The Dutch Photo Museum called it a cultural survey. It was a reckoning.

The rather bizarre soap opera surrounding the Dutch Photo Museum started a new season this weekend. De Volkskrant published the results of a confidential ‘culture survey’ conducted by Bureau Unravelling among staff and former staff members of the Nederlands Fotomuseum.

The timing of the ‘leak’ is striking: next Tuesday, 24 March, an initial lawsuit filed by sacked director-director Birgit Donker against the Supervisory Board is due to be heard. A promising lawsuit, according to insiders.

Questions, questions...

The ‘culture survey’, from which the Volkskrant quotes, largely provides confirmation of what the Volkskrant previously recorded from the mouths of a very limited number of ex-employees. The now unpublished, confidential investigation, according to the Volkskrant, would give a gruesome picture of the work culture at the Nederlands Fotomuseum: “Where authority is based on conviction and argumentation, (former) employees experienced that the director-director (Donker, ed.) repeatedly invoked her position to enforce decisions, without substantive substantiation or dialogue.”

Now this article, the timing and description of the survey raises quite a few questions, which the Volkskrant unfortunately fails to ask. For instance, all 92 current and former staff members were approached to cooperate, but only 39 responded. Of that group, 28 were then interviewed. So the response rate is quite low.

‘How could that be?’ a journalist then asks.

Discouraging

Could there be reasons for a former staff member not to cooperate? Yes indeed, argues the expert we consulted on the matter. Indeed, the call to cooperate in the survey, sent by the SB to the (former) staff, is strongly discouraging for people with a positive story about the dismissed director-director.

But perhaps it is good to start with that call, because we got it in the hands of one of the staff members. We walk through the letter from the Board of Supervisors for a moment.

Structure of cultural research Nederlands Fotomuseum

Arnhem, 18 September 2024

The Supervisory Board (hereafter: Supervisory Board) of the Nederlands Fotomuseum decided to commission a culture survey in response to signals from (former) employees. Following the director-director's departure, several (former) employees expressed a desire to share their experiences, partly with a view to coping and recovering. The survey will be conducted by researchers from Uravelling Research and Advice.

This cultural research focuses on the two related concepts of social and psychological safety. Social safety is the extent to which employees are protected and feel protected from risks caused by others. Such a risk can be transgressive behaviour, but also, for example, lack of development opportunities or job appreciation. Psychological safety is a working environment in which employees can be themselves without fear, make mistakes, express themselves, including towards colleagues with a different opinion, function or position within the organisation.

Integrity investigation

So now the question is: is this really a cultural study?

The term “cultural research” was probably deliberately chosen as less loaded¹ and more inclusive framing. Indeed, content is rather similar to a integrity investigation² into cross-border behaviour of the chief executive officer. So this is more than a routine culture survey.

The reason given by the SB is, so to speak, reactive, not proactive. The investigation - according to the SB - was initiated in response to concrete signals from (former) employees, not as a regular measurement or strategic exercise. Moreover, the SB appoints itself as the client, and not the management. This is unusual in regular culture projects. The fact that the SB had just appointed someone from its own ranks as director-director a.i. does not alter this. It shows how entangled things were there by now.

Complaints

Coming to the main questions. The SB writes this:

1. How did (former) employees of the Nederlands Fotomuseum experience the culture within the organisation during the period from 2019-2023?

2. To what extent did the leadership style of the former director/manager affect the perceived workplace atmosphere/culture?

3. What signals or reports have been made about social or psychological safety, or the leadership style of the chief executive officer, and how were these signals or reports followed up?

4. What are deeper causes of a possible perceived lack of social and/or psychological safety within the organisation?

5. What lessons can be learned for the organisation and the Supervisory Board, with a view to recovery and improvement and as a starting point for the new director?

Historically demarcated

So these questions have nothing at all to do with a ‘culture survey’. After all, the questions are specifically about the chief executive. Question 3 even asks explicitly about complaints about her leadership style and how they were handled. That's what we call targeted research on a person, not on a general culture. Moreover, the period 2019-2025 is historically defined. Culture studies usually look at the present; a historical delineation suggests that there is something specific to investigate from that period. Turning to ‘transgressive behaviour’. That is explicitly named as an example of a risk. That is language from integrity surveys.

The term ‘cultural research’ can thus be described as misleading. The design seems more like a substantiation tool for a decision already taken or intended than as open research.

Confidential

Moving on. The heading ‘Indemnity, confidentiality, security and privacy assurance’ is funny.

The Supervisory Board and the board of the Nederlands Fotomuseum grant (former) employees permission to cooperate in this research as they see fit. This means that (former) employees may freely provide Unravelling with ingormation and that this will never be construed as a breach of a duty of confidentiality or as a breach of any other obligation under an employment contract, settlement agreement or any other agreement. To ensure confidentiality, privacy and the safety of (former) employees, Unravelling does not share with anyone which individuals contribute to the investigation. This means that even the Supervisory Board is not informed by Unravelling which individuals are cooperating.

Invitation to participate in the study

We hereby invite all (former) employees in the period 2019 to 2025 to participate in the survey. The study consists of a survey and an interview. For participation? Then send us, preferably from your private email address, an email to: [email address]. All respondents will be interviewed.

In principle, all (Former) employees in the period 2019 to 2025 participate in this survey. [...]

During the interviews, we will focus on specific situations or events that you felt were characteristic of the working climate. For practical reasons, it will not be possible to speak to all interested (former) employees individually. This partly depends on the number of applications. We will start with interviews with a number of (former) employees by invitation. Interviews will be held in the period September to December 2025. An interview lasts about 1.5 hours and takes place at a neutral location in Rotterdam. An interview can also take place digitally.

Framed

After reading this invitation to emphatic all involved (although at least two staff members did not receive an invitation): how do you yourself rate the likelihood that you would participate if you have only positive experiences with the dismissed director-director? The case is quite clear framed: those with no complaints will feel less addressed. Moreover, people with good experiences will be less motivated to invest an hour and a half in an interview. Added to this, the emphasis on confidentiality and security implies that there is something to fear.

Given developments, that will deter positively inclined participants. In an expensive word, this is called self-selection bias: chances are life-and-death that this sample will be predominantly made up of people with negative experiences, simply because they are the only ones applying.

Alarm bells

Is that a far-reaching conclusion? Our expert says not. Unravelling was hired by the BoT, which has an interest in a particular outcome. There is no control group or objective baseline measurement. The survey is about perception, not facts. the interviews announced may be highly interpretive.

How do you know what the researchers determine as ‘characteristic’ of the ‘culture’? Nor is there any transparency on how the findings are weighted. This leads to conclusions being difficult to falsify even beforehand. Who could argue against it if the findings are one-sided?

Enough reason, therefore, for any self-respecting journalist to look at the investigation very critically. Only we don't read that in the Volkskrant. Nor do we read what new complaints have emerged from this integrity investigation disguised as a ‘culture investigation’.

The large non-response, combined with the demonstrable failure to approach at least two staff with a positive story, should set off all alarm bells. Unfortunately, the journalist who earlier caused the Volkskrant to be reprimanded uncritically ticks on.

Would the Journalism Council still have a spot in its agenda?

1. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/nl/cultuur-onderzoek/ ︎
2. https://www.bureauintegriteit.nl/onderzoek/integriteitsonderzoek ︎

Appreciate this article!