Respect and recognition

It is essential that we constantly put the integrity of our university at the centre, not only in our academic and scholarly activities, but also in the way we cooperate with each other and value each other’s expertise.

KU Leuven is made up of a diverse group of students and staff: teachers, administrative and technical staff, PhDs, postdocs, IOF managers, research cadre, … It is crucial that we not only recognise but also harness this diversity. Respect means ensuring that every position and expertise enjoys equal recognition.

A new Job Framework 2.0 was recently developed within KU Leuven to meet the changing needs and demands from our university’s organisation, evolutions and further professionalisation of the ATP framework.

Yet we see that employees are still too often pigeonholed depending on their status or function. This is not only the result of the way we are organised; it is also related to the way we sometimes look at our own organisation. Within our organisation, there is often a distinction between employees from different ranks, based on their formal role, position or function. This can create a hierarchy that potentially limits the contribution of individuals, potentially preventing them from getting the recognition or opportunities they deserve. We strongly believe that less hierarchy, less pigeonholing, more teamwork and more respect lead to a better work culture.

1. For the ZAP, we will further concretise and elaborate the valuation framework. This valuation framework looks wider than just fulfilling the university’s tripartite mission, and takes into account various other factors such as the extent to which team collaboration and leadership happen. Indeed, good leadership (not just by ZAP) is essential for a well-functioning organisation and it is clear that we still need to make progress here. By identifying good leadership practices, and naming what deviates from them, we can make important steps forward: not only in addressing, but especially in preventing transgressive behaviour. For this, training and a culture of 360-degree evaluations are essential. Colleagues with little managerial experience need coaching before taking on new responsibilities. We need to identify those colleagues well in advance and give them time and space to prepare for a responsible role. We can also take important steps when it comes to evaluations. Too often, evaluation at KU Leuven is only done by the immediate supervisor. That is too narrow. Colleagues and, if necessary, members of the team being managed, should also be involved.
2. We better recognise the engagement of students, ABAP-OP1/2 and ATP in policy functions. In the case of ABAP and ATP representatives, absence from work through participation in policy bodies is not always fully recognised. Additional teaching facilities may be allowed for students in policy positions, in line with an advice from the Flemish Education Council (Vlor).
3. We make more room for collaboration between scientists and administrative and technical staff. This can be done by strengthening cross-functional teams, bringing together different areas of expertise to achieve common goals. More generally, it is essential to involve the ATP in policy as well, at all levels, and certainly not only through representation in policy bodies. KU Leuven is a complex organisation in which professors usually only take on a certain responsibility for a limited time. That in itself is a good thing, but this model can only survive in an increasingly complex context if those same professors are supported by employees who feel involved in that policy. Those staff members know the objectives and share the underlying vision because it was defined together with them. After all, policy and management inevitably grow towards each other: a good policy is not possible if it is not supported by the right management processes, and it is equally impossible to develop well thought-out management independently of all policy objectives. We are not only convinced that we need to work on this, but also that, if we achieve this, it will lead to greater job satisfaction for all concerned.
4. We need to work on valuing expertise in all functions. We also want to work on further rolling out and optimising the job framework 2.0. There should be more focus on the valorisation of ATP expertise. Employees must be given a platform to make their ideas and contributions visible and to collaborate. A very good example is the knowledge platform for laboratory technologists recently established in the Biomedical Sciences (BMW) group. Such initiatives should be rolled out university-wide, and we are sure they will be inspiring to other members of the ATP.
5. We need to better monitor, recognise and address the specific situation and needs of ABAP. We commit to better inform doctoral students and researchers about their professional future. Within the Biomedical Sciences group, structured consultation moments are built in for PhD students and postdocs as part of an individual development plan (IDP), in which promoters follow up and discuss future prospects with their PhD students. However, these discussions have not been implemented university-wide. We would like to propose the IDP (or an alternative interpretation of it) in the other science groups as well and would like to roll it out university-wide. Moreover, it is important for young researchers to get feedback and also be able to give feedback on their experiences in their research and teaching environment. We will also pay more attention to the reception of doctoral students (ABAP), and in particular international ABAP
6. We must also pay due attention to the perspectives of staff members who are included in extinguishing statutes such as OP1, OP2 and OP3 upon integration. These colleagues often work in specific circumstances on the campuses and also have specific questions and needs that are not always adequately captured. Regular consultation with representatives of the Teaching Staff and the relevant deans is necessary to allow them to become more part of the greater KU Leuven community.
7. We must keep a close eye on allowances for home working and cycling and dare to prioritise within a limited financial space, but always in consideration of other desiderata.
8. We are taking further steps to prevent and address transgressive behaviour. KU Leuven’s satisfaction survey shows that more than 25% of staff have received a report or witnessed cross-border behaviour in the last six months. This mainly involved verbal aggression, and to a lesser but still significant extent abuse of power or discrimination. In half of the cases, no adequate solution was found. Our university has taken steps in the right direction here, including strongly encouraging professors to attend a webinar on transgressive behaviour. We need to go further. Policy around transgressive behaviour needs to be more transparent, and even more coordinated, taking into account input from various quarters such as HR, doctoral schools and ombudspersons. Confidential counsellors should be as approachable as possible, and not take on other policy functions either. It is also important to involve external experts throughout the procedure. Transgressive behaviour has no place at the university. We must continue to work towards a culture where transgressive behaviour is named and addressed openly and without hesitation. Finally, it is very important that an administration shows the necessary decisiveness in serious cases and acts when necessary to prevent a repetition of serious cross-border behaviour. Thanks to the new disciplinary regulations, the procedures we now have at our disposal are already a great improvement on the situation a few years ago. But we must dare to note that procedures sometimes take a very long time which leads to uncertainty and dissatisfaction among reporters. We should therefore consider how to make our procedures more efficient. Shortening certain deadlines (e.g. to submit a defence) could be a first step towards reaching a decision faster without compromising the quality of the assessment.
9. We recognise the red results of the satisfaction monitor: meeting them is an important form of respect. We look with experts internally and externally at how to interpret and remedy negative figures in order to formulate solutions. Career planning and career guidance are important spearheads for this. We take performance interviews with all employees seriously. The appreciative career interviews for ZAP and the two-year onboarding processes for new ZAP are a step in the right direction but we need to actively ensure that these are taken to heart. Both the qualitative dimensions (development and renewal, leadership, knowledge sharing, teamwork) and the quantitative dimensions should be taken into account. An efficient, short and university-wide electronic system should be worked out for all these appraisal interviews with a uniform template to reduce the administrative burden, and to have good traceability of these interviews among rotating decision-makers.
10. We want to give more recognition to completing policy mandates by qualifying it as a positive element in the promotion ladder. It is important to actively involve staff in policy-making and encourage them to take up policy mandates. This contributes to a culture of commitment and responsibility within the university. The recent proposal to split the assessment committee into an advisory committee on recruitment (which may include (head) lecturers and professors) and an advisory committee on careers (which simply includes professors no longer seeking promotion) contributes to this objective. Splitting this committee can also ensure more focus and build up expertise in recruitment and appointment, the distribution of the workload, greater opportunities for involvement of professors in appointment committees and more flexible planning throughout the year. This would allow the careers committee to allocate more time for career advice.
11. We are working towards increased transparency and efficiency of decision-making processes and co-creation in policy-making. Decision-making processes today are sometimes too complicated, too technocratic, with too many levels and bodies involved and therefore take far too long. We write far too many and far too long notes in which key messages drown. We deliberate too much, not always in the right constellation, and with too little result. Decision-making processes need to be shorter. Indeed, the feasibility and practical implementation of every policy decision is better tested sooner than later. Moreover, staff members feel like no other the themes within education that are hard on students and teachers. We must also trust each other if we want to avoid advisory bodies bursting at the seams in terms of composition and becoming mere information rather than advisory bodies.
12. We let the groups play their role as governance entities. The groups within KU Leuven are necessary: the institution is simply too large and diverse to work everything out at the institution level. However, the groups can do more than they currently do. They have increasingly become a forum where faculty visions are articulated and confronted so that they can be streamlined. A consultation between a central department and a faculty is, in itself, a one-to-one conversation. This is certainly necessary in certain cases, but it can also quickly lead to blockages: after all, with 15 faculties, there is a good chance that divergent views will be posited by different faculties on certain topics. In recent years, the deans’ consultation has developed into a forum where visions can be aligned, often successfully, but this is not possible for all themes. For a number of themes (think of marketing and communication, but also the operation around diversity and inclusion and the roll-out of innovative education), the group is the appropriate level. In that case, the central services also no longer need to consult with (at least) 15 entities but can work together with the group board or with the various working groups active in the groups. This will not only save a lot of meeting time, but also lead to a more coherent policy. Obviously, coordination between the groups remains essential: the informal intergroup consultation is very important for this.