It was quiet around the social safety theme at our TU Delft and I started to wonder if the attention had waned without the causes of undesirable situations being dealt with. Had most employees fallen into slumber through Orwellian newspeak from the Cornelis Drebbelweg?
But then Delta published an interview with Executive Board Chair Tim van der Hagen and Olivier Sueur, the Manager of Integrity Office (24 September). The first progress report on social safety for the Inspectorate of Education then followed (1 October), and was followed by an open letter from the CNV union to the Minister of Education, Culture and Science (10 October), an investigative report by Delta (10 October), the reactions to it (14 October), and a message from the Supervisory Board (18 October).
It is encouraging that there is still attention for the situation in which TU Delft finds itself, but I do read repetition in the actions taken. The concerns and negative experiences with the culture and atmosphere on the work floor emerge from many places. The Executive Board continues to say that things must change, that mistakes were made and that it is doing its utmost to improve things.
What I see in these expressions, and particularly in the action plan and the progress report, is the abundant use of English in the Dutch texts. What is wrong with ‘Veranderplan’? What do you want to happen by calling this a ‘Plan for change’? Is all this English intended to hide the fact that the Executive Board is pouring old wine from new bags? And further, we already have an ombudsperson and confidential advisors – well-intentioned (presumably) entities that, as it turns out, are unable to solve problems. And now there will be a point of contact. What will we gain from that?
Monitoring orderly management requires maintaining distance and being critical
The Integrity Office (English again), will be expanded and at first I thought that this would be a step in the right direction. But then I asked myself who will appoint these colleagues? Who will give them orders? Who will they report to? And who will pay them?
It is disheartening to see how the Executive Board, with the support of the Supervisory Board, spares no effort in making sure that they stay in place. I am hoping for common sense to prevail. In the end, the members of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board should also recognise the obvious: anyone who intimidates staff members, as the Executive Board Chair recently did to the Innovation & Impact Centre management team, will never credibly be able to call to order others that copy this type of behaviour.
Monitoring orderly management requires maintaining distance and a critical stance. A Supervisory Board that hunkers down close to the Executive Board in a brotherly fashion, is showing bias. See the recording (intranet – in Dutch) of the meeting of 1 March where both criticised the Inspectorate report.
Members of the Executive and Supervisory Boards, look at your connection to the causes of the problems in our work culture, think about them and give yourselves an honourable exit. It will help in your rehabilitation.
Comments are closed.