“President”) became president of the University of Kentucky (“University” or “UK”). The use
of evaluation forms, a formal interview process, a presidential self-evaluation and a consultant’s
report to the board were all contemplated at that time. The first presidential evaluation was
conducted during the summer of 2012.
As an integral part of the evaluation process, the President completed a self-evaluation which
was shared with the consultant as the evaluation process began. This report contains a summary
of the President’s self-evaluation. An Appendix contains the full text of that document.
Evaluation forms which called for both a quantitative response to several statements and
evaluative comments were distributed to designated respondents. Responses varied, of course,
but the average score for each statement was approximately 4.3 on a scale of 1-5. The voluntary
comments were used during the interview process as a means of probing more deeply into the
interviewees' observations and comments.
With the evaluation forms at hand, David C. Hardesty (“Consultant’), a former president at a
similar institution, conducted the interviews and prepared this report to the Board. The
Consultant personally interviewed 45 designated respondents during a one week period. (One
proposed interviewee, absent during the on campus interviews, later submitted written
comments.) During the interview process, interviewees were asked how they would rate the
university president’s overall performance during his first year as president on a scale of 1 (not
so good) to 5 (superior). The average answer given was 4.4, with over two thirds of the
interviewees rating the President’s performance 4.5 or higher. Interviewees were then asked to
offer an explanation of their own assessment. Their replies are summarized in this report.
Overall, the various university constituents selected to participate in the evaluation process rated
the President’s performance positively and demonstrated a reasonable understanding of and
support for the President’s priorities as described in the President’s self-evaluation.
However, two significant concerns were raised during the evaluation process:
Several respondents and interviewees expressed concern related to the level, content and nature
of communications between or among the President, the Board, the various university
constituencies, the media, the state legislature, and the general public.
Interviewees and respondents also expressed concerns related to organizational matters,
including the need to build a solid leadership team and to fill existing vacancies in important
positions. Some respondents considered the filling these posts in a timely matter to be critical to
the future of the University.
Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Page	2	

* 1. Background for the Report
Dr. Eli Capilouto became the 12th President of the University of Kentucky on July 1, 2011.
The President’s employment contract calls for periodic evaluations of the President’s
performance. Pursuant to the contract, the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees (“the
Board”) established an evaluation procedure. This report is submitted as part of the first annual
evaluation process.
The Board’s process calls for the appointment of a professional to conduct interviews of several
constituent representatives in connection with the evaluation. The interviewees are to include
representatives of the University Senate, the Staff Senate, the Student Government Association,
and the Alumni Association, the senior administrative team, elected officials, university donors
and state and local community leaders.
The Board procedural policies require the Board Chair and President to collaborate in the
development and distribution of evaluation forms to the various constituent representatives prior
to the interviews. The forms used by the Board are required to use both a quantitative (1-5) scale
measurement device and to allow for qualitative input to the board by providing space for
responses to open-ended questions.
Led by the Chair and Executive Committee of the Board, the first annual evaluation of the
University President was conducted during the summer of 2012.
The 2012 evaluation forms were developed by the Board and the President’s representative. The
evaluation forms drew attention to the following areas: the University’s strategy and priorities,
presidential leadership, the President’s organization and team, his relationships with
constituencies, fiscal management, fund-raising, future considerations (vision and planning) and
a general request for comments.
The Board selected a consultant to conduct the 2012 interviews called for in the evaluation
policy. The Consultant is a lawyer by training and served as president of West Virginia
University (a state and land-grant university with a similar profile and mission to that of the
University of Kentucky) for over 12 years. The Board deemed the Consultant to have the
requisite experience, expertise and ability to conduct the interviews and to submit a report
summarizing the information collected, including, inputs gathered during the interview process.
The Board charged the Consultant to conduct the interviews, review the materials, and draft a
report summarizing the input of the campus community during the presidential evaluation
process. The forms were distributed, completed by respondents, and collected. The completed
forms were presented to and reviewed by the Consultant as part of the evaluation process.
Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Page	3	

* 2. Summary of President’s Self-Evaluation
As part of the planned evaluation process, the President was asked to provide a “self-assessment”
of his first year as president. His self-assessment, which is appended to the report, provides
details related to his work, and contains both quantitative measurements of his efforts and several
qualitative statements by him as to what he set out to achieve in his first year. What follows is a
summary of his written assessment and interview with the Consultant.
During his early months in office, the President conducted or authorized a series of structured
listening events and strategic planning exercises on campus during which he found several areas
that he believes must be addressed in the near term in order for the University to remain
competitive. The anticipated reductions in revenue from state appropriations due to the recent
economic downturn and loss of federal stimulus funding heightened his concerns.
In October, following a retreat with the Board, the President announced two major priorities that
were recommended by the Board: (1) enhancement and expansion of the undergraduate
educational experience and (2) the renewal and rebuilding of the core (infrastructure and
buildings) of the campus.
In his self-evaluation, President Capilouto described several action steps taken during his first
year in order to advance the campus agenda items that were approved at the Board retreat. These
action steps included: (1) an increase in scholarship support and enhanced recruiting efforts, in
which he personally participated; (2) a significant effort to renew residence halls on campus; and
(3) plans for bonding to support renewal of academic space. In addition, the self-evaluation
identifies eight other initiatives that he and the Board gave priority.
During an interview, the President noted that he has worked very hard to collect input from all
campus constituencies during his first year and that he has diligently tried to be transparent and
to listen to those from whom he sought input. The has traveled the Commonwealth, visited with
media outlets, spoken to alumni in other states, consulted with elected policy makers, talked with
community leaders, and spent time with faculty, staff, students and administrators on campus.
As a result of the input he received, the President moved on two fronts in addition to those
related to undergraduate experience and the facilities renewal. These initiatives are (1)
organizational alignment and (2) improvements in financial management and budgeting. These
initiatives (and normal turnover associated with a new president) have resulted in changes in
personnel and reporting lines. The President formed a President’s Council to strengthen
communications between and among the senior staff and officers of the University. Routine
meetings and consultations have been held to enhance communications with other campus
constituencies. President Capilouto underscored the amount of presidential time he devoted to
reorganizational efforts, which are often considered necessary investments during presidential
leadership transitions but frequently are not as visible as other strategic initiatives.
Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Page	4	

* One significant change in campus governance authorized during the President’s first year should
be noted: the formation of a committee of the board to provide oversight of the University’s
nationally recognized athletic programs.
Another significant change in management structure involves the proposed construction of 9,000
new residence hall beds by a private entity in collaboration with the University.
All university presidents are required to give attention to private fundraising efforts. His efforts
in this regard included individual meetings with principal gift prospects, cultivation and
recognition events, and increased focus on gifts related to campus facilities renewal.
During the President’s interview, in addition to elaborating on matters set forth in his written
self-evaluation, the President noted that he is aware of the organizational needs of UK and is
working diligently to correct what he sees as gaps in the organizational and budget processes.
Currently, he is searching for a new Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration,
which he sees as a critical post given his priorities.
In addition, the President noted that he attempted to immediately correct or modify procedures
once problems were brought to his attention, and that he tried to do so in the case of the layoffs.
For a more complete understanding of the President’s view of his first year, readers of this report
are urged to read the President’s self-evaluation.
President Capilouto’s actions during his first year demonstrate his leadership talents and
experience in leading a complex higher education enterprise. As is noted elsewhere in the report,
comments made during the interviews recognize his experience and leadership skill and reflect a
general awareness of the priorities established by the President in conjunction with the Board.

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Page	5	

* 3. Summary of Collected Evaluation Forms
Under the supervision of the Board Chair, and with input from the President and his Chief of
Staff, forms designated as “University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Evaluation of the
President” were designed and distributed to all board members and a number of constituent
representatives. The evaluation participants were pre-selected by the Board for the Consultant.
The forms called for responses to 19 statements and stated the following as possible answers and
point values: Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Not Sure (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1),
and Not Applicable (0). The forms also provided space for general comments related to
categories of statement and an open-ended inquiry soliciting general advice for the President.
Additionally, the 19 evaluation questions fall into five overarching categories. Voluntary
comments were made with respect to each category, rather than to each question.
Evaluation forms were distributed by the University. The form promised confidentiality and
flatly stated that “Results will be reported only in summary fashion.” A copy of a blank form is
appended to the report.
Thirty-three forms were collected and shared with the Consultant shortly before and after his
arrival on campus. The following observations should be noted: (1) the submitted forms did not
contain the names of the persons who completed them; and (2) the status (trustee, staff member,
donor, faculty member, etc.) was not disclosed on the form.
Set forth below are the 19 statements about which the Board requested an opinion, the
percentage of respondents choosing each answer, and the numerical average of the answers
selected by the respondents who had an opinion other than “not applicable.” The individual
comments made on the forms were used by the consultant during the interview process to probe
more deeply into issues raised.
It is apparent from the general comments made on the forms and during the interview process
that varying interpretations were given to the “not sure” choice. Some respondents thought of
“not sure” as “average” (between agree and disagree) and others thought that “not sure” meant
“insufficient data to answer the question.” This seemed most evident on question 15, to which
over 57 percent of respondents answered “not sure” and “not applicable,” despite the fact that
very few voluntary comments were identified by respondents as being related to risk
management during the interview process. Questions 9 and 16 also have a high “not sure”
response.
Nevertheless, the comments and answers provide a sense of how the respondents evaluate the
President’s various leadership characteristics and actions taken by him during his first year
Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Page	6	

* (Note that 33 persons submitted completed forms. One person did not complete question 18
or19. Also, note also that the average score does not include those who answered “not
applicable.” Average scores are rounded. Results may not always add to 100% due to
rounding.)
Compilation of form quantitative responses
University of Kentucky Board of Trustees
Evaluation of the President
1. The President has effectively worked with key constituents to identify the reality UK
currently faces.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

75.8%
21.2%
3%
0%
0%

0. Not Applicable

0%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 33

Average Answer 4.7

2. The President has built a shared understanding of the reality UK face among
constituencies.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

57.6%
30.3%
9.1%
0%
3.0%

0. Not Applicable

0%

Total

100%

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 33

Average Answer 4.4

Page	7	

* 3. The President has clearly articulated his strategic priorities and the rationale
underlying them.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree
0. Not Applicable

69.7%
24.2%
6.1%
0%
0%
0%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 33

Average Answer 4.6

4. The President's priorities are the right ones for UK today.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

60.6%
30.3%
6.1%
0%
3.0%

0. Not Applicable

0%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 33

Average Answer 4.5

5. The President's policies and actions strike an appropriate balance between the short
term needs and the long-term interests of the University.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

51.5%
30.3%
12.1%
0%
6.1%

0. Not Applicable

0%

Total

100%

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 33

Average Answer 4.2

Page	8	

* 6. The President is creating a learning environment that reinforces UK's core values.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

42.4%
42.4%
9.1 %
0%
3.0%

0. Not Applicable

3.0%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 32

Average Answer 4.3

7. The President is effectively leading the organization by executing initiatives and
actions associated with his priorities.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

54.5%
39.4%
3.0%
0%
0%

0. Not Applicable

3.0%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 32

Average Answer 4.5

8. The President's pace of execution is consistent with the institution's needs and
capabilities.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

63.6%
18.2%
9.1%
3.0%
3.0%

0. Not Applicable

3.0%

Total

100%

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 32

Average Answer 4.4
Page	9	

* 9. The President has moved appropriately to design an organization (including
structure and management systems) that will produce solid strategic and
operational execution.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

33.3%
24.2%
24.2%
3.0%
3.0%

0. Not Applicable

12.1%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 29

Average Answer 3.9

10. The President is building and developing a management team needed to drive the
University's future success.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

27.3%
30.3%
24.2%
6.1%
0%

0. Not Applicable

12.1%

Total

100%

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 29

Average Answer 3.9

Page	10	

* 11. The President has established a productive relationship with the Board that enables
the Board to contribute most effectively to UK's advancement.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

51.5%
27.3%
0%
9.1%
0%

0. Not Applicable

12.1%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 29

Average Answer 4.4

12. The President has established credibility with constituencies important to the
University.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

54.5%
33.3%
9.1%
3.0%
0%

0. Not Applicable

0%

Total

100%

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 33

Average Answer 4.4

Page	11	

* 13. The President has demonstrated careful stewardship of UK's financial resources
by identifying and setting in motion needed improvements in financial planning and
management systems.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

54.5%
27.3%
15.2%
0%
3.0%

0. Not Applicable

0%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 33

Average Answer 4.3

14. The President has instilled financial goals and approaches needed to fund his
strategic priorities.
 

Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

57.6%
36.4%
6.1%
0%
0%

0. Not Applicable

0%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 33

 

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Average Answer 4.5

Page	12	

* 15. The President has taken appropriate initial steps toward developing a universitywide system for risk management.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

21.2%
21.2%
30.3%
0%
0%

0. Not Applicable

27.3%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 24

Average Answer 3.9

16. The President has committed the necessary time and energy to raise funds for the
University.
Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

30.3%
33.3%
30.3%
0%
0%

0. Not Applicable

6.1%

Total

100%

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 31

Average Answer 4.0

Page	13	

* 17. The President has the skills needed to succeed in fund-raising.
 

Respondents: 33

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

39.4%
45.5%
12.1%
0%
0%

0. Not Applicable

3.0%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 32

 

Average Answer 4.3

18. The President has positioned the University to make meaningful progress in the next
five years.
Respondents: 32

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

46.9%
40.6%
9.4%
3.1%
0%

0. Not Applicable

0%

Total

100%

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 32

Average Answer 4.3

19. The President has demonstrated the multiple skills necessary for leading the
University in the next five years.
Respondents: 32

% Choosing
This Answer

5. Strongly Agree
4. Agree
3. Not Sure
2. Disagree
1. Strongly Disagree

59.4%
37.5%
0%
3.1%
0%

0. Not Applicable

0%

Total

100%

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Number Choosing
Answers 1-5: 32

Average Answer 4.5
Page	14	

* Average ranking across all questions: 4.3
As explained above, the Consultant received 33 evaluation sheets of those originally distributed.
While no claims are made as to the statistical significance of the information provided in the
above tables, the average response of 4.3 (on a scale of 1 – 5) indicates that respondents
generally were positive about the President’s overall performance during his first year at the
University.

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Page	15	

* 4. Summary of Campus Interviews
A. Introduction
The Consultant interviewed 45 persons on campus and by telephone during a one week period
during the summer of 2012. One responded to the Consultant in writing after returning from an
extended trip. The interviewees, designated by the Board and the President, were interviewed
for an average of 30 minutes each. In every case, the person who was interviewed was asked the
following question by the Consultant:
“On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being “not so good” and 5 being “superior,” how
would you rate the President’s performance during the first year?”
This question was selected for two reasons. First, the evaluation form distributed prior to the
interviews did not contain an overall assessment statement. Secondly, the question prompted
respondents to discuss the reasons for their overall assessment, which prompted a deeper
discussion of the views of the respondent.
The average response (rounded) to the question above from all interviewees
was approximately 4.4. Over two-thirds of those interviewed gave the
President a numerical rating of 4.5 or above.
Many interviewees expressed a reluctance to award a perfect score “because everyone has room
for improvement.” Considering the reluctance of some to award a perfect score, overall the
evaluations of the President’s first year are very positive.
The interview process, which focused on overall performance, led to a slightly
higher overall score (4.4) than the average answers to the 19 specific statements
calling for a numerical response on the evaluation forms (4.3).

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Page	16	

* B. Summary of Comments
After stating their overall rating of the President’s first year, respondents were asked to provide
their assessment of the President’s good characteristics and areas in which he could improve.
Most also offered “advice” or wanted to “report what I have heard from others.”
It is clearly impossible to capture every comment made on the forms or during the subsequent
interview process. Obviously, the Consultant’s experience and judgment play a role in
formulating any summary of the evaluation process. However, the following themes emerged
most often during the interview process. Of course, opinion was not unanimous. However in the
judgment of the Consultant, the majority views are expressed below.
1. The Right Leader for Tough Times. The University is viewed by most respondents as
facing a tough financial situation for several reasons: a reduction in state appropriations
due to recent economic circumstances, a strong need for investment in the physical plant
of the University, and an end to federal stimulus funds which have benefited the
University over the past few years. These circumstances were described as “hard
realities,” a “perfect storm,” and “tough times.” Most respondents believe that the
President is navigating these troubled waters in a credible fashion. Many believe that, at
least in the short term, the state budget will not get better for the University, and
therefore, the answers to progress lie in streamlining and efficiencies. Through it all, the
President is seen as providing an optimistic vision for the University’s future.
2. Transition Process. The President’s early transition listening and strategic planning
events were nearly uniformly praised as being necessary and useful.
3. Experienced Academic Leader. The President’s past experience as a faculty member
and administrator is appreciated on campus. He seems, according to most on campus
constituents, to understand and value the role of each of the campus constituencies. (But
see comments on “Communications” set forth below.)
4. Priorities. The President’s priorities appear to also be the Board’s priorities. His strong
emphasis on undergraduate education, growth in order to improve revenues, innovative
financing mechanisms, campus improvements, and other initiatives (see President’s selfevaluation, attached) are largely understood by those who were interviewed. The changes
are recognized as needed by most respondents. As the overall rating of both the
evaluation forms and interviews indicate, support for the President is broad-based. While
there is some concern about the pace of change and the unknown impacts of various
policy initiatives, most share the view of one respondent who said “His strategic plan is
right on the button.” (But see “Layoffs” and “Communications” below for concerns.)
5. Leadership Skills. The President’s leadership skills are evident.
mentioned were:

Most frequently

a. Approachability
b. Listening skills
Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Page	17	

* c. Integrity
d. Thoughtfulness
e. Bright, quick study, analytical
f. Strategic thinking (frequently mentioned) and analytical ability
g. Ability to make decisions and take decisive action
h. Ability to understand numbers and seek improved financial accountability—“He
knows his numbers”
i. Proper allocation of time to the tasks at hand
j. Overall transparency and trustworthiness
k. Providing easy access to his chief of staff
l. Energy and stamina
m. Good public speaking skills, especially with individuals in various contexts.
n. Personality and approachability.
6. Decision Making Process. His apparent three-part decision making process of listening,
considering alternatives, and acting was mentioned by many respondents as being a good
model for university decision making.
7. The Team and Organization. The campus is awaiting permanent appointments to fill
important vacancies on campus. Some also mentioned a need for changes to the
management structure, some of which the President has already initiated. The campus
constituents know that it is the deans and vice presidents who will drive the agenda of the
Board and President. Further, most know the President must be available to champion the
University throughout the Commonwealth and elsewhere. Until these appointments are
settled, there will be some anxiety and perhaps lost opportunities due to time constraints.
There was praise for some of the President’s appointees, most notably his Chief of Staff
who has been visible with students, staff, board members and others. However, most
comments related to the “team” involved concern about loss of institutional memory and
a sense of urgency related to filling the appointments with leaders having the right skills
and abilities. Many urged the appointment of team members who would strengthen the
team, not just advance the existing agenda. Several urged the President to move quickly
to modernize the campus organizational structure.
8. Communications. Most respondents believe that the President knows how to
communicate and is making significant efforts in this area. Several respondents
mentioned his “e-mail communications” which they have received or had forwarded to
them. His public speaking skills were noted.

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	
 

Page	18	

* Nevertheless, several respondents raised the significant challenges confronting the
President relating to communications, often couching these comments as “advice” or
“criticism heard from others.” Many respondents perceive that much remains to be
done in this area, notwithstanding the President’s personal skills and efforts. Mentioned
were concerns about communications with elected policy makers, employees, the general
public in Lexington and the Commonwealth, the media, the board, staff and faculty,
routine communications within departments, and other communications issues.
A strong change agenda usually requires a strong public relations effort. Within most of
the constituent groups consulted, there were concerns relating to communications. It
should be noted, however, that these concerns were raised by those who gave the
President the highest numerical rating as well as those who gave him lower ratings.
Finally, some interviewees expressed concerns about information they lacked, i.e.
positions on important policy matters which the President has not yet communicated.
These include: “Does he value professional and graduate programs?” “What will be the
criteria for merit raises?” “What are our recognized peaks of excellence and how will we
leverage them?” “Where do we want to compete academically nationally and globally?”
“How does an ordinary employee let his opinions be known?”
Even those who rated the President highly urged enhanced communications efforts.
9. Recent Layoffs. About 1% of the campus work force was laid off immediately prior to
the interview process, which, not surprisingly, prompted a number of comments.
Comments were wide ranging: “moving too fast,” “low morale,” “not done well,”
“absolutely necessary,” “not enough time to digest things,” “they were necessary,” and
“he has done exactly the right thing.” The criteria for the layoffs were not entirely clear
to some respondents, prompting a call for clarity of criteria and better HR training, and
raising questions about what criteria will be used for merit raises in the future. The
impact of the downsizing on campus was not seen to be uniform. Comments seemed to
depend on the unit to which the respondent was attached or the role of the respondent.
Off campus constituents had equally varied assessments of the layoff impact, depending
on their background and perspective. Some campus constituents cited a “low trust”
environment identified in a survey taken in the recent past. Others called for all leaders
on campus to model the President’s approachability and listening habits.
10. Diversity. Diversity is and remains a priority with most campus constituencies and the
local community. During his interview with the Consultant, the President voiced support
for diversity efforts. The President was advised by interviewees to “model what you
mandate” and to be keenly aware of the importance of diversity in the appointments and
termination processes. In this regard, the President was advised by more than one
interviewee to reach outside his immediate staff for advice relating to issues that impact
minority community opinions. His personal integrity with regard to diversity was not
challenged, but rather the importance