The UG is investigating whether faculties should merge. Philosophy professor Frank Hindriks is incredibly worried. ‘Nobody sees the need for it. But they do see the dangers.’
The University of Groningen is changing its organisational model in an effort to remain agile. But who benefits from this, besides the board of directors? Not a single one of the people I have talked to about this sees a good reason for this intervention. But they do see the risks. The costs are high. And combining groups that are very different does not make us better.
So why are we starting this process? Well, starting is not quite the right word. We have already been working on it for six months. As a reaction to upcoming budget cuts, eight committees were established, one of which focused on the organisation. Under the leadership of Peter Verhoef, a new organisational chart was developed. Notably, not all faculties were represented in this process.
Running every policy decision through eleven faculties? That means eleven rounds of feedback
The university intranet states: ‘In a rapidly changing context, the UG wants to remain relevant to its immediate community and to society at large. To this end, the UG is on its way to transforming itself into a network organisation that is both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary.’ Is the UG in danger of losing its relevance? And is a network organisation really the answer?
We are already a network organisation. A key characteristic of such an organisation is that it consists of small units. The UG has eleven faculties, which fits well with a network structure. More interdisciplinarity? As if the schools have been such a great success.
When someone insists on interdisciplinarity, I immediately think of policy advisors at ministries and the Dutch Research Council (NWO). They know little about science and see no better option than to treat interdisciplinarity as a miracle cure. And transdisciplinarity? That’s just science without a soul—neoliberal management speak.
The board of directors aims for managerial agility; I get it. Eleven deans at one table—that must be exhausting. Running every policy decision through eleven faculties? That means eleven rounds of feedback. And that limits the influence of the board of directors. Fortunately. Because if this is what it has to offer, then it’s quite disappointing.
After six months of preparation, this oil tanker is on a collision course
Mergers do more harm than good. Even commercial consultancy firm Berenschot came to that conclusion a few years ago when board president Jouke de Vries attempted something similar. Organisational scientists do not support it either. One of them even gave a presentation about this to the board of directors and the committee of deans. Apparently, it didn’t gain much traction.
Now, with rector Jacquelien Scherpen in charge, there’s no escaping it. Of course, the necessary consultations have been promised. But those who speak to the president and rector now are already up against a wall. After six months of preparation, this oil tanker is on a collision course.
What are the dangers? Change costs money. Mergers lead to additional management layers. And to uniformity. Students from larger faculties who come to the Faculty of Philosophy tell us how much they enjoy the atmosphere here. Professors know their name and have time for them. There is a cafeteria where everyone meets. And faculty members are involved with one another as well. The short lines of communication with the administration increase the willingness to contribute to the faculty.
This will inevitably be undermined by scaling up. I spoke with the chair of one of our committees, who seriously questioned whether they would still want to fulfil that role after being merged with another faculty. The process is already giving us headaches. The next phases will only be worse. All those meetings about harmonisation—I don’t even want to think about it.
All those meetings about harmonisation – I don’t even want to think about it
Identity. Has that been considered at all? They claim that the good things can be preserved when we merge into larger units. But our identity will certainly be partially lost. And it takes time to build trust with new colleagues. For example, philosophers conduct meetings in a completely different way than lawyers. If you put them together, this will lead to a lot of misunderstandings.
Maybe this is hard to imagine if you are a natural scientist at one of the six institutes of the Faculty of Science and Engineering. Perhaps they have more in common with each other than religious studies scholars and economists do. And that is exactly the problem.
Personally, I identify more with the Faculty of Philosophy than with the UG. That largely explains why this issue upsets me so much. Decisions are being made over our heads. Maybe it’s actually a good thing that I will have to fall in line soon.
Frank Hindriks is professor of ethics, social and political philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy