Recognition & Rewards: staff members frustrated and uncertain about their careers

In brief:
The number of publications and citations is no longer the only thing Dutch universities consider when recruiting. Qualities such as leadership and social engagement have become more important.

However, those interested in pursuing a career in academia are often unsure what is expected of them. In a survey of 147 UU lecturers, fifty percent of respondents rers said that the criteria are unclear. This leads to higher work pressure and stress.

However, another study shows that the chairs of appointment committees and the chosen candidates are satisfied with the procedure. Early-career researchers – particularly international ones – seem most likely to feel uncertain and frustrated.

UU aims to ensure that staff receive better information and that the processes are better coordinated.

Dutch universities wish to shift away from using publication counts or a candidate's ability to generate income as deciding factors for nominations and new appointments. Instead, the selection process should primarily focus on content and specific talents. For this reason, those seeking to advance their careers are increasingly submitting portfolios and narrative CVs rather than lists of achievements and publications.

Utrecht University has been at the forefront of this movement for quite some time, and one of its steps in this direction is the new promotion policy within its “Recognition & Rewards” efforts. Through this policy, UU aims to convey that scientific progress depends on team cooperation, with each team member contributing their own input. The university also believes that this approach should lead to reduced workloads and less performance pressure among its employees.

Five years ago, the university developed its Triple Model, a tool for employees seeking self-development and those who must make decisions about hiring or promoting others. The Triple Model considers six factors: Team Spirit, Research, Impact, Professional Performance, Leadership and Education, with the possibility of emphasising certain aspects.

Now, three years after the new working method was introduced (some faculties have been using it for a little longer), the Utrecht Young Academy has investigated how it is perceived and concluded that many employees are very dissatisfied with the transition.

Early stages
This autumn, nearly 150 assistant professors and associate professors were asked for their opinion on the university's promotion procedures. More than half of the respondents criticised the unclear criteria and the lack of transparency in the requirements. A similar proportion of respondents consider leaving Utrecht University.

Verena Seibel, Assistant Professor of Social Sciences, one of the four authors of the UYA report, sees a yawning gap between a small group of enthusiasts who embrace Recognition & Rewards and the rest of the employees. “In practice, things are not nearly as rosy as some people within the university would like to make them seem. It is clear that Triple is still in its early stages.”

Seibel notes that many respondents are frustrated because they do not know what they need to do to advance their careers. According to her, many young researchers are also not fully aware of what Triple aims to achieve. Moreover, managers often continue to emphasise research performance, whether explicitly or implicitly, even though the new criteria suggest that other career paths should also be possible.

What's more, many researchers believe they must excel in all six areas. Over 70 per cent of UYA respondents feel this way. Fifty percent of them believe that the new model has actually increased competition among colleagues. Seibel: "This has consequences for people's perceived work-related stress and mental health."

"No one wants to keep score anymore" 
Another report on the new career policy was published this autumn. It was written by Stans de Haas, Director of Operations at the Faculty of Social Sciences, and Gunther Cornelissen, Professor of Mathematics, the two leaders of UU's Recognition & Rewards programme.

Cornelissen and De Haas interviewed eight people who chaired appointment committees and eight candidates who underwent the procedure. The duo concluded that both the committee chairs and the candidates were generally satisfied with the procedure.

Cornelissen: "No one wants to go back to 'old men' committees or count publications. Candidates say that building their portfolio is a lot of work, but it helps them develop their own vision. Also, according to the report, the appointment committees seem to appreciate the value of those portfolios. It basically works the way we wanted it to work."

"What should I do?"
Cornelissen wonders whether some of the dissatisfaction expressed in the UYA report has more to do with the hierarchical structure that characterises Dutch universities rather than the Recognition & Rewards programme per se. He also wonders if some of the results would have been different if Triple had not been introduced. As an example, he mentions that fifty percent of respondents in the UYA survey said they are considering leaving Utrecht University. At the same time, he does not wish to detract from Seibel and her colleagues' findings.

Whereas Cornelissen and De Haas interviewed assistant professors and committee members involved in appointment procedures for associate professorships, the UYA surveyed a different group. Many respondents in the UYA report are not yet eligible for an associate professor position.

"Apparently, this uncertainty and frustration are mainly felt by people who are still at the beginning of a promotion process or want to orient themselves towards it. I actually see young researchers around me asking themselves: 'What should I do?'’

He says he has noticed that researchers at that stage of their careers often need examples or insight into what it takes to be promoted. At the same time, he says there are many misconceptions, such as the idea that committees are looking for perfect candidates who excel in all areas. "That is certainly not what we have observed in our research."

Another misconception is that committees secretly prioritise research results. According to him, this danger is more prevalent among managers with whom employees interact daily. 

Not aligned
Partly based on what he heard in several interviews, Cornelissen believes the respondents' dissatisfaction in the UYA survey stems mainly from a lack of alignment across university processes, which he argues is not unusual during a transition phase. However, something needs to be done about it.

For example, he mentions that employees must undergo performance reviews (Dutch acronym: B&O), during which their performance and development are assessed. They must also deal with strategic personnel planning for the department in which they work. "What is agreed for a team or department can conflict with individual expectations." 

According to Cornelissen, the status and interpretation of the senior qualifications for Education and Research (Dutch acronym: SKO) also require attention. They seem to vary depending on the part of the university one is talking about. According to Cornelissen, SKO is intended as a development programme that lecturers should choose freely, but achieving it is often a prerequisite for a promotion. "Thus, you end up drawing up new checklists and creating a new culture of accountability."

Seibel also perceives mixed messages in the current career policy. While Recognition & Rewards seemingly defends the idea that there should be room for every talent, the university also faces financial constraints, and strategic choices must be made. "The lack of clarity about this makes people feel uncertain."

Support needed
The UYA recommendations call for more explicit criteria and examples of career paths that employees can follow. The Young Academy also emphasises the important role managers play in shaping Triple pathways. 

Seibel also believes that colleagues within the same departments should talk more with each other about what Triple means in their specific context. "What will our team focus on over the next few years, and what does that mean for each employee? In which of the six areas can employees improve, and what kind of support and guidance will they receive to get there? We need much more informal communication about this."

According to Cornelissen, it is extremely important that lecturers seek and receive support when considering career steps. This support should come from both HR staff and their managers. When conducting his research, he collected evidence that this works. "One danger is that managers could become rather weary of the topic. That would be a great pity."

Both Seibel and Cornelissen note that, in its current form, the Triple model is less “inclusive” of international employees. Fifty percent of respondents in the UYA survey state that it is more difficult to gain recognition for experiences or achievements obtained abroad.

Seibel: "It is simply more difficult to make an impact in the Netherlands if you are not fluent in the language. This is a problem if you want to involve stakeholders in your research, for example." In addition, she believes there are many implicit assumptions about “impact” and “leadership” that international employees may not be familiar with.

"If you studied in Utrecht and obtained your PhD here, you know more or less what steps you need to take to become an associate professor. You know you need to take on committee and administrative work to demonstrate leadership experience, for example. But if you come from outside Utrecht or outside the Netherlands, that may not be so obvious."

Cornelissen acknowledges this “bias” in his research. Like Seibel, he advocates greater investment in the onboarding of new international staff. “To give an example: for some reason, Dutch people seem to know how to put a portfolio together or write a narrative better than researchers coming from a different scientific culture.”

Seibel also emphasises that many international employees feel their research achievements are increasingly underappreciated in the Netherlands, and they are beginning to have doubts. "They see the added value that Recognition & Rewards can have, but they also know that publications matter if they want to remain eligible for a career elsewhere."

She observes that the fervent advocates of Recognition & Rewards seem to pay little attention to this perspective. "I am all for Recognition & Rewards, but we must be aware of its pitfalls and talk about them."

According to the UU's HR department, the reports reflect a picture that had already emerged in previous surveys. In general, people appreciate and support what Recognition & Rewards aims to achieve, but the programme has not yet led to the desired changes at all levels.

The fact that many employees do not seem to know what is expected of them is partly due to the nature of the change, says Stefanie Vrancken, policy advisor for Recognition & Rewards at the HR department. After all, the career policy is not the only thing that is changing. "Recognition & Rewards does not replace 'system A' with 'system B,'" she writes in an email. "It is about establishing a new way of thinking and working together. We are now in the middle of this transition, which brings a certain degree of uncertainty."

According to Vrancken, her department is striving to provide greater clarity and transparency – for instance, by publishing important information on the Intranet. In addition, the programme's underlying principles have been given a prominent place in B&O meetings, and managers are encouraged to discuss them in their teams.

Both reports also provide input for the evaluation and possible clarification of the university's Framework for Development and Careers (known by most employees as FLOW), which is on this year's agenda.

Finally, the HR department endorses the call for better leadership. The department states that a great deal of work has been done in this regard over the past few years. This year, the university will launch a programme about the basic principles of Recognition & Rewards, which will be mandatory for all new managers.

“Alongside our colleagues from Open Science and the faculties, we will continue to explore what else the university can do to ensure that Recognition & Rewards leads to concrete change at all levels.”