In recent weeks, the issues have piled up, Janssen acknowledges. A low point for him was when the unions publicly raised the alarm about the Executive Board’s lack of support for the ombudsperson and criticized the state of the Integrity & Social Safety (I&SS) Desk. According to the unions, the president underestimated the urgency of the situation. “While I’ve been working on it from day one,” Janssen says. By going public, the unions disrupted the dialogue he values so much, he adds. The situation with the ombudsperson does not stand alone: several lawsuits are ongoing, all of which touch on social safety.

Since the start of your presidency, you’ve stressed how important social safety is to you. How do you explain the uproar now?
“First of all, all three Executive Board members consider social safety extremely important. That’s why a lot has already been initiated in recent years. Several issues are surfacing at the same time now, which makes it seem as though there are suddenly a lot of problems, while in reality these are long-running cases. At the same time, I see society becoming more polarized. That’s reflected on campus. We’re now working on clear rules and procedures to better safeguard social safety. Because such agreements were less common in the past, they are sparking debate today.”

Do you understand why the recent revelations are causing unrest?
“Absolutely. We’ll soon publish a statement to reassure people. We also want to look at the ‘enforcement’ of our core values (Curious, Open, Respectful and Responsible, ed.). We need to make it clear that if you violate them, there are consequences. I don’t mean that in a threatening way, and I don’t yet know exactly how that will take shape. But we do need to make clear: here’s our line, and we don’t cross it. As the Executive Board, we have to set the right example.”

How do you do that?
“It starts with transparent communication and acknowledging that not everything at the university is rosy, because it isn’t. We still see remnants of hierarchical leadership here. We want to move toward inclusive leadership, a model where people are allowed to speak up and real dialogue is possible. That requires effort from everyone. We also need to increase our people’s resilience and create more equality in how we engage with one another. This doesn’t mean responsibilities disappear. I carry a major responsibility at TU/e myself, but I approach everyone on equal footing.”

Can you imagine it’s difficult for people to speak up against someone higher up the hierarchy?
“Yes, but that’s exactly what I’m trying to change. I’m approachable, I make time for people, and I’m open to dialogue. I’m surprised at how much people look up to the president of the Executive Board here. I’m just Koen. I’m doing my job, like everyone else.”

What makes a good leader?
“A leader should be among the people and place the employees’ interests above their own. They should give people responsibility in their work. That requires skills: giving and receiving feedback, asking probing questions, and communicating using a range of techniques. It also means listening with an open mind to what people are saying. That’s when you’re a successful leader.”

How do you explain, in that light, that before you even met the ombudsperson in person, you sent her a letter telling her her contract wouldn’t be renewed?
“She was angry about that, and I understand. But I also honestly told her: I could have met you first and then sent the letter a week later, but you wouldn’t have liked that either. The discussions about this decision had already been held, and she knew that.”

So the decision was already made?
“There was an entire process leading up to it, involving the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board. I’d already had discussions with them, even before I officially started. Those discussions were clear. I couldn’t change that. I couldn’t just say: ‘I don’t believe anything you’ve done and I’ll do it differently.’ That’s not how it works.”

Most of what happened with the ombudsperson took place before your time?
“Mostly, yes—99 percent. But the moment I take over from my predecessor, I take on the responsibility. I just don’t want to keep returning to the past. For me, it’s important to get out of the trenches. We take the past with us to learn from it. The investigation we’ve already launched will help with that.”

You mean the investigation to clarify the ombudsperson’s communications submitted as part of a whistleblower procedure and two lawsuits?
“Exactly. We’re using these cases as examples to learn from. We want the investigation to take a broader look at role clarity: who is responsible for what? What information is confidential and how do we handle that? And what is the role of the I&SS Desk? The investigation should also provide a clear picture for appointing the new ombudsperson. I’m trying to push this forward so we can get started quickly. It should be wrapped up by the end of the year. If there are lessons for us as an Executive Board, we’ll acknowledge them, and I’m prepared to communicate about them publicly. If we’ve made mistakes, I’ll take responsibility.”

You often speak of transparency, but in the ombudsperson situation you haven’t explained why there’s so little trust. Why not?
“I can’t be open about that because the conversations were confidential. If I were to disclose them, I’d break that confidentiality and as an administrator I’d also be throwing myself under the bus. That puts you in a catch-22 (an unsolvable dilemma, ed.). I prefer to resolve problems by talking things through together. I thought we were in constructive dialogue with the unions, so I was surprised when their statement appeared in the newspaper. I thought: can’t we have the discussion with each other instead of through the media? It can be critical, I have no problem with that.”

How is your relationship with the unions now?
“Constructive. I understand they have a role to play. But we shouldn’t forget we’re all people trying to build a community together. As the Executive Board, we want the best for this university. I want to highlight the human side of the organization, which I think has been underexposed. You can see that things have hardened within the university. I’m trying to change that. And that’s hard. It requires a cultural shift.”

When will we see concrete results?
“It takes time, but I’m already seeing change. I notice that people are much more open with me now. That’s a first step. But for it to truly take root, we’re talking a few years. We’re also working on the institutional plan, which outlines the transformation in broad strokes. As we roll out that plan, we want to reach deeper into the organization by involving people in more junior positions in the working groups. They’re closer to what’s happening on the ground and have a different perspective on the university. Senior staff will take on a more coaching role. Decisions won’t be made top-down: draft versions will first go to the departments for input. That gives staff influence and builds trust.”

How are people responding to these plans?
“When I talk about them, I see relieved faces.”

Do you think you can achieve this cultural shift within your four-year term?
“I’m convinced of it. I know exactly what to do because I’ve gained experience over the past 35 years. At DSM, for example, I saw such a transformation up close. It started with hierarchical leadership: when the board came around, you’d hide. Over the years, that changed to inclusive leadership. There’s now a very open and transparent culture there, where leadership is also evaluated—not just on substance, but on behavior.

If we can achieve that here, we’ll truly become a top university. Not just because of our academic quality but because of how we treat one another, the community we build, and the image we project to the outside world. Ultimately, my dream is that we no longer need confidential advisors or an I&SS Desk, because everything can be discussed openly and transparently in a safe environment. I’m personally committed to that, and you can hold me accountable for it.”

This article was translated using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by an editor.