Overall Effectiveness
Most administrators want to be told they are doing well, are good leaders, and that their colleagues have confidence in their future leadership.
But, as administrators, it is also likely that there will always be some who view your work negatively.
While we encourage you not to make too much out of small differences or a small number of negative responses,
the key is recognizing when the negative impressions are pervasive enough that it could make it difficult to accomplish your responsibilities.
The snapshot below shows you at a glance the percent of all respondents that rated you positively and negatively on each statement and the following table drills down to show how each individual rater subgroup rated you.
| Deans |
5.3% |
26.3% |
42.1% |
26.3% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
0.0% |
20.0% |
40.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
37.8% |
17.8% |
20.0% |
24.4% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
3.1 |
| Faculty |
5 |
4.3 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
3.4 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
7.9% |
2.6% |
2.6% |
86.8% |
| Faculty |
60.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
40.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
35.6% |
33.3% |
4.4% |
26.7% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.8 |
| Faculty |
5 |
5.0 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
3.2 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
The next two tabs in this report provide more detail about the specific traits of your leadership style and personal characteristics that likely influenced the ratings that you received
on these "Overall Effectiveness" items.
Administrative Roles
Along with your own self-ratings, perceptions of your performance of 10 key administrative roles were provided by your respondents using the same 5-point scale you used when you rated yourself.
The display below shows how your self-ratings compare to the average ratings of all respondents.
If enough individuals were included, how your self-ratings compare to those for subgroups is presented.
In addition, the percent of respondents rating you positively and negatively on each role is provided.
As you review the results, be sure to consider the contexts of your day-to-day work life (the daily interactions, the short and long-term projects in which you and your colleagues are involved, and so on).
The questions below will help guide your personal reflection.
Administrators need to set their own standards for what is considered to be acceptable positive or undesirable negative ratings.
In general, if 70% or more of your respondents provided a positive rating, then that particular role can be considered a strength. While you build on your strengths, you
might focus improvement efforts on those roles where fewer than half (50%) of the respondents rated your performance positively or where more than 30% rated your performance negatively.
Administrative roles that likely merit the most careful review are those where you both received a high percentage of negative ratings and rated yourself markedly higher than did the respondents.
If you cannot identify specific situations or experiences that may have led to negative ratings or to a markedly inflated rating on your part, you might seek the counsel of a trusted colleague.
From a practical perspective, respondent ratings that were over one-half point (.5) lower than your self rating (to the left of the shaded area), indicate those roles where your own sense of
your strengths is inflated compared to what the respondents think.
These may be areas to examine further to try to understand why these different perceptions exist.
Ratings to the right of the shaded area indicate characteristics in which the average respondent rating was at least one-half point higher than your self-rating.
In such cases, you may be underestimating your performance compared to what your respondents think.
In some cases the difference in perception may not be of great concern.
For example, if you gave yourself a rating of 5 on an administrative role and the average for respondents was 4.3, you are still being viewed positively by those who rated you.
In contrast, if you gave yourself a self-rating of 4 and the average for respondents was 3.0, there is greater reason to explore why those differences in perception exist.
| Deans |
50.0% |
0.0% |
5.3% |
44.7% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
80.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
22.2% |
2.2% |
0.0% |
75.6% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.1 |
4 |
| Faculty |
5 |
4.8 |
4 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
4.8 |
4 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
5.3% |
0.0% |
5.3% |
89.5% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
6.7% |
2.2% |
0.0% |
91.1% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.6 |
3 |
| Faculty |
5 |
5.0 |
3 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
4.5 |
3 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
44.7% |
0.0% |
10.5% |
44.7% |
| Faculty |
60.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
40.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
4.4% |
22.2% |
0.0% |
73.3% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.0 |
3 |
| Faculty |
5 |
4.0 |
3 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
3.9 |
3 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
7.9% |
42.1% |
0.0% |
50.0% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
20.0% |
0.0% |
40.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
6.7% |
37.8% |
0.0% |
55.6% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
2.8 |
4 |
| Faculty |
5 |
3.3 |
4 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
3.3 |
4 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
2.6% |
21.1% |
0.0% |
76.3% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
80.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
13.3% |
13.3% |
15.6% |
57.8% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.1 |
4 |
| Faculty |
5 |
4.0 |
4 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
4.0 |
4 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
7.9% |
10.5% |
0.0% |
81.6% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
22.2% |
28.9% |
28.9% |
20.0% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
3.8 |
5 |
| Faculty |
5 |
5.0 |
5 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
2.7 |
5 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
23.7% |
47.4% |
5.3% |
23.7% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
20.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
2.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
97.8% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
2.7 |
4 |
| Faculty |
5 |
3.3 |
4 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
4.9 |
4 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
15.8% |
65.8% |
5.3% |
13.2% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
2.2% |
46.7% |
0.0% |
51.1% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
2.0 |
4 |
| Faculty |
5 |
4.7 |
4 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
3.0 |
4 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
10.5% |
10.5% |
0.0% |
78.9% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
20.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
31.1% |
31.1% |
13.3% |
24.4% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.4 |
3 |
| Faculty |
5 |
3.8 |
3 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
3.0 |
3 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
10.5% |
0.0% |
18.4% |
71.1% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
80.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
4.4% |
46.7% |
0.0% |
48.9% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.0 |
4 |
| Faculty |
5 |
4.0 |
4 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
3.0 |
4 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
Leadership Characteristics
Respondents rated you on the same 15 descriptors and same 7-point scale on which you rated yourself when you filled out the Administrator Self-Assessment.
Seven of the items generally indicate a particular leadership style while eight generally speak to respondent assessments of your personal characteristics.
This report always assigns a 7 to the typically more desirable end of the spectrum for each trait so that ratings of 6 or 7 are generally preferred over low ratings of 1 or 2. For example, you
and the respondents rated your Decisiveness on a scale where "Indecisive" was a 1 and where "Decisive" was a 7. While high ratings (6 or 7) are generally preferred to low ratings (1 or 2), some
effective administrators develop unique styles that depart markedly from this expectation. Results in this section should be considered within the context of the effectiveness ratings reported in
earlier sections of this report and within the context of your administrative role.
The questions below will help guide your personal reflection.
In general, if 60% or more of your respondents provided a positive rating, then that particular characteristic can be considered a strength.
If 20% or more of respondents rated a role negatively, then that area might be a focus of improvement.
Areas in which you both received a high percentage of negative ratings and rated yourself markedly higher than did the respondents will warrant more careful reflection.
If you cannot identify specific situations or experiences that may have led to negative ratings or to a markedly inflated rating on your part, you might seek the counsel of a trusted colleague.
From a practical perspective, respondent ratings that were over three-quarters of a point (.75) lower than your self-rating (to the left of the shaded area), indicate those styles or
characteristics about which your own sense of your strengths is inflated compared to what the respondents think.
This may be an area to examine further to better understand why these different perceptions exist.
Ratings to the right of the shaded area indicate characteristics in which the average respondent rating was higher than your self-rating.
In such cases, you may be underestimating your styles or characteristics compared to how others perceive them.
Leadership Styles
| Deans |
42.1% |
5.3% |
13.2% |
39.5% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
80.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
46.7% |
0.0% |
2.2% |
51.1% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
5.1 |
6 |
| Faculty |
5 |
6.5 |
6 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
6.9 |
6 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
2.6% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
97.4% |
| Faculty |
60.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
40.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
2.2% |
2.2% |
60.0% |
35.6% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
6.7 |
7 |
| Faculty |
5 |
7.0 |
7 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
4.7 |
7 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
26.3% |
28.9% |
10.5% |
34.2% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
2.2% |
53.3% |
20.0% |
24.4% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.2 |
7 |
| Faculty |
5 |
7.0 |
7 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
3.5 |
7 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
28.9% |
21.1% |
2.6% |
47.4% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
35.6% |
0.0% |
31.1% |
33.3% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
5.1 |
7 |
| Faculty |
5 |
6.7 |
7 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
5.1 |
7 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
18.4% |
15.8% |
44.7% |
21.1% |
| Faculty |
60.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
40.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
11.1% |
15.6% |
17.8% |
55.6% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.4 |
7 |
| Faculty |
5 |
6.0 |
7 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
5.3 |
7 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
7.9% |
13.2% |
7.9% |
71.1% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
20.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
26.7% |
0.0% |
31.1% |
42.2% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
5.4 |
5 |
| Faculty |
5 |
5.3 |
5 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
6.1 |
5 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
5.3% |
2.6% |
39.5% |
52.6% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
20.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
6.7% |
35.6% |
2.2% |
55.6% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
5.4 |
6 |
| Faculty |
5 |
5.8 |
6 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
4.4 |
6 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
Personal Characteristics
| Deans |
2.6% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
97.4% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
22.2% |
37.8% |
15.6% |
24.4% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
6.0 |
5 |
| Faculty |
5 |
7.0 |
5 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
3.5 |
5 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
31.6% |
10.5% |
28.9% |
28.9% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
6.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
93.3% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
5.0 |
5 |
| Faculty |
5 |
6.0 |
5 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
6.0 |
5 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
13.2% |
13.2% |
13.2% |
60.5% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
80.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
8.9% |
4.4% |
8.9% |
77.8% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
5.1 |
6 |
| Faculty |
5 |
7.0 |
6 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
6.4 |
6 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
15.8% |
0.0% |
31.6% |
52.6% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
0.0% |
20.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
6.7% |
6.7% |
8.9% |
77.8% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
5.4 |
5 |
| Faculty |
5 |
5.5 |
5 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
6.2 |
5 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
50.0% |
5.3% |
18.4% |
26.3% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
20.0% |
20.0% |
40.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
6.7% |
42.2% |
17.8% |
33.3% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
4.9 |
6 |
| Faculty |
5 |
4.5 |
6 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
4.0 |
6 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
15.8% |
44.7% |
15.8% |
23.7% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
80.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
2.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
97.8% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
3.3 |
7 |
| Faculty |
5 |
7.0 |
7 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
6.0 |
7 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
2.6% |
2.6% |
5.3% |
89.5% |
| Faculty |
20.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
80.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
4.4% |
0.0% |
2.2% |
93.3% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
6.4 |
7 |
| Faculty |
5 |
7.0 |
7 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
6.9 |
7 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
| Deans |
26.3% |
10.5% |
55.3% |
7.9% |
| Faculty |
40.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
60.0% |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
15.6% |
0.0% |
11.1% |
73.3% |
Ratings Distribution for All Subgroups
| Deans |
38 |
3.3 |
7 |
| Faculty |
5 |
6.0 |
7 |
| Adjuncts |
Not enough data to display |
| All |
45 |
6.5 |
7 |
Mean Ratings for All Subgroups
Executive Summary
Respondents provided feedback about their impressions of your performance of key administrative roles, leadership style, and personal characteristics.
For administrative roles, specific areas of strength are suggested when at least 70% of respondents rated you positively (giving ratings of 4 or 5).
For leadership style and personal characteristics, strengths are suggested when at least 60% rated you positively (providing ratings of 6 or 7).
Following is a summary of areas where you were rated most positively.
Ideally, one would want to be rated "Good" or "Outstanding" in all of the areas surveyed regarding your job performance, but in reality such ratings are seldom the case.
Areas where the ratings fall below the threshold of a strength, are identified as well.
To determine which areas to target for additional development, you should consider a number of factors including the subgroup ratings as well as your own self-rating.
Administrative Roles
The following table identifies (at least 70% of respondents rated you 4-5 on a 5-point scale).
As you work to identify potential areas for improvement, consider the yellow shaded items ().
To provide additional insight, click on the top of each column to view results according to each subgroup.
| # |
Administrative Roles |
Deans |
Faculty |
Leadership Styles and Personal Characteristics
The following tables identify (at least 60% of respondents rated you 6-7 on a 7-point scale).
As you work to identify potential areas for improvement, consider the yellow shaded items ().
To provide additional insight, click on the top of each column to view results according to each subgroup.
| # |
Leadership Styles |
Deans |
Faculty |
| # |
Personal Characteristics |
Deans |
Faculty |
Statistical Details
The data provided in this section of the report allow you to be even more precise in understanding your feedback.
| Administrative roles |
Number responding |
CJ/ Omit |
Mean |
St. Dev. |
Self-rating |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| Key: 1 = Definite Weakness, 2 = More Weakness than Strength, 3 = In Between, 4 = More Strength than Weakness, 5 = Definite Strength |
| 1. Communicating a visionary plan for the future |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
32 |
10 |
4.8 |
0.7 |
4 |
| 2. Establishing sound priorities |
1 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
24 |
3 |
4.5 |
0.7 |
3 |
| 3. Displaying knowledge/expertise required for this position |
8 |
2 |
0 |
11 |
22 |
2 |
3.9 |
1.6 |
3 |
| 4. Making wise decisions, judgments, and recommendations |
16 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
19 |
3 |
3.3 |
1.9 |
4 |
| 5. Initiating actions that anticipate problems or resolving them before they become major concerns |
0 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
19 |
6 |
4.0 |
1.1 |
4 |
| 6. Being an effective team member |
13 |
0 |
13 |
1 |
8 |
10 |
2.7 |
1.6 |
5 |
| 7. Contributing positively to the institution's image |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
41 |
1 |
4.9 |
0.3 |
4 |
| 8. Communicating relevant information to appropriate constituencies |
1 |
20 |
0 |
22 |
1 |
1 |
3.0 |
1.1 |
4 |
| 9. Seeking opinions of others before establishing policies or procedures that affect them |
0 |
14 |
6 |
9 |
2 |
14 |
3.0 |
1.0 |
3 |
| 10. Earning the trust and respect of others |
20 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
19 |
2 |
3.0 |
2.0 |
4 |
| Leadership Styles |
Number responding |
CJ/ Omit |
Mean |
St. Dev. |
Self-rating |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| 11. Indecisive (1) vs. Decisive (7) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
22 |
21 |
6.9 |
0.4 |
6 |
| 12. Disorganized (1) vs. Organized (7) |
1 |
0 |
13 |
14 |
0 |
2 |
14 |
1 |
4.7 |
1.8 |
7 |
| 17. Inconsistent (1) vs. Consistent (7) |
7 |
17 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
1 |
3.5 |
2.2 |
7 |
| 18. Ambiguous (1) vs. Clear (7) |
0 |
0 |
8 |
6 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
16 |
5.1 |
1.7 |
7 |
| 23. Unimaginative (1) vs. Innovative (7) |
6 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
21 |
5 |
5.3 |
2.3 |
7 |
| 24. Rigid (1) vs. Flexible (7) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
13 |
2 |
17 |
12 |
6.1 |
1.0 |
5 |
| 25. Impractical (1) vs. Practical (7) |
2 |
14 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
25 |
0 |
3 |
4.4 |
2.0 |
6 |
| Personal Characteristics |
Number responding |
CJ/ Omit |
Mean |
St. Dev. |
Self-rating |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| 13. Remote (1) vs. Approachable (7) |
17 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
9 |
10 |
3.5 |
2.6 |
5 |
| 14. Unfair (1) vs. Fair (7) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
42 |
0 |
3 |
6.0 |
0.0 |
5 |
| 15. Autocratic (1) vs. Democratic (7) |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
30 |
4 |
6.4 |
1.3 |
6 |
| 16. Manipulative (1) vs. Straightforward (7) |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
9 |
26 |
3 |
6.2 |
1.5 |
5 |
| 19. Self-centered (1) vs. Institution-centered (7) |
7 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
6 |
9 |
3 |
4.0 |
2.3 |
6 |
| 20. Insensitive (1) vs. Understanding (7) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
42 |
2 |
1 |
6.0 |
0.2 |
7 |
| 21. Opinionated (1) vs. Receptive to ideas (7) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
40 |
2 |
6.9 |
0.4 |
7 |
| 22. Untrustworthy (1) vs. Trustworthy (7) |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
29 |
7 |
6.5 |
1.0 |
7 |
| Overall Effectiveness |
Number responding |
CJ/ Omit |
Mean |
St. Dev. |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| Key: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = In Between, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree |
| 26. Overall, this administrator has provided excellent leadership. |
0 |
8 |
9 |
2 |
9 |
17 |
3.4 |
1.2 |
| 27. I have confidence in the administrator's ability to provide future leadership in this position. |
2 |
13 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
16 |
3.2 |
1.5 |