Board chair: We are at a watershed moment. But we will end up with a better administration

The large-scale reform of the administration was the seventh agenda item on the 19 June Board meeting. The Board approved the proposal, as expected. But it was not without a struggle. This can be seen in an appendix that summarizes prior discussions in the staff-management co-ordinating HSU committee.

Ingrid Kryhlmand, deputy chairman of the committee and staff representative, is quoted as saying that »no-one, not even the employees on the HSU, support the present proposal. There is no enthusiasm for it, and this can be seen in the petitions that are going around the university.«

Merete Eldrup, does it make an impression on you as chair of the board that both leading technical/administrative staff representatives and many of their academic staff colleagues have given voice to such a harsh criticism of this plan that you have now approved?

»I can guarantee you that this is something that does make a big impression. We have both heard and read about the criticism of the plan. The Board also includes five internal representatives who have communicated the concerns that exist around the university.

The coming period will be difficult as the changes are gradually phased in

Merete Eldrup

You just cannot carry out this kind of radical reform without many people being worried. There are also obviously many places where people will say that things are perfectly fine with us, and that we do not want to change that. And you will probably hear less from those who actually want to see changes.

And I know that the coming period, where the changes will gradually be phased in, will also be difficult until the new organisation comes into operation. You know what you have, and you think, what will we get instead? But I am still convinced that it is the right thing to do to carry out the reform.«

A ‘sprouting’ administration

Could you take us back to 2022, when the Board decided that there was a need for a very comprehensive administrative reform at the University of Copenhagen: What was the mandate that the Board gave to management at the time?

»I would like to go even further back in time. When I became chairman of the UCPH Board at the beginning of 2020, I spoke to a lot of people because I was interested in how people actually perceive the University of Copenhagen, both from the outside and from the inside. At the same time, we had many discussions in the Board about what kind of place the University of Copenhagen is, and how the various staff groups and students experienced it.

One recurring response was that many people found it difficult to fathom how the the administration worked. There was a systematic negative response in many areas, be it IT, HR, room booking, and so on. The criticism was, that it was unclear who did what, and it was unclear where you could ask for help. It also turned out that there were very large local differences and different practices from place to place. In some places things worked well, in other places not so well.

When you make changes of this magnitude that also result in job losses, it does lead to apprehension in the organization

Merete Eldrup

My own view has always been that the administration is both an important foundation and a crucial framework for the university’s core activities, which are, of course, research and education.

So the question was whether we should try to patch up the existing administration, or whether we should take consequence of the fact that the university has doubled in size over the past 30 years. The administration has simply sprouted up in many places without anyone thinking fundamentally about how best to administer a university, which is a very large organization nowadays.

We decided therefore to do the latter. The first thing we looked into was what others do, and how the University of Copenhagen compares to other universities. We asked a consultancy company to do it, and it turned out that UCPH was not at the very bottom, but we were certainly not in the top half either. And we think the University of Copenhagen belongs there.

The most important thing is that in the future we will have a better and more uniform administration, that takes care of the central functions, while at the same time maintaining proximity. And we are convinced that the administration will become more efficient, because we will not have to operate on three different layers [department, faculty and central administration, ed.]«.

Proximity and uncertainty

You have identified some problems that the reform will solve. But the plan is accompanied by a huge DKK 300 million a year efficiency target. Why not wait and see what the savings are before all the good solutions have come into force?

»Before we can begin to implement the savings, there needs to be good system support, which is why we have chosen to proceed slowly.

»When you make changes of this magnitude that also result in job losses, it does lead to apprehension in the organization Some people are going to wonder: What is going to happen to my job? And even though there will be jobs for the vast majority, it will still lead to insecurity, because many people are worried about where they will end up. I think therefore that we have been faced with a difficult choice between the speed of implementing this, while at the same time providing for the security and peace of mind needed to ensure a proper and thorough employee involvement.«

READ ALSO: Is the reform a foregone conclusion — or do employees have a say in the decision-making?

A large survey was conducted early in the process, and many employees took the time to complete it. One of the clear takeaways from the survey was a strong desire for more proximity to the administration. The employees do not believe that this is possible with the new reform, and many feel that they have been sidelined in the process. What do you say to them?

I don’t think the administrative staff have the best framework in the current organisation

Merete Eldrup

»I know that management has been talking to a very large number of people at the University in order to involve them in the work. In the Board, we reviewed the survey carefully, and the responses match the picture I had in the beginning. There were many responses in the open comments. And it is true that one of the things that people wanted is proximity. But you have to remember that proximity is not necessarily about getting administrative assistance from someone who is physically present in the next office. It can also be that you can easily lift up the phone and get hold of someone who can help you with your problem. You don’t have to go through seven different processes to understand who it is that you’re talking to.

With the reform we will get some central functions [the administrative centres, ed.] with an established service level, and uniform solutions throughout. But at the same time, the intention is that some people are actually in close proximity out in the student and staff environments by way of the partner structure. The idea is that you get a partner out in your department who knows your area in-depth, and that participates in weekly meetings and so on.«

From critical moment to dream scenario

Now it is not you, of course, who has been responsible for the process – the program steering committee has. But when staff representatives say employees have no enthusiasm for the reforms, is there anything you wish you’d done differently?

»I’m quite sure there’s a lot you could have done differently. I have never experienced processes where it was not possible to say afterwards that we probably should have done this and this. But I will say that I have been a part of many executives and boards, and I have never experienced anything that has been planned and analyzed so thoroughly, and where there has been so much involvement.

When I go around the University, I can feel the uncertainty, but I also meet some people who think things are looking good and who are looking forward to it. But no-one finds the current phase desirable. I would call it a watershed moment. We’re on the way out of something. But you can’t yet see what it’s going to look like in the future. How does it play out? Where am I going to be placed? Who will we become? 

For now it is important to communicate that even though it will not all be perfect right away, we will actually be in a really good place in a few years time. I’m convinced of this.«

If you were to say something that could raise the spirits of the staff who are finding it hard to get enthusiastic about it, what would you say?

»I would say: Take a positive approach, and be a part of it with everything that’s important with you. Be open. I don’t think that the administrative staff have had the best framework in the current organisation. And I would really like to say: It is you that have all the good experiences and the good examples. That’s why you need to be heard, and you need to continue to have influence.

And then you have to remember that nobody, not in the Board and not in management, gets up in the morning and thinks, how do we make this turn really bad? Everyone wants this to be better. And that’s really important to keep in mind.«