FEB is fighting for diversity
‘Politics are a threat to our open culture’
Door Christien Boomsma
By Christien Boomsma
Christien Boomsma
Blijft dit dtaan?Christien is sinds 2016 achtergrondcoördinator bij UKrant. Ze plant de achtergrondverhalen en begeleidt de auteurs. Bij haar eigen verhalen ligt de focus op wetenschap en academisch leven. Daarnaast schrijft ze veel over onderwerpen als sociale veiligheid en maakt ze graag persoonlijke interviews. In haar vrije tijd schrijft ze jeugdboeken en geeft schrijftrainingen.It’s been nearly three years since the report Diversity, Inclusion and Social Safety was published. Not only were Dutch men overrepresented in the higher echelons at the Faculty of Economics and Business, but they also earned more, had an easier time getting promoted, and didn’t face nearly as much exclusion or discrimination. That must have come as a shock.
‘I mean, we started the study for a reason. We’d heard some signals here and there and felt that was reason enough to find out what was really going on.
There was a clear difference between various groups: between men and women on the one hand, and between Dutch people and internationals on the other. Age plays a role there, too. Over the past ten or fifteen years we’ve attracted an increasing number of internationals and our senior staff was still very Dutch. But the junior staff and people on a tenure track tended to be more international.
But the report did show what was going on at the faculty and how some people were being mistreated. That led to people feeling unsafe, or not quite feeling at home here. It was a hard truth to confront, especially for senior management, since they were one of the prime reasons for people feeling that way.’
What did you do after the report? Because you were part of senior management as well.
‘I became more aware of what was going on around me. Senior management came up in a faculty that was much less diverse than it is now. It’s like the stereotypical image of the grumpy old man. The culture here is also very informal, but things aren’t always well taken care of on the formal side.’
But what about you personally? What have you done to make a change?
I think there were a lot of things we weren’t properly aware of
‘I think there were a lot of things we weren’t properly aware of. Like, how does having small children affect young female academics at the start of their career? Men are just like: let’s get on with it! I now realise that I could have done some things differently. How easy it is to exclude people when you’re having lunch and you switch back to Dutch without thinking, or you start talking about last night’s football match.’
One obvious problem was the difference in remuneration between men and women. The difference was much bigger at FEB than at the UG as a whole. These unfair differences were to be tackled. What did you do about them?
‘We actually had our doubts about the research method used for this, so we did a follow-up study with a supervisory group and input from central HR. This study showed there are no significant or systematic differences between men and women.’
Women and internationals also turned out to be passed over for promotion more often, too, in part because of that culture of informality. Has this changed?
‘We’ve done away with the culture of just appointing someone in-house when we need a new chair for something or a new programme director. We now have open recruitment for all our positions.
On top of that, all managers – or at least, the majority of them – were sent to inclusive recruitment training and we’re working hard on leadership training. We hope this kind of training will raise awareness of how these processes work. I’ve realised that I adhere to the criteria much better when I’m chair of an appointment advisory committee and I know they’re getting assessed. I also make sure the questions for each candidate are consistent.
Three out of seven research directors are female
We’ve also ensured that the criteria for promotions are more objective and transparent. The assessors have to fill out forms and assess candidates on the basis of that form. Finally, we’ve also been looking at how advisory committees for internal promotions are put together. We’ve added an external member to it who isn’t part of FEB. We’ve also made sure to address the male-female balance, as well as the ratio of Dutch to internationals. We’ve also made sure there’s no conflict of interest between the people on the committee and the candidates. If there is, the person on the committee will have to withdraw.
We’re now measuring whether there are differences between men and women after the promotion committee’s recommendations. If you look at it over a longer period of time, those differences have disappeared. The same goes for the difference between Dutch staff and internationals. Internationalisation really got going over the past ten years, so that’s now reflected in other management functions.
These days, three out of seven research directors are female, as are more than one in four professors. So we’re really making up for lost time.’
But the old boys’ network affects things in other ways as well. Such as collaboration, the way people treat each other, and how seriously they take each other. Have you done something about that?
‘It’s a matter we mainly want to raise awareness of. I do think getting new external people is important, and these old boys will one day retire, which means younger people will take over their senior positions.
There are also these initiatives where staff get together in a work group to try and learn from each other. These kinds of bottom-up things are basically even more important than when I drop by as dean.
We also hired a diversity and inclusion officer. She often visits departments and is there when people have questions, such as when a colleague uses the exact wrong word or there’s something else going on. She’s more accessible than a confidential adviser.
In the end, we’ll have to do this study again
She can assess the case and figure out if you can reach a solution together so it doesn’t escalate, for instance bilaterally, so it doesn’t keep festering. If the situation is serious, she’ll refer people to the confidential adviser.
But there’s still some work to be done. In the end, we’ll have to do this study again. That’s the plan, anyway.’
Are you optimistic about the results of a second study?
‘I’m worried. Things are different than they were four or five years ago, mainly due to external developments. The planned cutbacks will put the organisation under a lot of strain. That leads to a lot of uncertainty.
The way the Netherlands treats internationals also plays a role. People don’t feel at home here anymore because of the politics in The Hague. We have to find a solution to that, but it’s very difficult.
We had this very open culture, with English as the main language everywhere at the faculty. That led to an increase in quality and more opportunities for both students and staff. Everyone was really happy with that. But the government’s actions concerning the Dutch language run counter to the efforts for inclusion and diversity.
I don’t think these things are even open for discussion, but they are outside the university.’
Are you worried the faculty will be back to square one soon?
‘I’m worried about what this will do to our diversity and social safety policies. Certain things, like the appointment procedures, are set in stone. But there’s also the matter of how people feel about the university in the current climate in the Netherlands. We’re trying hard to increase social safety and we hope it’s getting better. But then there are all these things outside our span of control that negate our efforts. So yes, I’m worried about that.’