As UGent trade organizations, we have taken note of the communication that the university management sent out on Friday, February 23, 2024 about the results of the 2023 well-being survey.
First of all: we respect the work put into this text by UGent colleagues. We understand and agree that it is important that this communication also focuses on those positive elements on which Ghent University community members score positively, because such elements certainly exist. A number of important problems are also discussed in the text.
However, we do not share the general positive impression that management seems to have about the results of this survey.
Our preliminary conclusions are the following:
- The identified problem areas remain the same: a different approach is needed to finally make effective progress
- There is a need for more transparency about the differences in results between the groups of participants
- The (anonymized) figures and the analyzes made thereof must be made available to the staff representatives in the subcommittee for Prevention and Protection at Work (*)
(*) Update: In the meantime, access to an online dashboard was provided on Wednesday, February 28, 2024. We are currently reviewing this data.
Below we discuss these conclusions in more detail.
The identified problem areas remain the same: a different approach is needed to finally make effective progress
The points of attention that the board remembers from the results of this well-being survey are almost entirely the same as those that emerged in 2018 and even in 2013, in particular around work pressure, stress and respectful behavior.
There is therefore an urgent demand for a thorough evaluation of the action plans that the board drew up and implemented after those previous surveys. After all, when the same problems persist for more than 10 years, it is clear that something is wrong with how they are being addressed. There is an urgent need for an effective approach to these problems.
Various proposals to this end, including those regarding the approach to transgressive behavior, have been submitted to the board for years through many different channels, both by the trade unions and recently through, for example, the survey that was organized among junior researchers with the support of the doctoral schools. . However, a concrete rollout of these proposed solutions continues to drag on.
Be transparent about the differences in results between the groups of participants
The current reporting by the board is far too limited and insufficiently nuanced a representation of the results of this 2023 well-being survey. We ask the board to provide more complete and transparent communication about the university-wide results, with attention to the differences between the various staff groups such as . There are indeed differences between AAP, fellows, ATP, ZAP, PhD students, non-Dutch-speaking colleagues, ... who each have their own specific working conditions with both specific positive elements and serious pain points.
There are also significant differences between the directorates of the central administration and the faculties. The attention that the board pays to this in its communication is rather one-sided, and would almost make you think that there is nothing wrong within the CA. This completely ignores the impact of the ongoing savings and reform exercise, and the way in which the board is tackling it, on the well-being of colleagues within the management. After all, according to the results of the survey, these are the highest scoring points for this group.
In our opinion, there is a serious risk that a relatively large number of staff members who participated do not recognize themselves and their answers in this communication from the board. This can undermine their confidence in this periodic well-being survey, as if participating would be pointless after all. We absolutely disagree with this approach by the board.
The fact that the board announces that it will soon organize separate communication for the central administration and per faculty is not sufficient. There is a need for university-wide transparent communication across the faculties and management about the different positive and negative findings so that not only mutual understanding is possible, but where possible we can also learn from each other how certain pain points can be tackled differently.
In any case, we oppose an approach in which the results of the faculties and the CA are shielded from each other. An institution-wide discussion must be possible about the consequences of the policy pursued in recent years on the well-being of the various members of our Ghent University community.
Verifiability of the results: not only a requirement for a research project, but also for welfare policy
Finally, this, not unimportant fact: the subcommittee on prevention and protection at work (PBW) of Ghent University, which meets monthly and where representatives of the board and trade unions jointly monitor the welfare policy at Ghent University, has, despite its legal tasks and powers have to date only received very limited reporting on the results of this welfare survey, much more limited than after the previous surveys in 2013 and 2018.
Despite frequent insistence, the members of the subcommittee have still not been given access to the (anonymous) scores on the various questions in the well-being survey, and on the numerical figures, [update:] when this text was drawn up on Monday, February 26, 2024 (*). analysis thereof, although according to the board and the company that conducted the survey, this data is available via an automated dashboard. In previous welfare surveys, a large part of these numerical analyzes had been made available and explained.
Although the limited descriptive reporting produced by the PBW subcommittee did not initially reveal any specific surprising elements that could call into question the reliability of the figures used, the question arises whether the elements cited In the current limited reporting, these are the only observations that can be drawn from the underlying figures. The way in which results are presented jointly or separately for specific groups can also make a big difference.
We therefore ask for full transparency from the board about the (anonymized) results of this well-being survey! (*)
(*) Update: In the meantime, access to an online dashboard was provided on Wednesday, February 28, 2024. We are currently reviewing this data.
On behalf of the three UGent trade organizations
ACOD - ACV - VSOA