Recently, there has been debate about the closure of several degree programmes at Aalborg University. This is a significant change that has happened quickly and, according to many, with a lack of transparency. Now, management has announced that HR and finance departments are to be completely restructured, with a deadline of the end of January 2026. Once again, a reform at AAU is happening suddenly, and once more, the changes are being announced with little notice.

We acknowledge that there may be a need to change workflows within the HR and finance departments, but these changes are happening rapidly. It is also striking that administrative reforms at Danish universities are occurring precisely at this point in time and that they appear to always be initiated by conclusions from a consulting company, this time Carve. At the University of Copenhagen, there was a major administrative reform in 2024, which led to extensive debate and clear dissatisfaction among employees. Most recently, staff at the Faculty of Law at the University of Copenhagen expressed their concerns in an opinion piece in Uniavisen (in Danish).

From our perspective, the report by Carve leaves the impression that the responsibility for the fact that workflows in HR and finance are not as management would like them to be is primarily placed on the rank-and-file employees. This surprises us. After all, the management has had opportunities to adjust these processes continuously, and the experiences of the employees in HR and finance could have helped with such ongoing adjustments.

Over the years, we have experienced that changes at AAU are becoming increasingly frequent. In the Danish university sector as a whole, there have been 29 major reforms during the last 20 years, but at AAU alone, there have been many additional comprehensive changes since 2014. Examples include the splitting of faculties, the merging of departments following rounds of layoffs, the sale of buildings, and the merging of other faculties.

At the latest meeting of the main occupational health and safety committee, there were discussions about the impact of these changes on the work environment, and a brochure has been produced on the challenges to the work environment in change processes. This is a positive step.

However, we note two things:

First, that major changes are seen primarily as something to be managed as a change in the work environment. It is correct that comprehensive changes affect the work environment and can often be a source of uncertainty and stress. Much research confirms this. But we miss a focus on the decision-making process itself and the role of management in this regard.

Second, that is is the rank-and-file VIP (scientific staff) and TAP (technical and administrative staff) employees and students who have to live with these major and frequent changes. It is among these groups of people that the experience is found, and therefore it is important that the decision-making process regarding changes is clear and based on co-determination.

Section 10, subsection 6 of the Danish University Act states that “The Board of Directors shall ensure that there is co-determination and involvement of employees and students in significant decisions.” The current situation involving major changes in HR and finance must be considered as an example of significant decisions.

When management uses frequent and major changes as a tool, there should also be principles for how such major changes are to be decided upon and how co-determination takes place in the best possible way for all parties involved. It is our view that these principles should be discussed openly at AAU and made explicit. Over the years, it has become clear that the cooperation agreement does not describe this in sufficient detail.

At AAU, we already have good experiences with how explicit principles can guide processes in a beneficial way. The nearly 30-year-old “New Pay” system in the public sector was created with the desire to establish free wage formation, but it also carried a major risk of uncertainty. The local agreement we have at AAU helps regulate and clarify wage formation and creates a practice for what can be negotiated.

What we propose is that principles should be developed that specify exactly when a decision about changes at AAU is significant as well as guidelines for how the process of co-determination in this context should take place and how short a time it should be allowed to take. A list of what constitutes significant changes should also be established. Some examples that should be included in such a list are ones we have already seen over the past 10 years, including:

• Merging or splitting of departments or faculties
• Closure of programs
• Transfer of many employees from central to local levels or vice versa
• Termination of leases on large buildings

Such concrete guidelines for the process surrounding major changes would be an important trust-building measure. The guidelines should be developed in collaboration between management, the board, the academic councils, and cooperation committees, and ideally also with union representatives, and be the result of consensus.

We want to be good employees at AAU, but management should also remember that a good employee is not necessarily the same as a silent employee, that a good decision is not necessarily a quick decision, that the experiences of employees and students are often different from those of the management, and that the combination of major changes and a perceived lack of co-determination is not good for building and maintaining trust among us. Let us change the framework together so that we can create better conditions for this at the university.

For DM:

Frederik Hertel, TR, SSH / FTR
Hans Hüttel, TR, ENG
Lars Bo Henriksen, TR, TECH
Louiza Bohn Thomsen, TR, SUND
Jens Kirk, TR Kultur og læring
Søren Lindhardt, TR Kommunikation og psykologi
Linda Vabbersgaard Andersen, TR BUILD

For IDA:

Thomas Lykke Andersen, TR BUILD, HTR ENG, FTR
Rikke Dorothea Huulgaard, TR PLAN / CS, HTR TECH
Tue Bjerg Bennike, TR HST og HTR SUND
Tamas Kerekes, TR ENERGY
Rasmus Løvenstein Olsen, TR ES
Matthias Mandø, TR ENERGY
Benny Endelt, TR M&P
Morten Nielsen, TR MATH

For DJØF:

Jesper Lindgaard Christensen, TR DJØF, FTR

For Landinspektørforeningen:

Michael Tophøj Sørensen, TR

Dear union representatives,

Thank you for your post on Update Viewpoint and your strong commitment to the working environment at AAU. 

It is absolutely true that AAU and the rest of academia have undergone many reforms and changes in recent years. Many of these are politically determined, including, for example, the reform of the Master’s programmes. Others the management has initiated as it is both our job and our responsibility to optimize the university's operations in order to provide our research and education with the best possible conditions within the given framework.

In other words, change has become a condition that we must learn to adapt to together, and I share your desire for good, inclusive processes in connection with major change processes at the university. 

Therefore, clarity and involvement of the relevant parties have also been part of the terms of reference for the analysis of the HR and finance area at AAU. The process has had a long run of nearly a year, and during this period, three Update articles were written on the status of the analysis work. In addition, approximately 150 staff members whose tasks are the subject of the analysis have been continuously involved in the process of looking at the opportunities and challenges in relation to a new organization.

The decision on the future organization of HR and finance has not yet been made. The conclusions of the Carve report are currently in a comment period with the relevant councils and committees. We take the comments seriously, and I look forward to discussing both them and the scenarios set out in the report at today’s meeting of the Main Joint Consultation Committee.

I find the framework in our consultation committee to be positive and well-functioning, and this is also one of the reasons there has been transparency and involvement around the process from start to finish.

Let us maintain the open dialogue and good cooperation so that together we can find the best solutions, even after the decision on the future organization has been made. I am convinced that we achieve the most when we solve challenges together, and I look forward to continuing the constructive cooperation.

Søren Lind Christiansen
University Director