Case Study Number: 140020-12-3

Indigestion for the Dean

Copyright © 1992 by the Case Research Journal and Roland B. Cousins.

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recorded or otherwise—without the
permission of The Laurier Institute, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5.
This material is not covered under authorization from CanCopy or any other reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, please contact The
Laurier Institute at 519-884-0710 ext. 6997 or e-mail: laurinst@wlu.ca.

Page 1
North American Case Roland B. Cousins Indigestion for the Dean Case McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993
Research Association

NACRA

Indigestion for the Dean

By Roland B. Cousins, LaGrange College. University administration cooperated in the field research for this case, which
was written solely for the purpose of stimulating students discussion. All incidents and events are real, but names and some
data have been disguised.

Dean John Jackson had never been as glad to return to the quiet and safety
of his office as he was following his first luncheon meeting with the business
faculty. After only 3 months since his promotion to dean, he was already
wondering if maybe he should be taking a different approach to motivating
faculty. He was especially upset by the outbursts of Drs. Carswell and Jen-
nings at the luncheon meeting. During the 13 years he had been a faculty
member in management at South-Central State University, he could not
remember a similar public confrontation between faculty and any dean.

Background
South-Central State University was a state institution with an enrollment of
approximately 15,000 students. The College of Business had almost 3000
undergraduates and 200 MBA students. There were approximately 600 fac-
ulty at the university, with the College of Business having 78 full-time faculty
and 3 adjunct professors. Until fairly recently, the administration had been
content with the university’s status as a regional, teaching-oriented insti-
tution. About 5 years ago, the president began following a strategy of
‘‘selective excellence’’ in which certain academic areas were singled out for
emphasis. The areas chosen for upgrading were selected on the basis of
several factors, including the demand and perceived timeliness of the par-
ticular discipline, perceived availability of grant money, and competition
from other nearby state institutions.
In support of the strategy of selective excellence, the decision had
been made 2 years ago to seek accreditation by the American Assembly of

Faculty members in nonprofit institutions are encouraged to reproduce this case for distribution to their own students, without charge or
written permission. All other rights reserved jointly to the author and the North American Case Research Association (NACRA).

Copyright 䊚 1992 by the Case Research Journal and Roland B. Cousins.

Page 2
North American Case Roland B. Cousins Indigestion for the Dean Case McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993
Research Association

Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Seeking accreditation was seen as

a major challenge for the business school and its faculty.

AACSB Accreditation
The AACSB is the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools.
Currently, 270 business programs in the United States are accredited.
There are approximately 1200 colleges and universities offering baccalau-
reate degree programs in one or more of the business disciplines. The
AACSB accreditation process generally begins with an extensive self-study
conducted by the faculty and administration of the institution desiring to
become accredited. The output of this study, a written self-study report,
contains a vast amount of information concerning the institution and its
business administration unit. Some of the data that must be provided
include the following:
• Mission statements for the institution and business administration unit
• Curriculum information
• Details of the budget
• Relevant library holdings
• System of governance at the institutional, business unit, and departmen-
tal levels
• Teaching loads
• Data on all faculty members in the business unit, including degrees
earned by faculty in the various business administration disciplines
• Individual records of professional activities, including paper presenta-
tions, article publications, and book publications.
In short, the self-study is a complete review of every facet of operation of
the business school or college.
The AACSB compares the information provided in the institution’s
self-study with a number of accreditation standards provided to all AACSB
member schools. Based on this initial review of the program in question,
the AACSB makes one of two recommendations: (1) that the institution
should not seek visitation by an accrediting team at the present time,
because the AACSB has identified a number of deficiencies in the program
in question, or (2) that a visitation should be scheduled.
A visitation consists of an on-site program review conducted by a team
of evaluators who interview students, faculty, and administrators, and who
examine records, library holdings, and physical facilities. After spending
several days at the institution, they submit a report with their conclusion.
This conclusion consists of either a recommendation for accreditation, a
deferral until specified deficiencies have been removed, or a denial of
accreditation. The entire process, beginning with the institution’s initial
decision to pursue accreditation through the point of actually becoming

Page 3
North American Case Roland B. Cousins Indigestion for the Dean Case McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993
Research Association

accredited, usually takes several years. Sometimes the process drags on for
years, and, on occasion, an institution gives up before it ever becomes
accredited.

The Accreditation Effort at South-Central State

In an attempt to begin the accreditation process, the former dean of the
College of Business Administration at South-Central State had required that
the faculty develop a preliminary self- study. It was anticipated that a num-
ber of deficiencies would be identified and that there would be no formal
presentation of the self-study to the AACSB until the College of Business
had strengthened most of the weaknesses noted.
Indeed, a number of weaknesses were identified in the study, including
inadequate secretarial assistance, a few curriculum problems, and several
faculty members teaching in subject areas out of their major academic
fields. However, by far the most glaring weakness uncovered was an inad-
equate number of publications by the faculty. While there were a few pro-
ductive researchers, the faculty in every department within the College of
Business fell short of the AACSB standards. Historically, the university had
not emphasized research or allocated much reward for performance in that
area.

Performance Appraisal
The formal performance evaluation program that allocated merit raises,
contingent on the availability of funds, weighted teaching, research, and
university and community service as follows:
Teaching 60%
Research and publications 20%
University service 15%
Community service 5%
The actual rating given to a faculty member on each factor was determined
subjectively. The department head did have access to student evaluations
and to an annual report in which faculty members provided a record of
their accomplishments for the previous 12-month period. Annual reports
listed the following types of activities under each heading.

Teaching

Courses taught each semester

Number of students in each class
Teaching innovations employed
Independent study courses supervised

Page 4
North American Case Roland B. Cousins Indigestion for the Dean Case McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993
Research Association

Research and publications

Paper presentations—meeting, date, and location

Articles accepted for publication—journal name, date to be published
Articles published—journal name, issue date
Books accepted or published
On-going research projects

University service

University committees—chaired
University committees—membership
College or departmental committees—chaired
College or departmental committees—membership
Other university services—workshops conducted, speaking engagements, etc.

Community service

Church activities
Activities on behalf of local governmental agencies, charitable agencies, business
community, etc.
Based on this information and any other information which the depart-
ment head believed to be relevant, the department head would assign a 0
to 10 rating to the faculty member in each of the four major categories,
with 0 being defined as very poor and 10 as exceptionally strong. The point
values assigned were then multiplied by the percentage assigned to each
factor. Finally, the score was multiplied by 10 to determine a point total.
For example, the overall performance rating for a specific faculty
member might be determined as follows:

Factor Points Weight Total

Teaching 8 .60 4.80

Research/publications 6 .20 1.20
University service 7 .15 1.05
Community service 9 .05 .45
7.50
Total score 7.50 ⫻ 10 ⫽ 75
Faculty members in each department were ranked according to the total
score. They were then assigned to categories ranging from category I (out-
standing) to category V (needs much improvement— unacceptable). The
assignments to categories were made by the department heads, but the
dean of the College of Business had the authority to change any indivi-
dual’s category assignment. When funds were available for merit raises, the
college administration would decide on a percentage increase to be given
to all faculty in category I, a smaller percentage for faculty in category II,
and a still smaller percentage increase for those in category III. No one
below category III received a merit increase.

Page 5
North American Case Roland B. Cousins Indigestion for the Dean Case McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993
Research Association

When Professor John Jackson was named dean of the College of Busi-
ness on June 1st, he was told that his first priority was to secure accredi-
tation for the College of Business. During his first meeting with the
academic vice president, he was given all of the documentation regarding
faculty performance during the previous academic year and told to make
the necessary decisions regarding merit raises. Additionally, the new dean
was to make decisions concerning salary adjustments.
Salary adjustments were given periodically to faculty members whose
salaries were determined to have fallen too far below the national averages
published annually by the AACSB. Because of difficult economic times in
the state, for many years there had been very little money available for
merit raises and none available for salary adjustments. At the same time,
newly hired faculty came into the college at nationally competitive salary
rates, substantially above the local average. More money was available this
year to close this gap and to provide merit increases than at any time in
the past 8 years.
Unlike merit raises, there were no guidelines given to the dean con-
cerning salary adjustments. He did have complete salary information on
his faculty as well as the AACSB salary survey. Dean Jackson was told to rely
on his own judgment in making salary adjustments. Taking his charge very
seriously, Jackson had spent a great deal of time going over the information
he was given pertaining to each faculty member. A believer in the power
of positive reinforcement and money as a motivator, he had decided to give
the greatest raises and all of the salary adjustments to those faculty mem-
bers who had published journal articles during the preceding academic
year.
Faculty members received notice of salary adjustments from Jackson
personally. The respective department heads notified them of the size of
their merit raises.
South-Central State, as a state institution with the obligation to make
public all information concerning how state funds are spent, made it a reg-
ular practice to place a copy of its final budget in the library’s reserve read-
ing room so that any interested party could examine the data. This year’s
budget, listing all university employees and their salaries, became available
in the library on September 1st.
In mid-August, Dean Jackson had scheduled an informal faculty
luncheon for September 2nd. The purpose of the luncheon was for the
faculty to discuss any issues of concern and for the new dean to present his
vision for the college. Since the new dean had been a professor in the man-
agement department for many years, the only faculty members he did not
know at least fairly well were those newly hired for the current academic
year.

Page 6
North American Case Roland B. Cousins Indigestion for the Dean Case McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993
Research Association

The Luncheon
By the time the last of the 21 professors had straggled into the student
union meeting room for the luncheon, the dean could feel a tenseness
which he had never before sensed in this group. They sat politely during
his opening remarks in which he stressed the importance of accreditation
by the AACSB and also discussed in detail the new computers which were
being installed in the computing lab. Sensing disaster, he reluctantly
opened the floor for questions and comments. One long-time faculty mem-
ber in management, Dr. Robert Carswell, immediately said:
What was the deal on the merit raises and salary adjustments for last year? It seems
that publications have gone from a weighting of 20 percent to 100 percent—after
the fact. Fairness would demand, at the very least, that we be notified before the
beginning of the year about the basis upon which performance will be evaluated.
Also, I guess, we don’t care at all about our students anymore. With the way rewards
were allocated this year, I don’t see any sense in even going to class.

Dean Jackson, taken aback by the tone and directness of the question, stum-
bled a bit and then responded as follows:
No, I took into consideration teaching, university service, and public service in addi-
tion to research. However, as you are certainly aware, our publication record is the
single, glaring weakness in our preliminary self-study. We will not get accredited
unless we strengthen this record, and I am going to use the rewards available to pro-
vide whatever incentive I can to accomplish this end. All of you had better get used
to it.

Then a senior accounting professor, Dr. Carl Jennings, unfolded a sheet of

paper and spoke up:
Look, John, let’s go through the performance appraisal numbers and see what’s been
done here. I think you will have to admit that I am one of the best teachers in the
university, and I am very active in both service areas—university and community. I
will admit that I struck out in the publication area last year and several previous years.
According to the merit program which has been in effect all across the campus for
years, my point total out of 100 should be close to 80.

Jennings summarized the numbers:

Factor Points Weight Total

Teaching 10 .60 6.0

Research/publications 0 .20 0
University service 10 .15 1.5
Community service 10 .05 0.5
8.0
Total score 10 ⫻ 8.0 ⫽ 80
He continued:
For this, I got a merit raise in the third best category out of five, with no salary adjust-
ment. This seems a lot like a ‘‘C.’’ Now, there is another guy in here. . . . No, let’s

Page 7
North American Case Roland B. Cousins Indigestion for the Dean Case McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993
Research Association

make it hypothetical. In theory, we could have a professor who is a lousy teacher, still
uses his notes from the Eisenhower era, avoids all committee assignments, and does
nothing for the community, and yet he publishes several articles during the year. In
my view, this person should get a 20, figured as follows:

Factor Points Weight Total

Teaching 0 .60 0
Research/publications 10 .20 2.0
University service 0 .15 0
Community service 0 .05 0
2.0
Total score 10 ⫻ 2.0 ⫽ 20

Now, as I understand the merit program, merit raises should be related to point
totals. But based on what I saw in the budget yesterday, it seems that if there is a
relationship between points and merit raises, it’s an inverse one. The hypothetical
person just mentioned would receive a category merit raise, an ‘‘A,’’ and a salary
adjustment to boot. He would get all of the rewards with a point total of 20. This
certainly does a disservice to students. Also, while we are talking money, I have
noticed that seniority now seems to be a factor to hold against someone. Generally
speaking, new faculty are brought in at higher salaries than those paid to faculty with
many years of service. Salary compression has been apparent for the last 4 or 5 years,
but now we are clearly in the realm of salary inversion. What the hell kind of incentive
does that provide for loyalty and dedication? It’s perfectly apparent to me that all
you value are youth and publications. A lot of us feel screwed by your decisions!

Several other faculty members spoke up in support of the points made by

Drs. Carswell and Jennings, but they did not speak with the same degree
of vehemence. Dean Jackson also noted that all of the faculty members who
had received category I merit raises and/or salary adjustments said
nothing.
The dean was caught completely off-guard by what he perceived to be
a personal attack. He really wasn’t prepared to defend his decisions, nor
did he feel that he should have to offer a defense. He merely restated the
importance of research and publications in the college’s attempts to
become accredited by the AACSB. He also reiterated that teaching and ser-
vice were both expected and valued and would continue to be evaluated in
the future.
The hour allotted for the luncheon could not end quickly enough for
Dean Jackson. Finally, at 1 o’clock, the dean cordially thanked everyone for
attending and left the room.
Once back in his office, he reflected on what had been said and the
history of the accreditation effort at South-Central State. He had been
there from the beginning and had seen the climate in the college change.
Until now, however, he had not been directly affected by the building ani-
mosity. Now it was personal.

Page 8
North American Case Roland B. Cousins Indigestion for the Dean Case McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993
Research Association

When the original decision was made to attempt to secure AACSB

accreditation, there was strong faculty support within the College of Busi-
ness. Very few of the faculty had been associated with AACSB-accredited
institutions, so most did not fully appreciate what would be involved in the
process. During the years that followed this decision, there were massive
changes in the curricula, course numbering, and course content. There was
also increasing pressure directed toward the faculty to get them involved
in research and publications. This increased emphasis on research was not
reflected in performance appraisals and/or merit raises, however. It was
merely a central theme whenever the former dean met with his faculty.
Most faculty continued to do what they had always done.
With the passage of time, a growing number of faculty had seemed to
turn against the accreditation efforts. Dr. Carswell was one of the leaders
of the growing anti-accreditation faction. He often claimed that the only
group of university stakeholders more adversely affected than faculty by
these changes were students. In the view of Dr. Carswell and some others,
increased efforts directed to research necessarily meant less importance
placed on teaching. As Carswell was fond of saying:
It doesn’t matter how many hours per week I work. It might be 25 or it might be 65.
As we place more emphasis on research, that number will not change. I will merely
reallocate the way I spend that time. If I am to work 20 hours per week on research,
that means I will put approximately 20 fewer hours into my teaching. Do our students
benefit equally from those 20 hours? Absolutely not. They are short-changed, as are
the taxpayers of this state. They hired us to teach the young people of this region.
Ninety-eight percent of the research done in most business schools today is of vir-
tually no value to state taxpayers or undergraduate students. Let’s not forget that we
are a regional teaching institution; we emphasize undergraduate education. We have
no doctoral programs. The AACSB wants us to become something we are not, and
to quit doing what we are good at.

As he reflected, Dean Jackson faced the fact that he had some serious prob-
lems on his hands. He had no idea how he was going to continue to empha-
size research without making it seem that teaching and service were no
longer important. He also wondered what could be done about the salary
compression, even inversion, which was plaguing the profession nationally.
Finally, he wondered how his outspoken faculty should be handled. He was
only sure of one thing— there would be no more luncheons.

Page 9