‘My pitfall before the summer was the classic engineers approach’

At the beginning of July 2024, TU Delft’s Executive Board again receives bad news from the Inspectorate of Education. After the serious judgement in March of mismanagement regarding the care of employees, the inspectors are again extremely critical. This time it is about the so-called Plan for Change that the Executive Board had submitted in May.

In the Inspectorate’s judgement, the Plan for Change reads like a ‘collection of objectives’ rather than a ‘coordinated set of actions’. It has little confidence that the Executive Board can and will change the situation. The Inspectorate states that this is partly because of a lack of self-reflection and partly because of mistakes that the Executive Board had made in previous months.

In a letter to the House of Representatives, the then newly arrived Minister of Education, Eppo Bruins, adds that he was ‘greatly concerned’ and assumes that the Executive Board would ‘make efforts’ to fulfil the requirements of the Inspectorate: make the Plan for Change a plan of action; start implementing it; and, submit a progress report every three months.

The Executive Board writes on the intranet that it takes the message as ‘encouragement’. Has that encouragement changed anything in the meantime? Delta spoke to Rector Magnificus and Executive Board Chair Tim van der Hagen. Olivier Sueur also joined the conversation. He has been the interim Manager of the Integrity Office, which is to help make the Plan for Change concrete and roll it out, since 5 June.

Tim, how are you doing?

“A lot has happened: the urgency expressed by the Inspectorate, how we responded to it, and what that has brought about. At the beginning of July, after the Inspectorate’s letter, everyone said that we were going through a lot and asked what was going on. Day and night, this issue was all I could think about. So it was very good that summer, which is less hectic, quickly followed. I talked to friends, my wife, and colleagues. I took about four weeks to do this, and have now left the resentment behind.”

The resentment about what?

“I thought that they were talking about our people who work extremely hard to move TU Delft forward (by making the Plan for Change, Eds.) as much as possible. And in one go, they almost write them off.

‘I had an about-turn’

But I now know that this was not what it was about. There is much amiss in regard to social safety and things must be improved. This is what it was about. And it can be improved. This summer, I learned that much needs to happen, but also that there are people who have experience with this issue for 20 years. And that there are other organisations that have the same problems, some of which are further on the path to improvement.

This gave me more energy and peace. I had an about-turn and believe that we will create a socially safe university. I am committed to this and it means that people have to deal with each other with respect regardless of their position, gender, identity, or background.

My pitfall before the summer was the classic engineers approach: identify the problem, the method to solve it, and then tick the boxes. But what we need is to strive for a change in culture. We have to start from scratch and learn from the past.

As an example, follow-up care was not good. In the case of I&IC and also elsewhere, you think that if the person has left the problem is solved. But this is not the case. We made mistakes in the communications along the way in the care for both the complainants and the accused. There is much to be done, but I am ready to take it on.”

To go back to the Inspectorate’s letter in July 2024, was it a surprise?

“Yes, it was a shock. We had spoken to the Inspectorate just before that. I had the impression that they thought that we were on the right path. They knew that we did not have an action plan, but that we had made a Plan for Change given that we were dealing with a problem in the culture. You need to go back to basics and look at the kind of university that we want to be and the problems that we are facing. An action plan comes after that.”

The Inspectorate had said in advance that the submitted plan would be assessed as an action plan.

“That was disappointing. It made me wonder if this approach would actually be a disservice.”

Do you also view this differently now?

“Yes. I now know that I am not doing this for the Inspectorate, but for TU Delft, our students and staff members. I have faith that the Inspectorate will say at a certain point that things are moving in the right direction. Luckily we have the support of the Supervisory Board and the Ministry. They look at the situation with a little more nuance and are encouraging us to go on.”

Do you feel that there is trust within TU Delft?

“Not from everyone. The Students and Staff for Safety (a social safety action group, Eds.) have no trust. They number at least 50 people. I think this is very relevant, even if were just one person. I am going to do my absolute best to get that trust back.

‘I relied too much on the system’

I am happy that we are still trying to talk to each other. They are the eyes and ears of our organisation. We are lucky that they help us optimise the things that we think up and do. So I will put up absolutely no resistance.”

Even if they start by saying that they do not have faith in the Executive Board?

“That is not nice and a pity to hear. But I would ask them how I can do things better and whether that trust can be restored.”

The lack of trust among some employees was also caused by the Inspectorate’s judgement that you could have started taking measures much earlier. There had been signs that things were amiss for years. And yet, TU Delft was not on time to submit a real action plan.

“We did not do nothing. Even before the Inspectorate report was issued we had asked Berenschot to look into how the entire integrity system was operating. This included the Integrity Office, the Integrity Officer, the Diversity and Inclusion Office, the Diversity and Inclusion Officer, the Confidential Advisors, and the Ombudspeople. We believed that we were ahead of other universities. But Berenschot concluded that the system was not working and that it was fragmented and unclear.”

The reason to commission Berenschot was the Confidential Advisors report of 2023, but the Confidential Advisors have written about signals that things were not right for years, including in 2022. You could have started earlier, couldn’t you?

“At the time, I thought we had it all sorted out. We had published a roadmap; you could go anywhere for help.  But I relied too much on the system. That was the big mistake.”

But then the system itself, being the confidential counsellors and ombuds officers, was saying even in 2022 that things were not right. The assignment to Berenschot only came the following year.

“That is the difference between Saturday or Monday.”

Sueur adds: “You could say that the awareness that this really is important and that more needs to be done about it than only depending on the system came relatively late. I see that in other organisations too.”

‘It is up to all of us to create a culture of addressing each other on unacceptable behaviour’

Van der Hagen: “We are now working much more on prevention. We did this very badly as we hardly did anything. There is a lot to do, such as awareness training, carrying out open discussions, giving feedback, training supervisors, thinking about people who are in positions of dependency and so on. So we now have Mindlab sessions (theatre performances about undesirable behaviour, Eds.), and there will be things like work conferences and drop-in consultations.”

Both the Inspectorate and Berenschot say that there is no culture of addressing each other on unacceptable behaviour at TU Delft. How do you promote this?

“It is up to all of us to create a culture that does so. We are not there by a long shot, because it is super complicated. Especially with hierarchical relationships. Together we have make sure that that conversation is had anyway.”

But are there any ideas about how to do this?

Sueur: “It starts with creating awareness among a wide group. You then need to show people how to address each other in a good way. We need to rethink the whole HR portfolio concerning leadership. This not only refers to hierarchical supervisors, but also to people like PhD candidate supervisors. It starts with the recruitment of new staff members. We need to think about what appears in a job profile. Is a vacancy only about excellent academic qualifications or also about social skills, and how do we test these? And will you be appointed if you are an excellent academic even though you might be a jerk?

In their onboarding, newcomers need to know what we expect and do not want from supervisors. We need to give them skills and knowledge. Over one’s entire career, attention must be paid to addressing each other without incurring negative effects.”

It will take years before this has permeated the entire system. How will it help staff members now?

Van der Hagen: “It could make a difference fast as we often take on new people. I speak to two or three people a week who want to become full professors. A conversation takes an hour, of which only five minutes is about the research as it is always excellent. I devote the rest of the time to the individuals themselves. Why do they want to work at TU Delft? How do they coach young academics? What do they do for society? Is it a jerk?

You may be able to keep one jerk at bay, but there are already jerks here. What will you do about them?

Sueur: “The idea is that at least half of all staff members attend a Mindlab session. This is a theatre performance that puts what can happen in an academic environment under the magnifying glass. It looks at things like pressure, intimidation, transgressive behaviour and so on, and it sets out to shock people. They then discuss the issues with each other and look at whether these or similar issues have occurred in their own situations or whether they could happen.”

‘We have to bid jerks farewell’

Van der Hagen: “On top of that, we have to bid jerks farewell. At a meeting in March someone asked if whether a full professor had ever been fired. My reply was that three had been fired only in the last three months. But this is not visible. Nobody sees it if we say that we consider certain behaviours unacceptable and that the person does not fit here. But we do do this regularly and not only at the lowest levels.”

Many of the complainants now experience that it is mostly they themselves who have problems and not the people who have misbehaved.

“Very soon, there will be one central contact point where people can report incidents, be they students, staff members, former students or former staff members. They can also do this anonymously. You can report that you see that something is not right somewhere, or report an incident that happened to you. The reports are examined by a team of professionals.”

Who will be on that team?

Sueur: “As we now have it figured out the contact point will have two teams. One will be the front office that receives the report and, if necessary, passes it on. If it looks like a case of a lack of integrity or transgressive behaviour, the report is passed on to the second team. According to our proposal, this team will comprise three competencies and three different perspectives: an integrity expert from the Integrity Office, someone from the Legal Department, and someone from the Safety and Security Department.

The contact point is not yet there, but we are already practicing with real-life situations. For example, a dean heard from the Confidential Advisor that there had been several reports about a particular full professor. The dean asked us what he can and may do. We are looking into this and at what is needed to take appropriate action.”

How can you ensure that complainants remain anonymous if they so wish while at the same time letting the accused professor know what the report is about?

“We could, for example, advise the dean to get more information through the confidential advisor so that we can check the facts. This sends a strong message to the person who filed the complaint that their report is being handled and that they are being taken seriously. If necessary we put a filter on the information so that we can ensure the anonymity of the complainant.

‘We will run the process so that it is done carefully for everyone’

But you can also imagine that the accused wants to know what the report is about. The fact check has to be done very precisely so that he or she can defend themself. The accused is vulnerable too. We will run the process so that it is done carefully for everyone. And that it is clear too. One rule is that the accused may not go looking for the complainants. If he or she does so, another type of discussion immediately follows, and that is about leaving.”

Advice will be given after the investigation. How do you make sure that a supervisor takes it?

“The supervisor is the person responsible and is required to either comply or explain why not. As advisors, if we do not agree with the explanation and we have reason to believe that things will go really wrong, we can go to a higher ranking supervisor. But that extra safety net is not always there.”

What will happen to the professor in your example?

“We do not yet know. The accusations are so serious that – should they be true – we will have to consider dismissal. We discussed in the team that this would not be done through an attractive back door and nice settlement package. We do not want a situation where someone is dismissed because of bad behaviour and can then continue their behaviour elsewhere.”

How can you do this so that people know that the complaints are being taken seriously without  putting the perpetrator up against the wall?

“We do not need to issue any press releases, but the judge will assess and uphold the dismissal. And after that, the person will of course not be given any letters of recommendation or positive references.”

‘We are not yet done with the past’

The Confidential Advisors say time and time again that people are afraid to file reports. How can you create trust in the contract point?

“We did our best to build in as many safeguards as we could to ensure independence and expertise. As an example, imagine that a doctoral candidate reaches out to the contact point and is afraid of the fact check. We will then jointly look at what we can do to help the person safely.”

There will also be an aftercare agency. What is that?

“We are currently working on a whole range of activities. They will shortly all be listed on a new website and in a progress report to the Inspectorate. Apart from this, everyone must have the opportunity to be heard as we are not yet done with the past. This creates recognition and understanding, and we had not offered this opportunity sufficiently. We call this ‘share and care’.”

Who will listen to victims and what will this result in?

“They may be people from the Diversity & Inclusion Office or external experts. Hopefully, at a certain point we will know what happened to all those people, the impact it had on them and is still having on them. This will increase our knowledge and help us adapt our actions where necessary.

‘Victims and perpetrators are sometimes one and the same’

Then there is the aftercare, which we want to offer too. Imagine that because of what happened to them at TU Delft someone is out of the running for six months and needed to see a psychologist. It could be that we reimburse them the costs. It may also turn out that this was caused by something still going on in the organisation. Then we must deal with that. The contact point then gets a signal: something has to be done.”

Do the settlement agreements with a duty of confidentiality not prevent this?

“It would be ironic if this would prevent you from telling your story.”

But this is exactly what happened.

Van der Hagen: “In terms of the victims or the perpetrators? The settlement agreements that I am familiar with are for perpetrators.”

The Inspectorate reports victims with duties of confidentiality.

“If the Inspectorate knows that they are victims.”

Sueur explains: “Victims and perpetrators are sometimes one and the same. Someone who is dismissed on the grounds of transgressive behaviour can feel that they are the victim. Are you then the perpetrator or the victim? Maybe both.”

Is it not more important to make it clear that the importance of creating a socially safe university takes precedence over a duty of confidentiality?

“Everyone, without exception, should be able to tell their story. You might have to see in what context, though.”

Van der Hagen: “That is the point. So not externally, because that is not possible, indeed that is legally established. But now you are again talking to TU Delft. I imagine it can be done in that way.”

Sueur: “Most of the work will be customised. We want to hold group discussions for people who want to share their experiences. That too is share and care and this can help in the healing process. But of course you have to think ahead of time about who you will group together.”

There are all sorts of actions on the to-do list (see the text box below). Will they be enough?

Van der Hagen: “I hope so. We made a strong start. We have hired extra people. We have troops everywhere. Most of this is not yet visible, but will be.”

‘We are now working on things that were not done in the past or were done carelessly or harmed everyone involved’

Do you think that the social safety has already improved? 

“It is a huge plus point that we continuously talk about it with each other as we never really talked about it before. We acted as though everything was perfect. Now we admit that we have a problem and ask if we can talk about it.”

Sueur: “We are now working on things that were not done in the past or were done carelessly or harmed everyone involved. And we are working on the future by examining the entire integrity system, as Berenschot had already done.”

Berenschot observed that reality on paper is different to reality in real life, where procedures are often ignored.

“That’s right. If people see a code of conduct from 2008 they put it aside. We need to set the norms clearly. The current Code of Conduct is full of descriptions of appropriate behaviour, but you cannot breach them. A good code of conduct has rules that can be breached, so we need to work on ours. We also need to do risk analyses by actively looking at the organisation to see where people are vulnerable and then minimising these.”

‘This is of the highest priority, so we will not economise on this’

Things are tight for TU Delft financially and this will only get worse with the cutbacks on higher education that have been announced. How will you make sure that this does not undermine the social safety?

Van der Hagen: “Work on this will simply continue, whatever the budget. This is of the highest priority, so we will not economise on this. We have allocated EUR 1.3 million to social safety in the 2025 budget. The Executive Board has told Olivier and his people that they only need to ask and we will take action.”

There will be cutbacks in other places in the organisation. How can you make sure that these will not lead to greater workloads which may lead to stress and the lack of social safety?

“The Government’s cutbacks are very bad news and wrong for society and for TU Delft. We will have to do less.”

Sueur: “Social safety is a basic right and there is much catching up to do at TU Delft. We have to catch up and it needs to be sustainable, last a long time and be independent of specific individuals.”

Van der Hagen: “We stand for systematic change.”

With the assistance of Annebelle de Bruijn