Organisation - November 14, 2018

Mostly managers accused of undesirable behaviour

Albert Sikkema

In 2017, fifteen Wageningen students reported suffering from undesirable behaviour, as did 68 staff members. This was revealed in the annual report of the WUR confidential counsellors. The number of reports has increased slightly in the last few years.


The fourteen confidential counsellors of WUR saw 83 accounts of undesirable behaviour in 2017 at WUR. Most of the reports came from women. The staff members mostly suffered verbal and psychological aggression and harassment from managers. Men were designated as the perpetrator slightly more often than women. The students who reported with the confidential counsellor mostly suffered sexual harassment.

The confidential counsellors offered the victims a listening ear and helped them find a solution. In sixteen cases, victim requested confidential counsellors to accompany them to a conversation with the perpetrator. ‘They are the ones who must take action, because confidential counsellors cannot solve the case itself’, says confidential counsellor Martie Wagenaar.

The harassments consisted of excluding staff members, withholding information, gossiping and insulting, and assigning absurd and particularly difficult tasks. The intimidation consisted of psychological pressure, whereby the manager would put their department under pressure and fan internal competition for money and assignments, for example. In the case of poor financial results and high work pressure, a morbid work environment can easily arise, in which tensions can lead to intimidating behaviour, the confidential counsellors say. They report that in half of the cases, labour conflicts play a part in the undesirable behaviour.

They are the ones who must take action, because confidential counsellors cannot solve the case itself.

The 14 cases of sexual harassment occurred before the #metoo movement emerged. Some of these issues were very difficult because the victims often did not have the courage to report the undesirable behaviour due to their dependency relationship to the perpetrator, the confidential counsellors report. For example, PhD candidates who were sexually harassed by their supervisors and who sometimes only had the courage to report this to the counsellor after their defence. Sometimes not even then, out of fear for their further career prospects.

Tip of the iceberg
Wagenaar thinks this is just the tip of the iceberg. ‘It’s still a guess, but we cannot imagine the number of people to have been harassed to be so low. An investigation by TNO shows that six percent of the workforce is faced with undesirable behaviour. Not everyone who deals with harassments contacts a confidential counsellor.’

In order to better identify undesirable behaviour among students, WUR has already appointed a second confidential counsellor for students, to allow for more time to be spent on spreading information and awareness. ‘And this really is not just about squeezing bottoms in itself, but also about the dependency relationship between victims and perpetrators’, Wagenaar says.

Wagenaar also argues for more direct support of managers by WUR. ‘WUR often knows which departments are not running smoothly, both in financial and communicative sense. We need to provide managerial support in those departments.’ She thinks that clarity can often help. ‘Sometimes, we hear from employees that they do not know where they stand and that they do not feel safe. They are afraid they will be sacked. We reply: why don’t you ask your supervisor. And their fear often turns out not to be justified.’

Additional reading (partly in Dutch):

Re:actions 1

  • Fibrotic Lucifer

    As a former student I came to the conclusion that this kind of incidents are not really that rare. I knew a handful of students who had felt aggravated and cheated in different degrees by their own supervisors and tutors. It's just that students often don't get to the point of seeking counseling nor filing complaint reports for different reasons. One of them is that non amicable answers are discouraged by WUR itself. They have a reputation to maintain after all. Also, because of the social environment they have worked so hard to assemble, most students are eager to believe in this place, and are even willing to let pass these wrongs unhandled so they don't stain their experience (or worse, their careers). What is more, it's seems to me that their counseling staff (psychologists, advisors and so on) tend to act like passive accomplices -from not referring you to the public advocate in cases that are obviously serious enough to making excuses for the antisocial behavior of the offending parties. Let's be honest: everything is oriented so that the weakest link (student or employee) is scapegoated and gaslighted. I personally regret having tried to place confidence in these people because I only ended up double-crossed again. Because of this, I shall advise you not to hesitate to file complaints and report really bad behavior to the external public advocate. This should be done more often, even if such actions disrupt their "peace".


resource_wageningenur_nl_forum_reactions_wrapper for object 43 of type wm_language nl_gx_webmanager_cms_core_implementation_languageimpl 5

  • Student

    En zo blijft ook na #MeToo een zogenaamde 'vertrouwenspersoon' slachtoffers verantwoordelijk houden voor het niet oplossen van ongewenst gedrag: "omdat de slachtoffers vaak niet de moed hadden om het ongewenste gedrag aan de kaak te stellen"...

    • Zayd

      Je kunt als 'student' denigrerend en verbitterd over vertrouwenspersonen doen, maar je geeft daarmee alleen blijk van hoe slecht geïnformeerd je bent over de zuivere rol van vertrouwenspersonen. Mocht je persoonlijk vervelende ervaringen hebben, dan kaart je die bij de vertrouwenspersoon zelf aan en niet online. Mocht je geen contact met vertrouwenspersonen gehad hebben, dan is de opmerking des te ongepaster. Ga heen en leer.

    • Student

      Hi Zayd, ik doel specifiek op de opmerking van de vertrouwenspersoon dat "slachtoffers vaak niet de moet hadden om het ongewenste gedrag aan de kaak te stellen". Dit vind ik misplaatst. Het komt op mij over alsof het slachtoffer de schuld krijgt dat ongewenst gedrag niet wordt opgelost. Het lijkt mij beter als de vertrouwenspersoon het probleem legt bij machtsdynamiek en niet bij het slachtoffer.

  • Timmy

    Maar als een leidinggevende zelf ongewenst gedrag vertoont aan een medewerker?
    Dan is er al haast geen gesprek meer mogelijk.

    • Hennie

      Daar zijn juist vertrouwenspersonen voor. Zij kunnen je begeleiden bij het zoeken naar een oplossing.