Hierarchy at the University: Nuisance or Necessity? Academic Affairs with organizational psychologist Joyce Schleu and vice dean and microbiologist Laura van Niftrik

27 May 2025 Report

Within the university, all kinds of hierarchical structures play a major role between students and teachers, PhD candidates and supervisors, department heads and faculty staff. Hierarchy structures all these relationships. How does this shape the way we interact, and how safe do we feel in academic spaces? What does a healthy hierarchical structure within a large organization look like?

Podcast

Tuesday 27 May 2025 | Lecture Hall Complex, Radboud Universiteit | Radboud Reflects and Project group Prevent Care, Cure

Review

By Liesbeth Jansen | Photos by Sarah Danz

Some 50 people came to listen to the program on Hierarchy at University by Radboud Reflects and Project group Prevent, Cure, Care. Moderator and program developer Pam Tönissen opened by asking how many of the people gathered think Radboud University is too hierarchical – which turned out to be more than the number of people who said it’s not hierarchical enough, or just the right degree.

The crucial role of transparency

Joyce Schleu started by saying that we cannot do without hierarchy. With groups getting larger, complete democratic decision making is hardly possible and inefficient. Are universities more hierarchical than other organizations? Schleu said that this is definitely the case, especially in comparison to universities in for example the US. Van Niftrik added that our culture of decision making is hierarchical, but the point is that before a decision is made a lot of bodies and people are asked for their opinion. At the same time, it is not clear how your opinion is taken into account. This creates the impression that you have a say, while at the same time this may not be the case. Van Niftrik mentioned that some of her international colleagues find this way of working confusing and would prefer a clear hierarchy that states who makes the decisions. Schleu reacted that indeed, transparency about the process of decision making is crucial. Van Niftrik: “The university is a very big and complex system. We can weigh the impact of a decision in the degree of transparency. Small decisions might need less transparency than big decision.” Schleu added that it is very important to tell people what has been done with their input. Because it can have negative effects if you ask people for input without being clear about what you have done with it.

Empowering leadership

Van Niftrik has relatively recent become a vice dean of Education. Tönissen asked her about her own experiences. Van Niftrik: “If you climb fast, you see the differences more clearly. In the past, I have experienced that people get responsibility but not the mandate to make decisions. That can be very demotivating. So I decided that when I became a vice dean I would do this differently. If I give people responsibility, I also provide them with the mandate they need. And I will back them up.” Schleu responded by saying that empowering leadership can be very motivating, but it can also be a bit exhausting because you get more responsibilities. But if you offer support to people that you give power, that is helpful.

Pam Tönissen, Laura van Niftrik and Joyce Schleu - photo Sarah Danz

What will be done with your input?

Decision making is very slow at universities. Hierarchies can help to be more efficient, but that also comes with risks. What does a healthy hierarchy look like? Van Niftrik’s first reaction was that, although she likes the fact that many people are engaged in the decision making process at university, it also slows down the process. But the major problem is that decision making is little transparent. It should be more clear what is going to be done with the input you ask for. Schleu: “I came from a situation with much more hierarchy, where my supervisor decided everything: whether my contract would be extended etc. At Radboud University, we have quite some checks and balances. But of course power imbalances still exist. It’s not clear how to handle this correctly. Some people enjoy being in power and might abuse it, but in general this is not the case.” She fears however, for the effect of the budget cuts, because dysfunctional hierarchies are likely to increase in situations of stress.

Vulnerable at the top?

What about the vulnerability of people who are high in hierarchy? Van Niftrik reflected on her own experience: “I notice that my words are weighed more heavily than before. I really had to get used to the fact that people always see me in this role. When there is an informal gathering, my presence might feel more pronounced, and I wonder if I can have open conversations. Schleu: “As a leader, you have a lot of influence. The vulnerability of people at the top is also defined by the degree to which an organization is open to feedback.”

Contact information

Subscribe to the English newsletter and be the first to know about new programming, the latest reviews, video's and more.

Organizational unit: Radboud Reflects