The Council sent a letter about it to the Faculty Board and also raised the issue during the Faculty Council meeting last week. Granted, the Board is not responsible for the questionnaire: it is drawn up by external agency Effectory. Every four years, Effectory surveys the mood among staff on behalf of the university by means of the Personnel Monitor. Nevertheless, the Council feels it is important to voice its ‘critical comments’.
‘It hardly made any sense’, said Council member Kiki Zanolie. ‘We should bear in mind that the results may not be representative of the actual situation.’
AMBIGUOUS
The Council believes that the questionnaire contains questions that are too broad, too vague, open to multiple interpretations or even ‘curious’, like the question of whether you would recommend Leiden University as an employer to family and friends: ‘Friends and family are not the target group for such recommendations.’
There are ambiguous statements, such as: ‘I get the opportunity to contribute to discussions on the vision and working methods of Leiden University.’ Vision and working methods are two entirely different things, so when the results become available, the Board will be unsure as to what exactly they refer to. ‘People are now forced to choose which experience they want to evaluate’, writes the Council.
Other questions are too broad, such as the handful of statements on ‘the management’. For example, the statement: ‘I have confidence in the management’ does not specify which management it refers to: that of the entire university, your institute or the faculty? Similarly, the statement ‘I support LU’s objectives’ is too vague, because nowhere does it specify which objectives it refers to.
And it also contains repetitions: ‘I can decide for myself how to do my work’, ‘I have the opportunity to plan my tasks myself’ and ‘I am given enough space to make my own work decisions’ are very similar statements, writes the Council. ‘What exactly is the difference being gauged here?’
ROSE-COLOURED GLASSES
In conclusion: ‘Carrying out a questionnaire of such poor quality potentially lowers the response rate, makes it difficult to analyse the data obtained and may render the conclusions drawn inaccurate.’
Dean Paul Wouters shares this criticism. Initially, he accidentally deleted the e-mail containing the questionnaire because he thought it was spam, but when he finally filled it in, he thought the questions were presented ‘through rose-coloured glasses’. ‘I happen to be very happy with my job, but if you’re unhappy about something, it is difficult to indicate so unless the situation is very drastic.’
He promises to raise the issue with HR and the Executive Board. The Faculty Council will also forward the letter to the University Council.
The questions on social safety and transgressive behaviour can also be interpreted in multiple ways, says Council member Tim Mickler.
The Personnel Monitor also includes questions and statements about undesirable behaviour, such as ‘I feel safe’, ‘I have experienced undesirable behaviour at the hands of others in the past year’, and ‘I have witnessed undesirable behaviour towards colleagues in my immediate working environment in the past year’.
‘It should be made clear what “undesirable behaviour” entails’, says Mickler: ‘Gossiping, bullying, violence, employment discrimination or sexual harassment? Chances are that different respondents interpret the question in different ways, so what exactly are you monitoring? As an employer, you want to do everything you can to prevent undesirable behaviour in the workplace. So you have to clarify what you want to measure in order to map it out.’