14 November 11-17, 2009 | free-times.comNovember 11-17, 2009 | free-times.comfree-times.com | November 11-17, 2009coverstory

A House DividedInternal Surveys Reveal Split Over Leadership of USC Business School

By Ron Aiken

in the middle: a large contingent of faculty and staff believes the school has serious leadership problems. Even the survey itself is telling: Developed by senior management at the business school, the survey was gener-ated only after the volume of complaints became too large for the school to ignore, and the responses were processed by the university’s human resources department — rather than the business school — to as-suage business school staff and faculty over the fear of reprisals.

The complaints paint a picture of staff and faculty fearful for their jobs if they criticize the dean or her hires; upset at the treatment of longstanding fellow employees who were fired and escorted out of the build-ing by security; and upset over the strategic direction of the school — one some believe they had no part in identifying. Many re-sponses point to a general climate of distrust, suspicion and even outright hatred.

The survey asks seven questions, with respondents asked to choose from answers between “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Dis-agree,” with room for elaboration.

The questions asked are whether the

workplace is positive; what the least positive elements of the workplace are; what the respondent’s relationship with his/her supervisor is like; whether their working relationship with their peers is productive; whether they believe the day-to-day activi-ties of Teegen, Koerwer and Associate Dean Greg Niehaus improve the school; whether the respondents are treated fairly by Teegen, Koerwer and Niehaus; and what the respon-dent’s working relationship is with each of those three school leaders.

While Niehaus gets a pass on almost all of the surveys, Teegan and Koerwer do not.

“The stress level of the staff is as high as I have seen in more than 25 years as a faculty member at USC, and this has had a negative effect on the morale of both the faculty and the staff,” writes one faculty member.

A staff member commenting on the com-monly expressed perception that those who speak poorly of or disagree with Koerwer and Teegen will be fired unceremoniously had this to say: “Members of the staff are scared,” the person writes. “They will not say the things I have in this anonymous survey because they are fearful of losing their jobs.”

“Surveys like this are likely the only way

you’re going to get any truth from people in this building,” writes another respondent. “The overall feeling of fear and despair in the building is overwhelming.”

Another respondent summed up a widely expressed opinion that both Teegen and Koerwer are “aloof ” and don’t sufficiently appreciate the work that had led to USC’s reputation before their arrival. (Teegan was hired in September 2007; Koerwer was hired Nov. 1, 2007.)

“Deans Teegen and Koerwer have, in a short period, destroyed the relatively posi-tive and collegial work culture at Moore, and replaced it with an organizational and management style that can best be described as top-down, authoritarian, condescending, and, at times, simply rude and discourteous,” the respondent writes.

One of the most comprehensive respons-es came from a faculty member who had this to say about Koerwer and Teegen:

“I feel that both Dean Teegen and to a greater degree Dean Koerwer ignore what has worked and make changes (many of which have to be reversed) without taking the time to gather the relevant information

needed to make an informed decision. Their mistakes have been very expensive from a financial point of view and have also led to a serious decline in morale. They have created an environment where both faculty and staff are hesitant to voice any opinions that may be in conflict with those of these two deans for fear of retribution and or public abuse … They need to have some understanding of the extent to which they have alienated a large number of folks in the Moore School.”

Change is ToughFor Koerwer, such comments are to be

expected when tough decisions need to be made.

“My role as Deputy Dean (de facto chief operating officer) is a highly visible one that has called for many difficult decisions that have changed the status quo and required new levels of effort and accountability for many members of the Darla Moore School of Business — all with the goal of advancing the overall success and reputation of our institu-tion,” Koerwer says in an emailed response to questions. “As a leader in the school, I have a responsibility to seek constructive

The 117 surveys — conducted in August and amounting to approximately 885 pages — were obtained by Free Times under the Freedom of Information Act. Taken together, they provide a rare glimpse inside one of USC’s flagship programs that few outside the Moore School of Business ever get to see, much less in such scrupulous detail.

The result? Nearly half of the faculty and staff surveyed said they believe the school’s working environment is a negative one, with the greatest number of complaints target-ing the alleged “alienating and arrogant” management style of Dean Hildy Teegen and Deputy Dean Scott Koerwer. Overall, 57 re-sponses were generally negative, 46 generally positive and 14 generally neutral.

Distributed in early August when many faculty and staff were still on summer break, the 117 responses submitted do not con-stitute the entire Moore School faculty and staff. In fact, many respondents complained

about the timing of the survey itself and the short time (a week) they had to respond. As a whole, the school employs 183 faculty and 119 staff.

Besides senior business school personnel, the surveys also have reached the provost and president’s office.

“The administration is fully aware of the survey responses, and we are working with Dean Teegen to address the concerns ex-pressed,” says Provost Michael Amiridis. “We want to ensure that the Darla Moore School of Business continues to attract outstand-ing students, faculty and staff and remains a source of pride for alumni, donors and our state.”

A “Toxic” Place to Work?Like any such surveys, there are plenty of

hyperbolic results on both the positive and negative sides. But what’s troubling is what’s

“The overall feeling of fear and despair in the building is overwhelming.”

— Anonymous respondent describing the atmosphere at USC’s Moore School of Business on an internal survey conducted by the school

At the same time the University of South Carolina Moore School of Business was announcing to the world it had obtained $42.4 million in matching

dollars for its gift from Darla Moore and would soon be moving from its home in the heart of campus to a new $90 million building in Innovista, tensions within the building were so bad the school had to conduct an internal survey of faculty and staff to assess the scope of the problem.

November 11-17, 2009 | free-times.comNovember 11-17, 2009 | free-times.com 15free-times.com | November 11-17, 2009

feedback and to ensure that our management styles promote a productive and positive environment and values all members of the community.

“This is a responsibility that I take most seriously and one that creates the context for transforming our organization and improv-ing critical areas such as budgeting, new pro-gram development and technology so we can realize the School’s mission,” he continues.

By now, Teegan is well aware of the per-ception of her and Koerwer’s management style and says she genuinely appreciates the feedback, harsh as it may be at times.

“There is some very clear guidance there in the surveys in terms of stylistic things that we need to work on both for myself and some other members of my team,” Teegen says. “We need to make sure people feel as though our style is one they deem approach-able and doesn’t get in the way of our ability to work effectively with them.

“The concerns raised about me and Scott and Greg with regard to management style, we’re looking into those very seriously,” she says. “I also think there are some mispercep-tions among our faculty and staff that stem from them not being fully informed or ap-propriately informed.”

Graduate Programs Suffering?

Beyond management style, a major substantive area of concern raised in the surveys is that structural changes made by Teegen and Koerwer to the graduate school’s organization and its degree programs are hurting the school.

“We are surviving based on a 20-plus-year-old reputation in International Busi-ness, when everyone (below upper manage-ment) realizes we are no longer leaders in this area,” writes one member of staff. “We have some great faculty in this area, but let’s face the facts. Overall, USC does not have the resources (faculty or staff numbers) to fight the big boys in this area. We are com-mitting too many resources to a program that has been consistently declining in num-ber of students over the past 10 years.”

“Many of us fear our school will lose our rankings,” another member of staff writes. “We have already lost several faculty members, and I understand others are ready to leave.”

“If you now look at graduate enrollments, you will note that they are decreasing … when our competitor schools are actually increasing,” writes yet another member of faculty. “The changes that have been made to the running of the graduate programs have not been beneficial. Our department repeatedly instructed the Deputy Dean and graduate director that the changes they were making were going to significantly reduce

enrollment in the Masters of Accounting program; however, they refused to listen.

“As we enter the fall semester, our two in-state competitors have grown their pro-grams, while our [Masters in Accounting] program has decreased in size by almost 50 percent. CPA firms have historically hired more students from our program than either of the other programs in the state. The trend will change if changes are not made to how we run the programs.”

Other faculty said the resources needed to continue to innovate in research weren’t what they needed to be.

“[We’re] behind our peer schools in pro-viding resources for research and teaching,” a faculty member writes. “In terms of support we are closer to Alabama and Mississippi than Ohio State or Chapel Hill.”

Another faculty member expressed con-cern over whether the school was meeting the needs of business recruiters.

“Dean Teegen promised a Managing Partner of one of the bigger CPA firms that she would not fix things that weren’t broken. Our 2009-2010 graduate class is nowhere near the quality of our normal classes. The firms are asking why our better students went to other graduate programs. Should we

tell them the truth?”Finally, this from a veteran member of

faculty:“I am a long-time faculty member who

has strong relationships with my students. The disorganization in the [Moore School of Business] graduate office last year was frustrating, embarrassing, and disheartening. Top quality students went to other graduate schools because they were treated so poorly … Fellowships and undergraduate scholar-ships were not given because we were not told that we had money to give.”

Faculty vs. StaffA major concern expressed by faculty

was the perceived move from faculty control of curriculum to administrative control, one that has many scared for the future.

“I … believe that replacing faculty administrators of our programs … has nega-tively impacted our academic programs,” one faculty member writes. “The model of using faculty as administrators of these programs had been quite successful in the past lead-ing to the development of such renowned programs as MIBS.”

“Faculty members generally believe that

too many academic decisions are being made by Dean Koerwer’s office,” writes another faculty member. “For example, the consensus is that [Moore School of Business] is admit-ting under-qualified students to graduate programs just to fill slots because enroll-ments are down.”

Additionally, many of the more nega-tive surveys from faculty members focus on what to them is a disturbing increase in the number of administrators at the expense of faculty.

“The ramp-up in administrative staff at all levels [it] appears has been excessive,” one faculty member writes. “By my count, we have 85 tenure-track faculty, 24 non-tenure track lecturers, and 115 staff! We have approximately eight associate, assistant and deputy deans. In spite of this, the adminis-trative work performed by the faculty seems higher than ever.”

“There has been a tremendous increase in staff positions,” another faculty member writes. “This administration has knowingly marginalized faculty input and governance of programs and curriculum. Task forces for our most important graduate programs have more staff than faculty members.

“Changes in graduate programs are being suggested by administrators for convenience and cost saving without regard to the quality of the programs. Why would non-academic administrators propose changes in fac-ulty developed curriculum without asking faculty? We have lost good faculty and I fear more will leave when economic conditions get better.”

Teegen says faculty concern with administrative positions is nothing new in academia, and that misinformation about new positions is to blame.

“That’s a concern raised perennially by faculty,” Teegen says. “When we begin meeting with department chairs and the faculty advisory committee, we’ll be sharing very detailed information about positions created, positions lost and costs associated with them.

“Some of those perceptions can be changed once they’re made aware of the prior state versus the present state. During the situation with the current budget crisis, we feel like we’ve turned the corner and shored up our position and are now able to consider doing some new faculty hiring in each of our functional areas.”

Teegen also says she understands the frustration of those for whom the old ways are the best ways.

“In the cases of some of the fears, we have to work hard to make people feel comfort-able about the choices that are being made and that, ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding over the long haul,” Teegen says. “Unfortunately, a lot of the actions we’re taking feel, in the short-term, to be changes

“The concerns raised … with regard to management style,

we’re looking into those very seriously.” — Hildy Teegen, Dean of the Moore School of Business

Hildy Teegan. File photo

16 November 11-17, 2009 | free-times.comNovember 11-17, 2009 | free-times.comfree-times.com | November 11-17, 2009coverstory

in direction that in some cases are deviations from long-standing practice.

“And just as those longstanding prac-tices took months and years to accumulate, similarly, some of the things we’re working on, it’s hard to know what the full impact will be yet.”

Looking Toward the Future As to be expected, plenty of responses

were positive, with most examples falling in line with the belief that changes were neces-sary, even if sometimes painful.

“I am personally very excited about our forward momentum and new direction,” writes one staff member. “I have worked in the school for 20 years in various capacities and have never seen so much get done so quickly. The industry is highly competitive, both for students and for employers to hire our students, and we must stay ahead of the competition. We had grown complacent, resting on our laurels, and we simply can-not afford to do that anymore if we want to survive.”

“As with all workplaces, there are nega-tive/disgruntled people employed at Moore,” another staff member writes. “The current administration is expected to offer students a world-class business education and look past traditional boundaries. To do so requires change. Sometimes change makes people uncomfortable — we have a small group of people that are apparently used to doing things ‘the way we’ve always done them’ and are vocal about their displeasure with changes being made.”

Still, it’s clear from the surveys that Teegen and staff can’t afford to ignore the negative responses, which represent much more than a handful of disgruntled faculty and staff members.

Some faculty and staff even questioned the survey itself, seeing it as a feedback mechanism that would generate no change.

“It is my opinion that nothing will come from this survey,” one faculty member wrote.

“This is the first survey I’ve seen in 20 years,” writes another faculty member.

“Whatever the results show, top administra-tors must take visible action or there will be a complete loss of what trust is left at the [Moore School of Business].”

One staffer spoke from previous experi-ence about the perils of ignoring surveys.

“Years ago, I worked for a professor who said, ‘When a survey is sent to employees, they perceive that positive changes will be made. When it doesn’t happen, the situation can worsen for employees who had been so hopeful.’ Please help us!”

It is that sense of pleading for help that pervades so many of the negative responses.

“Thank you for responding to the ongo-ing crises within our school,” one member of staff writes. “It is a relief to know that there is a system of checks and balances, and perhaps blind authority will not be condoned.”

Teegen says she absolutely is listening to all the feedback, though those hoping some form of disciplinary or investigative action from Teegen are likely to be disappointed.

“It’s important for people to recognize that these are confidential responses and are not supposed to be evaluative or used for disciplinary actions,” Teegen says. “We’re trying to get insights into where the school is going. The intention is to improve. The school has not had a tradition of gathering this type of feedback from the community, and a lot of the comments reflect that.

“I feel very proud of the work the school has done over decades and in continuing to progress, our achievements are notable and I also realize there’s only so much I can say that’s either going to change someone’s mind or not about such things as strategic direction. While there are some hurtful com-ments in there, which is a takeaway for me as well, it’s also clear that we need everyone in the building best advised and best used.

“We need everyone in the building work-ing forcefully in the direction we’re going, and if people feel uncomfortable or bad, that’s not going to happen.”

Let us know what you think. Email editor@free-times.com or rona@free-times.com.

The Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina. File photo3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

2012 Harden Street • (803)929-7669

• Join with a $10 deposit into a savings account• Earn dividends on savings account balances of $100 or more• Freedom Checking features no minimum balance and no maintenance fees• Free online and mobile banking• Free bill pay if you have online statements

Savings account required for membership • Federally insured by the NCUA