One year ago, the Faculty of Science and Engineering decided to take an initiative: “We wanted to see what Recognition and Rewards meant for our personnel policy.” COVID-19 threw a spanner in the works, “so the pilot is still ongoing,” says dean Thomas Cleij. But what was clear for him at any rate was that the new approach is a good starting point, fairer too, “you take note of someone’s personal ambitions. At the same time, you have to make your own interpretation as a faculty. Not all faculties and institutes are the same. Some do more teaching than others, some are in a more traditional field than others. Don’t make it all uniform,” says Cleij.
Flexibility is the key. That is why within his own faculty, with science programmes and three University Colleges, they have opted for the pilot ‘flexible performance criteria’. Cleij: “For our own faculty – where there is a lot of teaching – everybody has teaching in their portfolio, from a maximum of 70 to minimum of 30 per cent. But for the rest we say: look at what suits you.”
Within Recognition and and Rewards, the focus is on four possible career paths: teaching, research, impact and leadership. “In our approach, research is not compulsory. Someone who is very skilful in administration may choose leadership and teaching. Someone else could choose teaching and impact. I think a lot happens by itself. A career like that develops very naturally. One condition is that there is encouragement from your surroundings.”
The fact that FSE set no conditions for the number of research hours, is remarkable. There are national discussions on the subject, because shouldn’t all academics do some form of research? After all, that is what makes a university different from a university of applied sciences. "Our pilot does not have this compulsory research component," says Cleij. But he cannot rule out that it will become an important condition at the UM, or on a national level.
Zero-sum game
Cleij realises that it will also become a balancing act. Between, on the one hand, the recognition of personal careers and on the other hand keeping track of the ‘bigger picture’. With the latter, he is referring to the faculty’s strategy and finances. He speaks of a “zero-sum game”. You can’t just suddenly put everyone in a higher position with the accompanying salaries. When you have those discussions with your researchers, you will have to pay attention to the ongoing matters. Moreover, a faculty needs a diversity of specialisations.
“Suppose you have an employee that you truly appreciate, but who cannot continue on, for example, because a certain subject doesn’t have sufficient hours of teaching for a top-notch lecturer. In this latter case, you cannot provide this person with the desired teaching career. The same goes for research. You can’t fill three chairs that are the same. Entering into a dialogue about this, offering a clear and realistic perspective, I think that is also recognition and appreciation.”
International career
Cleij deems himself lucky with a “relatively young faculty, with people who are open to innovation”. But despite that, there is criticism and he understands that, because how will this ‘national’ wave of change go down abroad? How will that affect an international career, what will it mean for people who have to move on after a couple of years and want a job abroad? “You can plan career paths and recognise them in the Netherlands as being ‘useful’, but, looking at my own field (Chemistry), I have noticed how much they stick to tradition, to H-indexes, et cetera. That is where the challenge lies.”