Lack of Diversity - Director Clemson University Employee Review

Super flexible schedule and great environment

Don't have any cons or not worth mentioning

As a previous employee of the Clemson University Institute for Engaged Aging, the work itself is meaningful, and the Institute serves an important role in supporting older adults and the surrounding community. I genuinely enjoyed working with participants and helping early-career employees navigate their first professional roles. The staff are talented, dedicated, and deeply committed to the Institute's mission. Many of my coworkers were the reason I stayed as long as I did, and I have a great deal of respect for the work they continue to do.

The greatest challenge was the leadership culture. In my experience, there was a lack of transparency and consistency in major personnel and budget decisions. During a period when funding cuts resulted in layoffs for multiple employees, a leadership family member retained their position despite the funding for their project ending. From an employee perspective, this created the appearance that similar situations were not handled consistently, which significantly impacted trust in leadership. Communication was another persistent concern. Information from frontline staff often passed through an intermediary before reaching the director, and it frequently seemed to lose important context or be presented in a way that reflected negatively on employees. At times, this appeared to contribute to disciplinary actions or formal write-ups that, from my perspective, were based on incomplete or inaccurately characterized information. The management style often discouraged open communication. I observed leadership behaviors that I found to be intimidating, indirect, and difficult to navigate, and these concerns were echoed by several colleagues. Rather than encouraging honest dialogue, the environment often left employees uncertain about expectations and hesitant to raise concerns. Some former staff members expressed reluctance to provide candid exit feedback out of concern that doing so could negatively affect future employment opportunities within Clemson University. To my knowledge, a formal Human Resources complaint was submitted that identified numerous employees as witnesses to concerns regarding management practices. From the perspective of many staff members, there did not appear to be meaningful corrective action afterward, and some employees felt that participating in the process resulted in increased scrutiny. The Institute operates across two locations, and employees who worked between sites were, in my experience, frequently asked about operations at the other location. This contributed to an atmosphere of mistrust and division rather than collaboration. I also observed communication styles that felt overly personal or informal, only for information shared in those conversations to later reappear in leadership discussions in ways that seemed unfavorable to employees. As a result, many staff members became increasingly guarded in their interactions. Professional development was another significant weakness. During my time at the Institute, opportunities for advancement were limited, there was little structured career development, and employees did not receive annual performance reviews or meaningful discussions about career growth. I would encourage candidates—particularly those early in their careers—to ask detailed questions about advancement opportunities before accepting a position. On a personal level, this position left me emotionally exhausted in a way no job had before. It took considerable time after leaving to regain my confidence, motivation, and enthusiasm for my career. I hope future employees have a better experience than I did, and I encourage prospective candidates to ask thoughtful questions about management structure, communication practices, workplace culture, and opportunities for professional growth before accepting a position.