OPINION - According to associate professor Frank Bohn, social safety related to power and dependency relationships is not adequately addressed by the executive board (CvB). He provocatively describes an "unholy trinity" of CvB, social safety, and organizational power, leading to a lack of trust among employees. Bohn advocates for strengthening the ombuds officer’s role to better support individuals facing social safety issues and restore trust in the university.

Ever since I have been active in participational bodies of the university (Medezeggenschap), social safety has been a hot topic of discussion at Radboud University. For four years I was a member of the faculty council (FGV), then, since 2021 I have been a member of the works council (GV).

There have been numerous critical and in-depth discussions of social safety in these participational bodies. At the same time, the university and its actions have been repeatedly critically debated in the Vox and De Gelderlander. Most recently, the contested appointment of a dean by the CvB created turmoil and anxiety amongst colleagues at the law faculty.

In March 2024, Vox reported about the resignation of the previous ombuds officer, Nancy Viellevoye. She felt that her initiatives for promoting social safety were ignored or undercut by the CvB. These visible cases suggest that a lot is at stake when it comes to social safety at Radboud University.

Bullying, intimidation and harassment

Let me first clarify what I mean by social safety at the university. What is not meant is the publicly guaranteed financial safety in case of unemployment, disability, etc. Instead, social safety in this context refers to a work environment that guarantees an intimidation-free and coercion-free day-to-day life, as well as fair prospects for personal development in the future. Social safety is so important because it heavily affects job satisfaction and – academic and general – productivity.

Life at Radboud University can be perceived as unsafe for two major separate (though related) reasons. First, there is a general form of unsafety because of bullying, intimidation, or harassment, including sexual harassment. Second, there is a specific form of unsafety caused by organizational power.

This relates to power relationships, for instance, with PhD supervisors, work supervisors (leidinggevenden), heads, directors or deans. This also relates to dependency relationships when colleagues are excluded from decision-making or sidelined by a group of string-pulling colleagues. Without diminishing the importance of the first (general) form of social safety, it is the second (specific) form of social safety that I would like to focus on in this article.

Power and dependency relationships

It took a while for the CvB to recognize the second form of social unsafety when they developed their Prevent-Care-Cure plan. I remember an early discussion in which power-related social safety played no role at all. But why is social safety related to organizational power so relevant at our university?

If you have a supportive supervisor, you might not be aware of this issue. However, members of the trade unions know of several dozen cases, spread over  all faculties, where socially unsafe situations have been caused by power or dependency relationships. Because of privacy concerns, many cases are not known, even if they happen in your direct environment.

Suffering from power or dependency relationships can affect anybody. And every case should be taken seriously. However, we have learned that it seems to affect internationals more often and even happens to high-profile internationals the university managed to attract. This may be caused by a cultural clash – it might simply be easier or more convenient to deal with similarly minded colleagues of the same nationality. However, there is also talk of nests of Dutch colleagues who are running the show, deliberately sidelining international colleagues.

Wrong approach

What is the CvB’s answer to the aforementioned problems caused by power and dependency relationships? How did the CvB respond to the balanced and well-formulated critique by the previous ombuds officer? The response has been disappointing. Complicated policy documents. Limiting the role of the ombuds officer (still only 0.6 fte) for resolving individual cases.

‘Increasing the number of people responsible does not help to solve the problems, and it does not help to make employees feel safe’

Instead, a multitude of people who are supposed to deal with social safety concerns: human resources, supervisors (leidinggevenden), faculty confidential contact persons (vertrouwenscontactpersonen), confidential advisors (vertrouwenspersonen), ombuds officer, complaints commission. In my opinion, this is a fundamentally wrong approach.

Increasing the number of people responsible does not help to solve the problems, and it does not help to make employees feel safe. There are too many employees who feel unsafe but do not dare to pursue the issue at hand. As a consequence, unsafe situations persist. This is why I have proposed to strengthen the role of the ombuds officer in previous meetings of the works council.

Sufficient capacity, independence and effectiveness

An ombuds office should have three elements. First, there should be a group of ombuds officers who are running their own unaffiliated desk to receive all complaints. Second, all ombuds officers should be completely independent of the CvB and only have to report to the Supervisory Board (Raad van Toezicht). Had this been the case before, initiatives by the previous ombuds officer, Nancy Viellevoye, could not have been ignored by the CvB (see aforementioned Vox article). Third, there should be sufficient capacity so that any employee who is suffering from an unsafe situation can be accompanied from the beginning of their complaint until its resolution.

This could be  effective for various reasons. First, if employees know that they are supported by the ombuds officer from beginning to end, they can trust the resolution process and dare to address social safety issues. Obviously, the fact that an ombuds officer stays on your side does not guarantee that you always get what you want. However, it does reassure you that your case could actually lead to substantial organizational consequences and that you are protected against potential repercussions.

‘If “perpetrators” experience that social safety complaints can have serious consequences for their own position, they are more careful about abusing their power’

Second, if employees see that issues are resolved, their trust in the institution is restored. This encourages others to become more outspoken about problematic situations. Third, if “perpetrators” (i.e., those who cause unsafe situations) experience that social safety complaints can have serious consequences for their own position, they are more careful about abusing their power.

Finally, this is also cost-effective. The additional ombuds officers cost money, but much higher costs are produced by internal commissions for drawing up and supervising policy, external advisory and complaints commissions, legal costs when employees sue the university and farewell arrangements for departing employees.

Blunt critique

There has been so much talk about social safety. Yet, for many employees, there remains this feeling of not being safe. I think we must find an effective way of stopping it. Policy documents and complex procedures are not helpful. Establishing an ombuds office and allowing the ombuds officers to help individuals hands-on would be an effective and cost-efficient way forward.

I know this is a blunt critique of what is going on, but I do think it is necessary to come forth, even if this entails harsh responses or even repercussions for myself.