“The Recognition & Rewards programme impacts the essence of science in relation to multiple issues,” says Mascha Weijers, dialogue expert and member of the national Recognition & Rewards programme team. “It involves a paradigm shift that can only take place if we also change our daily conversations on these issues, if we truly change the way we talk about research, education, talent development and leadership. That will, first and foremost, require an inquisitive mindset and genuine curiosity about each other’s perspectives.
“The Recognition & Rewards programme raises complex questions, to which we can only find answers together. The conversation about this is taking place within universities, university medical centres and research institutes, but also between institutions, so that we can learn from each other and bridge differences. With Recognition & Rewards, the Netherlands is leading the way internationally. As pioneers in this area, we cannot copy tried-and-tested strategies, so none of us have all the answers ready.”
“This is about more than just changing a few rules of the game or a structure,” Weijers continues. “It’s about working from fundamentally different convictions, which requires spending ‘quality time’ together to jointly give shape to this.
It doesn’t surprise Weijers that the conversation about Recognition & Rewards doesn’t start spontaneously in some areas, or that it sometimes comes to a halt momentarily. “That is very common with these types of fundamental and complex changes. People need time to let ideas mature, or they first tentatively explore what is expected of them in a changing context.”
“Institutions can do a great deal to get the conversation started and keep it going,” says Weijers. “By making smart preparations and consistently paying attention to the conversation at the appropriate institution-wide occasions, in regular meetings, and in development and annual appraisal interviews. What’s more, we are seeing that an increasing number of institutions are taking initiatives to get the conversation started. Examples include Leiden University’s dialogue card, Radboud University Nijmegen’s card game ‘mmmAcademia’, and the University of Twente’s dialogues and debate event. These inspiring good practices differ greatly in their approaches and forms, but what they have in common is that they help staff to look at each other’s perspectives and what unites them.”
Institutions that want to organise a dialogue about Recognition & Rewards can contact Mascha Weijers to exchange ideas on this, for more detailed advice, or for a referral to an external party with specific expertise. Weijers can be contacted at mascha@vank.nu and on +31 (0)6 22 45 93 89.
Vincent Wolters, Recognition & Rewards project leader at Leiden University, believes that, to embed Recognition & Rewards across the university, it is necessary to have a dialogue and to experiment. “A culture change is needed, and we can make a start on that change now. Our Recognition & Rewards steering group has issued a change vision and advice, which all our faculties and academic institutions can start working with. Our advice has been endorsed by the Executive Board, and now we need to have a dialogue and experiments to enable its implementation.”
In its advice on Recognition & Rewards at Leiden University, the steering group identifies having dialogues as a core value:
“Therefore, in co-creation with representatives of the faculties, we have developed a dialogue card here at Leiden University,” Wolters explains. “The purpose of this card is to get the conversation started on how we can ensure that Leiden University offers the best possible work environment and how we can boost the quality of our education and research, our social relevance and our leadership. A culture that recognises and rewards achievements is obviously a key element in this. The dialogue card is available in Dutch and English, and supports the dialogue between discussion partners from start to finish through a step-by-step plan and thought-provoking questions.”
The dialogue card is available from the R&R dialogue tool kit (link to NL). Everyone can use it within their own institution to have a dialogue about Recognition & Rewards.
Radboud University Nijmegen has developed a card game called ‘mmmAcademia’ to facilitate joint reflection on the recognition & rewards for academic work. And to encourage a discussion about difficult topics relating to the inner workings of the academic community. The conversation cue cards concern matters such as:
The game consists of cue cards that outline a situation, along with a question asking about personal experiences and a question asking how this might be changed. To date, these game sessions have resulted in many rich conversations and a broad appreciation for the opportunity offered to finally openly discuss such topics. More sessions will follow as the card game is distributed across the university and open online access to the game is provided.
The University of Twente has opted for a combination of dialogue and debate.
The University of Twente’s Recognition & Rewards team conducted 23 dialogue sessions about the current views on Recognition & Rewards with a wide range of groups. In total, around 200 staff members participated. “We sent out open invitations; everyone was welcome,” explains Jeroen Jansen, Recognition & Rewards project leader at the University of Twente. “We were pleasantly surprised by the willingness to participate. And there was an equal ratio of academic to support staff that emerged quite naturally. When we noticed in the conversations that these two groups had different needs and different issues requiring attention, we introduced a more targeted allocation for the sessions. The questions raised by academic staff mainly concerned the implications of Recognition & Rewards for their career. The support staff raised more personal issues, which sometimes also included a sense of disappointment and feeling misunderstood. The main purpose of these dialogue sessions was to listen to staff members to learn about their views and experiences. During the preparations, dialogue expert Mascha Weijers advised us on how to design the dialogue, and she provided us with a discussion guide and a set of appreciative questions that helped us to deepen the dialogue.”
The Recognition & Rewards team felt that its primary responsibility was to create a safe atmosphere in which no subject was taboo. The team mainly asked open-ended, inquisitive questions and were alert to non-verbal cues, including when the dialogue took place online. The positive feedback from participants was testament to the effectiveness of this approach. “The personal attention participants received before and during the conversation, and in particular afterwards, was highly appreciated,” says Jansen. “And that leads me straight to a key point: Interaction requires time, attention and genuine interest in the other person; a dialogue is not something you do on the fly.”
To gather ideas on the desired situation, the University of Twente organised a university-wide debate (‘R&R Talk Show’) with around 45 staff members and students. The participants debated a set of statements about the effect of Recognition & Rewards on the University of Twente’s position in rankings, on the assessment of individual and teamwork, and on the room left in the curriculum for students to work on their personal development.
“Following the dialogue sessions, we wanted to achieve convergence and make the dialogue more concrete. That is why we opted for a debate format,” Jansen explains. “That raised some eyebrows initially, as people were concerned it would create polarisation. We took great care to avoid that. But, at the same time, the debate format really helped us challenge participants to temporarily set aside their preconceptions and to engage in the ‘metalogue’ without identifying with their own opinion. Under the supervision of the Dutch Debating Institute, we discussed three statements with the whole room. Subsequently, the participants were divided into three groups, each of which had to take a position on each of the statements, regardless of the group members’ personal preferences. This meant that one group had to defend the statement, one had to argue against it, and one had to observe the debate on the statement and distil practical recommendations from it. The groups were rotated for each statement so that each group played each of the roles once. At the end of the debate, the participants were asked if they had changed their opinion in light of the debate on a statement. Some of them had.”
Want to get to work? This practical step-by-step plan will help you on your way. It sums up the essentials for organising a dialogue, including suggestions for session formats and a guide for discussion moderators.