In the culture barometer, PhD candidates were generally quite positive about their development opportunities and supervision. At the same time, awareness of the Recognition & Rewards programme is rather low, as confirmed in the Rathenau Institute’s report ‘An uncertain start’, which was published in April. Moreover, some of the conclusions in that report on similar issues were quite different. It revealed, among other things, that PhD candidates experience considerable publication pressure, have no clear view of what is expected of them and suffer from a hierarchical, closed work culture.
“I think this is because the questions in the barometer do not cover everything. Purely quantitative questions make it difficult to find out what is really going on, or to determine why some groups are more positive than others. If you enter into a real dialogue, I think you are more likely to get some really useful insights. I think many PhD candidates are unfamiliar with the Recognition & Rewards programme and completed the barometer with an open mind. Perhaps this actually makes the PhD candidate category more representative than other job categories. In the report on the barometer, I read that the assumption is that colleagues who feel less recognised and rewarded were especially inclined to complete the questionnaire. Many of the objectives that Recognition & Rewards aims to achieve seem to resonate positively with PhD candidates. Take the rules on the number of publications for a thesis. According to most PhD candidates, such rules are nonsensical: it should be about quality, not quantity. Officially this is no longer a rule at many universities, but unofficially there are plenty of supervisors who still apply it.”
Is it desirable for PhD candidates to become more familiar with the Recognition & Rewards programme?
“It would be great if Recognition & Rewards were more widely known among PhD candidates, precisely because they support the programme and applaud many of its principles. More effective engagement with them would send a strong signal to the rest of the academic world, because you would show that there is a very large group of young people who are enthusiastic about this. In practice, it is often difficult to reach out to students, but in Leiden alone there are two thousand people who could be mobilised on the subject. You just have to engage with them; sending an email is not enough. Each faculty, each department, has its own representation, which often organise events that you can join. You have to work with PhD candidates and do your best to let them know that Recognition & Rewards also exists for them.”
Change inevitably generates scepticism. What is your view on the fear that Recognition & Rewards will make it impossible to excel?
“I understand that fear. I know the argument that if we stop focusing on individual excellence, individual excellence will stop. I disagree, though, because I think it is based on a lot of wrong assumptions. The focus should be on answering research questions, on expanding knowledge for the benefit of society – not necessarily on maximising our impact. I think there remains a lot of room for people to develop and achieve personal success. I like this quote from C.S. Lewis:
True humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less. I think the fear stems from the idea people may have that with his programme they will end up being worth less.
But it is not about devaluing your own qualities; it is about being a little less concerned with yourself. People have a very individual focus, whereas Recognition & Rewards, in my view, is about rising above yourself. No one is arguing that winning a Spinoza Prize is not a wonderful achievement, even if you have exploited PhD students for 30 years to get this far. Or that being awarded a five-million-euro grant is not a great accomplishment, despite the bulk of the work being done by a few postdocs. But, please, think of yourself less.”
Do you yourself recognise and reward people?
“Yes, I do. Of course, given my position a bit lower down the pecking order I am unable to offer any hard benefits, like a pay rise or promotion, but I do make an effort to let the other person know that I like what they are doing. I send them an email or make a personal comment. To be honest, I learnt this during my time outside academia. I had a manager who was very good at person-oriented management. Positive feedback from your immediate colleagues is incredibly valuable. In academic circles, many people still find this difficult.
During a staff meeting the other day, mention was made of something that had been developed to which I had contributed. That was it, just a factual announcement. It is not that I crave a pat on the back, but I am quite sure the manager in my previous job would have called me on stage to say: ‘Max made sure it became a success’. This is about recognising commitment other than of a purely academic kind. To many people, this remains distant music.”
Do you also give compliments to people above you in the hierarchy?
“Yes, definitely. People within the academic community are generally very critical. This is good, but in a way it is also tricky. The appointment of a vice-rector by the Executive Board attracted a lot of criticism recently. Many people were very disappointed by that choice.
In my view, it was actually a very strong decision for them to admit they needed help with complex tasks, and I said so in the public meeting. I also mentioned this personally to the Board. These are the kinds of executives you might think are at the top of the hierarchy, where they already have everything they want and do not need any compliments. However, that did not prevent me from expressing how I felt about it. I believe that interpersonal relationships are essential to the culture change we are aiming for with the Recognition & Rewards programme. It would be very nice if we could move to a culture where it is normal to give compliments, while retaining a critical attitude. People are always afraid of sounding vague when giving compliments. In my opinion, there is no need to be afraid of that. People will certainly remain critical. There is no need to be severe and it is not useful either. Still, it very much remains part of our culture. Take the reviews you get after submitting an academic paper. It is not difficult to find reviews that are unnecessarily harsh. “It is better to tackle the issue this way” sounds a lot more constructive than ‘This is crap and not worth publishing’.”
Looking ahead, have you considered the profiles that have emerged due to career diversification? Or are you no longer interested in pursuing an academic career?
“I would like to stay, also because I really like teaching. I have yet to experience how open universities are to a person like me. I know it is not yet common in natural sciences to make strides with a teaching profile. I do want to be able to develop personally, become a manager perhaps, and take on extra responsibilities. In natural sciences, it is normal to do two postdocs with only research tasks, in projects in which you have no management tasks and do research chores for someone else. That is not what I aspire to.”