Vision for the implementation strategy for new recognition and rewards in academia Paul Boselie (Utrecht University) & Jaap Paauwe (Tilburg University) ,1 version , January 10, 2021

The new recognition and rewards in science is more than a policy and strategy change at international (e.g., EU), national (e.g., VSNU, NWO, ZonMW, KNAW, and NFU) and university level. The new recognition and rewards in science is about a cultural change and change of mindset combined with a change of existing systems of recruitment, selection, assessment, promotion, and remuneration. From the Organizational Science, Psychology, and Human Resource Management disciplines, we know that these types of culture changes are complex and difficult. There are no easy solutions, and we will not have solved this academic transformation with the push of a button. Culture change requires human effort. In this note, we want to highlight, in the simplest way possible, some principles for effective organization and culture change without falling into the trap of a checklist, toolkit, or one-size-fits-all approach ourselves.

The measure of intelligence is the ability to change - Albert Einstein

There are no easy solutions: Context and choice Let us start by stating that there are no easy solutions. Therefore, be careful and cautious of best practices, toolkits, and checklists. As in other industries, it is more than plausible to assume that there are differences amongst disciplines. Having said that, there are certain generic principles that can be applied everywhere. Their precise interpretation depends on the specific context. In the new recognition and reward in science, it may well be that teamwork or collaboration (rather than an individual way of working) is a best principle for current and future science. At least that is how it is presented in the VSNU et al. (2019) position paper Room for everyone's talent2. Difference in context implies that there is room for strategic decision-making at the different levels of university, Schools, Department, and/or units. This means that differences in design can exist between organizational units (e.g., units, Departments, and Schools) and organizations (universities). Even in a highly regulated environment such as higher education, there is room for strategic decision-making that will lead to different designs and applications. Where one School chooses fundamental and top-level research, another School—also depending on discipline—will place a stronger emphasis on societal impact. The principles of contextual differences and strategic room for choice are of course a source of inspiration for other organizations and thus a source to learn from.

Policy, implementation, and perception Based on the existing implementation and innovation insights, it is important to make a distinction between policy (intention), implementation (actual realization), perception, and finally taking root (internalization). An effective impact only occurs if policy or strategic decision-making also leads to the intended implementation and perception. Making a decision, putting it in writing, and communicating it is no guarantee of actual implementation. In addition, if a decision is not properly implemented, it can affect the perception and mindset of employees, both individually and

1 Paul Boselie and Jaap Paauwe are both leaders of Recognition & Rewards programs at Utrecht University and Tilburg University, respectively. They are also members of the national VSNU Recognition & Rewards platform. 2 VSNU et al (2019) : https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/Position%20paper%20Room%20for%20everyon e%E2%80%99s%20talent.pdf

1 collectively. Therefore, the basis of an organizational change is the coordination of policy, implementation, and perception among employees. Whether the cultural change is sustained largely depends on the implementation and internalization. It has been said and emphasized many times (e.g., in the VSNU et al., 2019 position paper): Leadership at all levels is crucial to implement, change culture, and bring about a change in mindset (internalization). People will follow a good example.

Top-down, bottom-up, or hybrid change The classic approach to organizational change and innovation is from the top down, the so-called top-down approach. However, we can learn from innovation sciences that contemporary changes can be prompted from a variety of sources. There are cases where customers or suppliers have been a major initiator of organizational change and innovations. There are also cases where employees (e.g., professionals) introduce innovations through their professional networks, which are sometimes global (e.g., medical specialists). There are also cases where a local innovation within a specific organization proved to be so successful that the rest of the organization started to adopt the innovation. Today's technology enhances the possibilities for alternative paths to organizational change and innovations. These alternative paths are also possible for science and perhaps more so than ever as scientists increasingly collaborate with each other and with partners outside science. This does not mean that the necessary cultural change regarding recognition and rewards in science could occur entirely bottom-up. Some direction and coordination at university, national, and international level is desirable to prevent a proliferation of initiatives. It is obvious that a combination of organizational change consisting of bottom-up initiatives and top-down decisions—a so-called hybrid form—best suits the transformation in science. At the national level, this approach is supported by the VSNU platform on Recognition and Rewards with representatives from all Dutch universities and prominent institutes. Working groups on recognition and rewards have now been set up within almost all Dutch universities. In addition, there is explicit room for pilots and experiments. Another insight from organizational change management is the distinction between informing and communicating on the one hand and experimenting, facilitating, and letting people experience on the other. From the literature, we can add the power-coercive strategy, but that seems out of the question for academics, at least we do not recommend the latter. We have already made a good start with information and communication (in as many different ways and levels as possible). It is time for pilots and experimentation.

Pilots and experimentation The VSNU et al. (2019) paper explicitly raises the possibility for pilots and experiments on alternative recognition and rewards. These local pilots and experiments can be a source of inspiration and organizational development for other organizational units and other universities. We can learn from each other and thus a learning organization approach is deliberately adopted. Learning from each other is also much stronger and more convincing than innovation imposed from above (top-down). Making room for pilots and experiments has another major advantage: employees on the work floor are given the space to give their own interpretations to change, which increases support and optimizes motivation among employees. Employee influence in terms of autonomy, self- management, room for maneuver, and involvement is not for nothing one of the strongest HRM interventions. The well-known modern organizations such as Semco (of entrepreneur Ricardo Semler) and Buurtzorg (of entrepreneur Jos de Blok) are the ones that have become large with the use of self-management principles.

2

In addition to setting up and following pilots as a source of inspiration, it is interesting to look for good practices that are already taking place. These may be initiatives that do not stem directly from the recognition and rewards transition, but are directly linked to it. For example, for some time, in line with general hospital developments, university hospitals have been working on alternative forms of appraisal, remuneration, and promotion. In some cases, university hospitals have already developed templates for this. We, as universities, can learn from this particularly because the university hospitals are so nearby and also because professionals in hospitals are working with similar underlying mechanisms as professionals in science are, for example when it comes to professional standards and values and professional identity and motivation. Taking a look at our neighbors, university hospitals, requires little effort and can offer universities many insights. Where there are university hospitals, there is usually already a great deal of collaboration with the other faculties of the university concerned. Exchange is the obvious thing to do there. There are also ample experiments going on in the regular business world with new forms of performance management and saying goodbye to traditional and often bureaucratic forms of performance and appraisal interviews. Many universities, especially economic, social, and business schools, have the necessary contacts with companies, not only for education, but also for collaboration in the field of research. We can learn from those contacts with companies when it comes to alternative and more frequent forms of feedback and appreciation.

Knowledge sharing Why should we share knowledge, experiences, and insights with each other? There are a number of reasons for knowledge sharing and co-creation far beyond the boundaries of our own university. First, the major societal challenges (e.g. climate change, growing inequality, and digitalization) cannot be understood or solved without multidisciplinary collaboration across organizational boundaries. Technology companies such as Philips and ASML learned this some time ago. Coopetition—strategic collaboration in a competitive environment—is increasingly necessary to jointly move forward. The NWO Gravitation calls are an example of directing large research projects where competitors look to each other to collaborate. The MERIT model (management, education, research, impact, and team spirit) is an alternative approach to recognition and rewards developed at Tilburg University. The model has been applied in Tilburg for a number of years and can in fact be regarded as a precursor of the current national vision on Recognition and Rewards. The MERIT model has been a source of inspiration for Utrecht University. A few years ago, the REBO faculty (Law, Economics, and Governance) adopted the MERIT model from Tilburg as the basis for recruitment and selection, appraisal, and promotion. In 2020, the UU Faculty of Geosciences also started using the MERIT model based on the previous experiences at REBO and in Tilburg. This is an example of cross-fertilization and exchange between seemingly competing organizations, which can benefit all involved.

Second, most of the funding for universities and university hospitals is public money. Furthermore, organizations that are funded with public money have a public responsibility. Knowledge sharing is part of that as we can see in the many Open Science programs that have been set up. The new recognition and rewards is therefore not only an individual organization (university and university hospital) matter, but also a public and collective matter. The Dutch system of science, in contrast to the United States for example, is primarily a public system.

3

Third, knowledge sharing and co-creation are a source of motivation and inspiration for all involved. Working together on something big, such as finding a vaccine or drug to combat COVID-19, gives meaning to the employees involved. This also applies to the new recognition and rewards in science, which currently also includes national initiatives such as the national VSNU platform for recognition and rewards with representatives from all universities. Increasingly and fortunately, there is a growing awareness that collaboration is more than just collaboration between academics. The support staff also plays an essential role because the science of the future is a collective activity.

Establishing and elaborating new forms of collaboration requires administrative leadership and strategy, including at the national level through the VSNU. Grateful use can be made here of the strategic alliances that have now arisen amongst universities such as the cluster Leiden, EUR, and Delft and the cluster WUR, Utrecht, and Eindhoven. Crossing borders also means forming strategic alliances in the EU context, for example through the LERU network of universities. These alliances can be used for collaboration, sharing of insights, and exchange of personnel.

Science, that's us In line with the new SEP protocol 2021-20273 for research evaluation, it is widely recognized that there are flaws in our current system of recognition and rewards. Too one-sided a focus on research in terms of number of publications, impact scores, and grants does insufficient justice to current and future science in which, in addition to research, education, impact, teamwork, and leadership are key elements as well. This requires narratives and meaningful metrics (see SEP protocol 2021-2027). And thus, there are some more systemic changes that will have to take place. However, the above transformation is about much more than a system change. The necessary culture change is also within ourselves. Science, that's us. It is noticeable that the young scientists are enthusiastic about the transformation, as shown for example in all the initiatives of the Young Science in Transition. It is the current PhD researchers, post-doctoral researcher, and lecturers without a permanent contract who benefit from an alternative recognition and rewards perspective. With room for pilots and experiments, scientists themselves can seize room for maneuver for a different organization of science, for example, by giving substance to diversification and dynamic career paths as described in the VSNU et al. (2019) paper.

This requires guts and courage from those involved, as also explicitly stated by Adriaanse et al. (2019)4 in their paper niet langer verkennen en laveren: "The phase of exploring and navigating is over now. It is time for concrete follow-up steps. That requires courage from administrators and managers."

Illustrations of concrete change approaches An old saying about change at universities states that “...changing a university is like moving a graveyard. It is not totally impossible, but do not expect too much cooperation from the inside.” Well, the COVID-19 epidemic has shown that universities can indeed change. In no time at all, all education could be offered online with the possibility of online examinations as well. So if required, a

3 VSNU SEP protocol (2019) : https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/SEP_2021- 2027.pdf 4 Adriaanse et al (2019) : https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/OS-verkennen-laveren.pdf

4 university is indeed flexible and capable of change. Below we give some practical examples of very concrete change approaches:

-Workshops with vignettes. It is particularly important for managers, including heads of departments, to experience the new vision of recognition and rewards at first hand. This can be done by presenting them with vignettes in a workshop and getting to work with them. Vignettes in the sense of fictitious practical cases with outlined talents, ambitions, and possible career paths. How do you deal with this, what are the possibilities, and what criteria do we take into account?

-Team composition using color palette. The new recognition and rewards undeniably leads to a tension between the individual level with his or her preferences and the collective level, where all education, research, impact, and leadership tasks must be fulfilled. There are already experiences with working sessions with academic and support staff from different Schools. Via active working methods, in these sessions, issues are discussed regarding what employees are proud of, what they need to deliver, what the facilitating factors are, what the hindering factors are, and how employees themselves, using a color palette, perceive a team composition with a diversification of positions. These sessions provide a lot of inspiration and energy for everyone involved.

-Go into the organization (university and School) and engage with stakeholders (shop floor and board). A culture change of this order requires experiencing all facets of Recognition & Reward. For this, the initiators of the transformation must go into the university and School. After all, a change of this magnitude also creates turmoil and uncertainty. It helps to create room for interaction, so no roadshows in which only sending is done. Use the meetings also to collect ideas and impressions.

-Involve staff from all ranks in the transformation. At several Dutch universities, we see Recognition & Rewards working groups emerge with a mix of academic and support staff, a mix of young and old, and a variety of disciplines. The diversity in the team composition of these working groups can be inspiring and lead to cross-pollination and new insights. When people experience room (leeway), beautiful things can emerge.

- Difficult questions, honest answers. Dare to address difficult questions, e.g., "Does the new Recognition & Rewards system solve the workload in the university education?" and "Will Recognition & Rewards ensure a permanent contract for more lecturers?" These questions, which are mostly relevant among the employees, can be collected in the workshops, work sessions, and dialogue sessions listed above. The tough questions and honest answers can be posted on a university website.

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek - Barack Obama

5