The rETHink project aimed, among other things, to promote the culture of discussion at ETH Zurich. But have the efforts been successful? Read the opinions of two ETH employees in the current special edition of the magazine "life". And what is your opinion?
For
Pius Krütli, Co-director of TdLab at D-USYS
It’s impossible to give a completely objective answer to that question, but based on my own observations and experiences related to rETHink, I would say it has improved.
The start of the project differed from the past. Its launch was prompted by the arrival of a new ETH president who had to deal with inherited problems. In such cases, the solution is often to begin restructuring straight away. His approach was a bit different: he wanted to first take time to consider carefully where we stand – and at the same time initiate cultural change. That’s what rETHink is all about: a process imposed top-down but implemented bottom-up. Broad-based and open-ended. A participative process with the active involvement of more than 600 people.
The working groups, comprising members from all university bodies, were given the autonomy to nominate and work on their chosen topics within the framework of the rETHink project. This involved lengthy discussions – some measured, some more heated. New ideas were put forward, and sometimes rejected again. Most importantly, everyone listened to each other and created something together at the same time. Although this should be an essential part of any creative process, it’s not always common – even among academics. Sometimes it's about privileges that may seem to be under threat, or about exercising the power of interpretation. Individual interests may be affected. Things can turn nasty quite quickly. End of discussion. This is the way it has to be done.
“The rETHink approach: the better argument wins, not the entrenched hierarchical status.”Pius Krütli
The rETHink approach: everyone on an equal footing. The better argument wins, not the entrenched hierarchical status.
For me, the litmus test was the issue of excellence – one of the five key values in ETH’s vision. A tough nut to crack, which many struggled with. Excellence is now no longer an ETH value – an open outcome. But ETH continues to strive for excellence, as now embodied in its mission statement.
So has the culture of discussion actually changed? From the subjective perspective of the rETHink experience: yes, it has. But there is still an element of doubt. Was it mainly an issue that only concerned a minority? Were the majority of people perhaps not even aware of rETHink and learnt nothing from it? And are some people whose attitudes may have been the reason for launching rETHink in the first place simply continuing to live their own “culture”? That can’t be ruled out. But that's where we all have our part to play. Because we live and breathe our university culture. And we must set boundaries for those who try to manipulate an open and liberal organisational culture in their favour. This calls for a somewhat different culture (of discussion).
Against
Christian Mimjähner, Campus Services business developer
In my function as a business developer in Campus Services and in my role as a member of the university’s Staff Commission (PeKo), I am constantly involved in a huge variety of challenging and – above all – interesting discussions. Has there been any change over the past two years? Not as far as I can see.
Every day I talk with a broad range of people and mix with different leadership levels and organisations. Here I repeatedly encounter situations that preoccupy me and give me cause to stop and think. Discussions often fail not because of differing opinions but because of conflicting values and people’s reluctance to change. Someone who is constantly interrupted and prevented from saying what they want to say tends to get angry or inwardly retreat from the conversation. As a result, the discussion becomes more heated or turns into a monologue. That’s something I frequently witness. Every point of view is naturally important, but having to listen to others simply voicing opinions, making assertions and using catch phrases makes people dig in their heels even further. If someone cannot come up with anything more to counter an argument, it certainly doesn’t mean they have been persuaded that it’s right: a discussion is not a contest.
“A discussion is not a contest.”Christian Mimjähner
As far as I’m concerned, the same rule of thumb applies to a discussion as to an interview. To really understand what makes a person tick, you need to pose as many open questions as possible and not put words into their mouth. If you listen attentively, you can find common ground in any conversation. It’s worth addressing these commonalities, as this creates a good atmosphere for rewarding discussions.
Although I love working at ETH Zurich, I still think there is a lot of room for sustained and longterm improvement in our culture of discussion. The shift to more hybrid forms of working presents us with additional challenges, as it means fewer face-to-face conversations. This makes interaction more difficult and requires new skills in our culture of discussion. On top of that, most of our thinking is too compartmentalised. This has to do with the university’s structure, individual ETH members and people’s general reluctance to change. I very much hope, however, that this will improve over time thanks to the revised key values and the new leadership competencies introduced at ETH.
For my part, I have made a firm commitment to contribute to a better culture of discussion. I hope you all have too!
This article appeared in the rETHink special edition of the ETH magazine "life".
Always up to date
Would you like to always receive the most important internal information and news from ETH Zurich? Then subscribe to the "internal news" newsletter and visit Staffnet, the information portal for ETH employees.