Executive Board explores the option of appointing two vice-rectors
The Executive Board is exploring the option of appointing two part-time vice-rectors: one with a focus on teaching and the other with a focus on research. We explain below why.
Leiden University faces major challenges in research and teaching. These include the responsible and ethical use of AI, lifelong learning, interdisciplinary collaboration and participation in networks such as LDE Universities and Horizon Europe, the EU funding programme for research and innovation. A great deal of good work is already being done in this respect at our faculties, departments and expertise centres. However, the Executive Board also sees opportunities to make better use of time and energy by strengthening coordination across organisational units and bringing related initiatives together.
For that reason, at the start of its term of office, the Board is exploring the option of appointing two part-time vice-rectors: one with a focus on teaching and the other with a focus on research. These would be academic colleagues with leadership experience, preferably drawn from our own academic staff, who would help the Board address a number of key university-wide issues in a more coordinated way. Responsibility for decisions would remain solely with the Executive Board, and the existing roles of faculties, directorates and expertise centres would remain as they are.
What might the vice-rectors do?
A Vice-Rector for Teaching might lead the development of AI in our teaching by working with degree programmes, faculties and directorates such as Strategy and Academic Affairs, Student and Educational Affairs, and Leiden Learning & Innovation Centre to identify which initiatives are already underway, where there is overlap, where better coordination is needed and what agreements are required to provide more clarity.
In practice, this would mean bringing people and projects together around the same topics, highlighting similarities and differences, and drawing on experience from across the university to help determine a shared direction. It would involve paying particular attention to the links between the use of AI, teaching quality, workload and support.
Would the vice-rectors be an additional layer of management?
The vice-rectors’ role would be to focus their attention over a period of a few years on a limited number of topics that affect the entire university, and to bring people and initiatives together. They would do so in close collaboration with the existing directorates and centres of expertise, which would remain responsible for policy support and implementation. The aim would be to reduce fragmentation, establish clearer arrangements and improve the coordination of support in areas such as AI, lifelong learning and major research programmes. The vice-rectors would not be fourth or fifth members of the Executive Board. They would remain part of the academic community rather than operating as administrators separate from research and teaching.
Wouldn’t this increase the workload?
That would be the case if vice-rectors were to add new projects and responsibilities. The aim, however, is to consolidate existing initiatives, prevent duplication of effort and bring related initiatives together. New initiatives would only be launched once existing ones had been consolidated or replaced. The guiding principle would be that there should be no net increase in responsibilities for lecturers and researchers.
Instead of multiple pilot projects and working groups addressing the same theme, there should be greater clarity about who does what, what support is available and how this aligns with the university’s strategy. This requires the Executive Board to make careful choices and always ensure alignment with the university’s strategic direction.
Why invest in vice-rectors when the university needs to cut costs?
Investing in vice-rectors would be a deliberate choice. Without effective coordination, major university initiatives can ultimately consume considerable time and resources because efforts become fragmented. This translates into greater pressure on lecturers, researchers, management and staff.
A vice-rector who focuses on a limited number of topics for a few years could help break this cycle by working with the faculties, existing directorates and centres to clarify where the priorities lie; by ensuring that initiatives are aligned; and by enabling the Executive Board to make faster and better-informed decisions. This is expected to result in a more effective use of time and resources, and a clearer focus on priorities.
How does this relate to the organisational development programme?
An organisational development programme is also currently underway, examining the structure of support services, processes and administrative relationships. The review of the possible introduction of vice-rectors focuses primarily on whether the university has sufficient expertise and capacity in a number of areas that affect the institution as a whole.
The members of the Executive Board have deliberately chosen to conduct this review at the start of their term of office. This is because they recognise how many valuable initiatives relating to AI, lifelong learning and collaboration already exist within faculties and centres, and how stronger coordination across organisational units could help ensure that time and energy are put to the best possible use.
Vice-rectors would not alter the formal responsibilities of directorates and departments. They would add academic expertise to a limited number of areas, within a framework that is being further refined through organisational development.
How will this review be conducted?
The Executive Board has opted for a transparent, step-by-step approach. The process began with an initial exploration of the need for, and the potential benefits of, appointing vice-rectors. Faculties, directorates, centres of expertise and representative bodies are currently involved in the further development of the proposal. A decision will only be made once all relevant considerations have been fully explored and discussed. The outcome of this review is not predetermined; it may equally conclude that other approaches to strengthening academic capacity would be more appropriate. If vice-rectors are appointed, the Executive Board will, after two years and in consultation with the representative bodies, assess whether they have helped accelerate progress, reduce fragmentation and improve the coordination of support in the areas concerned.
How are the representative bodies involved?
The Executive Board’s proposal for two new vice-rectors was discussed in detail with the University Council on 13 July. The discussion will continue after the summer recess as part of the regular consultation cycle.