How (not) to deal with suspected perpetrators: ‘It felt like I had three knives in my back’

Simon has had a long and satisfying corporate sector career when he starts working as a supervisor for young researchers at TU Delft in 2018. He feels it is wonderful to be able to play a meaningful role using his experience and contacts in industry for his alma mater. Simon is first appointed for two days a week. In 2020 this becomes three days. He can easily combine the job with his consultancy company. He works at TU Delft one or two days a week to see colleagues and speak to the young researchers. He works partly from home, and entirely when TU Delft’s Covid measures take effect in March 2020.

Simon says that his relationship with his direct manager, Karel, has always been good. He even says that Karel was “the nicest boss he ever had”. The pair of them often meet up for a coffee. The reports from his performance evaluations show that Karel praises Simon highly. He refers to Simon’s clarity in communication and his efforts to further build on their programme. He is positive about Simon’s initiative in asking the young researchers, all of them internationals, for feedback on his personal performance at the end of their programme so that he can learn from it.

‘Defence is impossible when allegations are not substantively explained’

Karel calls Simon ‘a skilled supervisor’, his approach ‘clear and thorough’, and his background an ‘important added value in supervising’ the young researchers. For Karel it goes without saying that Simon’s temporary appointment becomes permanent. This happens in the autumn of 2021. Nothing points to Simon ending his contract himself a little more than a year later.

Pushed into the corner

What leads to that resignation happens in a short space of time. There are two weeks between a report by three female colleagues that Simon supposedly misbehaved towards a few young researchers and his resignation letter. Simon feels pushed into the corner. He usually sat near his colleagues at the office, but does not feel like being there anymore, knowing that his colleagues have talked about him among themselves and to his boss behind his back. “It felt like I had three knives in my back,” he says.

What led Simon to taking such a radical step? A pile of email exchanges and meeting reports in a white TU Delft envelop resulting from a request for information that he submitted to TU Delft in 2023 gives an idea. His story can be reconstructed from these. While he says that he has no problem with his name, job title and department being made known, we have anonymised the events. The names Simon and Karel are fictitious.

‘It breaks your career and your health suffers’

For Delta, the contact with Simon started when he posted a message on LinkedIn in response to Delta’s notification about the report by the Inspectorate of Education on the lack of social safety at TU Delft. He said that he had a story. When Delta asked him if he were prepared to share his story, he sent a letter. It starts as follows.

‘Where there is smoke, there is fire so the saying goes. But what do you do if you are anonymously accused of transgressive behaviour on the work floor and you really have no idea what it’s about? You are not told. There is no background information, no proof, no facts, no explanation … nothing. Appearances go against you, you are 3-0 behind, and defence is impossible when allegations are not substantively explained. It breaks your career and your health suffers. This is not the story of a victim of transgressive behaviour, but of someone who has been anonymously accused of it. In this case, this is transgressive too.’

Simon hopes that his story can serve as an example for how supervisors should not deal with complaints and how the reporting procedures can be made more professional. To take these lessons on board, we asked Simon’s former supervisor, the department chair and the dean to reflect on this story. The dean responded, but only in general terms (see the box below this article). We also asked Inge te Brake – an independent coach for people who are accused who is not involved in this case or associated with TU Delft – to read it. Her views are in the drop-down boxes in the text. Her response: ‘Unnecessary damage has been caused.’

But first, what happened in November 2022.

Teams meeting

It is Tuesday the 8^th. Supervisor Karel wants to talk to Simon that afternoon, but Simon is not at TU Delft. ‘I hope it’s nothing serious. Let’s talk online’, Karel then writes in a meeting confirmation. A couple of hours later the two of them are facing each other on their screens. Simon assumes that they will discuss a project, but Karel starts talking about something else. Three female colleagues contacted him with information that they say they are reporting on behalf of young researchers. Simon is accused on behaving inappropriately as a supervisor. Karel says that he does not know who the researchers are, nor how many people were involved. Maybe five or six, but that was never confirmed.

Simon is shocked by what Karel says. He has never noticed anything. He has also never read anything in the feedback forms that suggested complaints about transgressive behaviour. Simon wants to know what he accused of so that, if necessary, he can take action to improve. And so that if necessary, he can apologise. He asks Karel on Teams “When did it happen and with whom? Was I rude, spoke too strongly? Did I swear? Did I do anything physical?” It was definitely not sexually transgressive behaviour, but Karel does not know any more details.

Feedback

On Teams Simon asks if he can talk to the young researchers involved. Karel understood from the three colleagues that this would not happen. Simon then wants to know if he can talk to the three colleagues individually. Karel says that he will suggest that, and emails them the next day. He writes that he would like to be present in the three discussions and emphasises that Simon always asks for feedback from the people he coached. “Where relevant he used this feedback to manage and improve his coaching and expectations. He wants to work with you and me to see if the information that you received may show any ‘blind spots’ that are not or not explicitly […] stated in the questionnaires, and how he/we can make them clearer and act on them.”

‘I am not going to be held accountable in such a big forum’

The supervisor knows what the questionnaires contained as Simon had shared it the previous day. Delta has seen the anonymised forms. Seven young researchers say that they are generally happy with Simon’s organised way of working and with his feedback. A few think the feedback is a bit too succinct or unclear. They do not like it when he adds several question marks in the sections where he seems to have questions about it. What does he mean? The most critical young researcher gives Simon a 6. On average he scores 7.6, with one exceptional 9.9 (‘The 10 is only for God’ the young researcher joked on the feedback form).

In answer to Karel’s suggestion for separate discussions with the three colleagues, they respond with a different suggestion. One of them emails that they want to talk to Simon with all three of them. Simon also received that email and answers Karel that he feels uncomfortable with the suggestion that he reads in the email that he has behaved unacceptably towards them. ‘I am not going to be held accountable in such a big forum’, he writes to Karel who answers that he is entirely in agreement. So Karel responds to all those involved that he will plan three meetings. Later in the evening he emails Simon saying ‘I think they think it is hard to have individual meetings, but you and I need to take away their concerns’.

Telling the truth

After some email to-ing and fro-ing on the question of whether there should be individual or group discussions, two live meetings are planned for 15 November – one with one person and the other with the other two. Karel is present at both meetings. After the first meeting Simon is positive. He and his colleague are ‘still friends’ he writes in his report. They agree that more supervisors should make it standard practice to ask for feedback from young researchers and that Simon will be more aware of his behaviour, though it is still not clear what the issue was, and ‘take appropriate action’. From now on, feedback will be given directly and discussed in person.

The second meeting is completely different. In his report Simon writes that he felt ‘a tangible dynamism’ between the two colleagues to ‘tell him the truth’. Only, he did not hear what that truth was. What Simon does state in his report is that there were ‘impressions’ that he was supposedly ‘not that approachable, overwhelming’ and ‘arrogant’, and did not spend enough time in the office.

‘Sit back and relax’

Simon is disappointed that Karel does not respond to these general accusations that are not based on specific examples. Just the day before he had promised Simon that he would support him in his request for examples. One of the two colleagues says that Simon’s repeated request come across as intimidating. In his report Simon admits that he should have ‘improved’ his tone, but writes that he too experienced collective ‘animosity’.

Why did the three of them go to the boss?

In the end, the four do discuss a case that was raised more or less at random about a young researcher who suffered from depression and had left Simon’s meeting room in tears. The two colleagues seem to hold Simon responsible for this. After listening to them, Simon says that they only knew half the truth. The young researcher had left the room crying after a discussion with a third person who was present online who had made some very critical comments on the researcher’s report. Simon wonders why the two colleagues had not approached him directly to ask what had happened. Why did the three of them go to the boss?

Despite the difficult meeting, the four agree that there should be one-to-one follow-up meetings after the two colleagues have gathered more information from the young researchers. Simon also says that he will be more aware of how he comes across. ‘Sit back and relax’, he notes in his meeting report.

Resignation

He will not keep up this attitude for long. Supervisor Karel sends his meeting report to everyone involved early in the morning of 22 November. Simon does not agree with what he reads. What are for him important parts are missing, in particular his explanation about the case of the researcher with depression. As Karel describes it, very much in brief, it seems as though the condition was caused by Simon himself while this is not the case.

‘It is a shame that things worked out this way’

‘This report is so incomplete that I don’t know where to start with corrections and additions’ he emails less than half an hour later while he attaches his own report. After that Simon does two things. He cancels the follow-up meeting that is planned for later that day and, even more seriously, he submits his resignation letter. In this brief email to Karel, his boss and the dean, Simon writes: ‘The reason for my resignation is known to you. It is a shame that things worked out this way.’ He suggests that his contract is terminated ‘ASAP’, and definitely before 1 January 2023.

Threatening

What happens after Simon’s radical decision? There is no evidence that a higher supervisor takes action. There are no phone calls, emails or contact with independent mediators. There are emails between Karel and his supervisors and between Karel and Simon though. In response to Simon’s resignation letter, Karel sends him a message confirming that he has received his letter and there is little other text than that he accepts and respects Simon’s decision.

Neither Simon nor Karel talks about what went wrong

Karel updates his boss that afternoon. The boss emails the dean the next morning. ‘[Simon] is leaving after a discussion escalated about his coaching style that some [young researchers] experience as threatening. [Karel] was unable to get him to think about his behaviour and [Simon] drew his own conclusions from that discussion.’ Less than two hours previously, Karel had informed Simon that his contract could be terminated very quickly, within a week. ‘It is a shame that things worked out this way,’ he adds. Later that day the dean sends a brief response to Karel’s boss saying ‘Thank you for the info. Good luck with sorting it out’.

The week after that, Simon comes to campus twice to arrange his work handover with Karel and to hand in his laptop and access pass. While these meetings are businesslike in tone, the two do have a coffee together. Neither Simon nor Karel talks about what went wrong. That Wednesday Simon sends everyone involved an email whose subject is ‘perhaps a good subject for the next staff meeting …?’. It states: ‘How to give personal feedback: tell me my mistakes, not others (1:1 – not in groups). My mistakes must be corrected by me, not by others.’ He also tries twice to get a meeting with the dean, but he does not hear anything from anyone anymore.

Inspectorate of Education

Simon cannot fathom why the dean and Karel’s supervisor never said or asked anything. He knows both of them fairly well. Surely they would have wanted to hear his side of the story?

When the Inspectorate of Education calls on all staff members at TU Delft to report if they had experienced any form of transgressive behaviour on the shop floor, Simon feels called upon. He files a report and informs Karel, his supervisor and the dean accordingly so that they are prepared should there be any questions, as Simon does not ‘stab people in the back’. The Dean thanks him for the cue.