Ombuds identifies recurring patterns in TU/e cases

Ombudsman Job van Luyken takes stock of his first year at TU/e in the document and reflects on his own role within the organization. He wrote the reflection because he was unable to produce an annual report for 2025.

Following Anna Soedira’s sudden departure, Van Luyken served as ombudsman only during the final months of last year. Soedira had also not handed over any cases to her successor.

With this reflection, addressed to the Executive Board, the University Council, and the trade unions, he now provides insight into recurring patterns and offers the university some initial recommendations for improvement.

Collective unrest

In the document, the ombudsman identifies several recurring themes he encountered over the past year. One was collective unrest, which arose on multiple occasions. 'In at least five situations, groups of employees mobilized at the same time,' Van Luyken writes. These included issues involving the management style at an affiliated organization, a joint institute, a reorganization within a service department, and a group dealing with a reintegration.

After just the first six months, Van Luyken had observed painful miscommunication, unclear responsibilities, and, in some cases, inadequate leadership in the areas experiencing unrest. ‘Unfortunately, that picture was confirmed in several cases in the months that followed.’

Overall, the ombudsman observes that the way decisions are made often causes more problems than the decisions themselves. In his view, this could be improved by paying more attention to how people are treated and how communication is handled in cases involving dismissal, performance improvement plans, and reintegration, ‘rather than focusing solely on legal correctness.’

Notably, Van Luyken explicitly addresses the confidentiality of ‘ombuds materials’ in the document. This was a point of conflict between the previous ombuds and the Executive Board.

Van Luyken states that he cannot guarantee confidentiality for people raising concerns and others involved if ombuds materials can be used as evidence in formal proceedings within the university. He therefore recommends that the university establish a rule prohibiting the submission of ombuds materials in formal proceedings without the consent of the people involved.

Reflecting

In one passage, Van Luyken also appears to address how the situation surrounding the previous ombuds officer’s resignation is being handled, specifically mentioning the trade unions, the University Council, and the Executive Board. He writes that he sees these parties making efforts to reflect on what happened, but also calls on them to stop doing that.

‘I think it is high time to stop reflecting endlessly or continuing to debate until everyone agrees with everything and with one another. That outcome does not exist, nor is it necessary. What is necessary is trust in and respect for everyone’s role. The absence of these aspects is more damaging than the differences of opinion themselves.’

The ombudsman also describes a situation in which a new departmental guideline on personal relationships at work reportedly caused considerable unrest. According to Van Luyken, this should be regulated centrally rather than at the department level.

That is now happening: the university is working on a new guideline covering the entire TU/e community in this area.

PhD candidates

According to Van Luyken, PhD candidates, postdoctoral researchers, and international employees are strongly represented among those who approach him for help. Several PhD candidates have reportedly raised concerns about problems with their supervisors.

This is not an unfamiliar issue at the university. Research by Andrea Kis, for example, showed that problems with supervision and social safety play a major role in PhD candidates’ decisions about whether to discontinue their doctoral research. Berenschot is also conducting an external investigation into social safety among PhD candidates.

A buildup of problems

In many cases, the ombudsman observes that both managers and employees do not always take enough responsibility, he tells Cursor in a response. “Much of the problem stems from small and large issues piling up until the situation becomes too big to handle—and people being too awkward about it—to have the conversation.”

In his reflection, Van Luyken also discusses his role as ombudsman within the university. ‘I see my role primarily as independent, impartial, and focused on mediation, rather than as a personal advocate.’ According to him, this differs from how people have previously perceived the position.

‘My starting point is that the organization should initially resolve problems itself. I help the system work better, make patterns visible, and use my independent position when all parties agree to it.’

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