Crise de gouvernance

Les innombrables crises de gouvernance des établissements publics (EP) ne sont pas dues au hazard. Au Luxembourg, il n'existe pas de cadre juridique pour les EP. Ceux-ci sont dotés de lois bricolées sur mesure par des fonctionnaires à chapeaux multiples. Pour l'enseignement supérieur et la recherche, toutes les structures opérationnelles sont des EP. Depuis quelques années, on a pu observer des crises récurrentes dans tous ces EP. La gouvernance politique se réduit souvent à un déni de réalité, on reprend les mêmes, on laisse faire et les mêmes causes produiront immanquablement les mêmes effets.

La crise de fusion des deux CRP et le lancement raté du LIST ont été accompagnés d'une succession d'actes violents, de destruction morale des personnes et des acquis par une clique de copains interchangeables. La guerre des chefs est d'une rare brutalité.

Thomas Kallstenius termine de façon remarquable  son premier mois passé à la tête du LIST. Il invite ses collaborateurs au dialogue, mais la peur  règne toujours dans les équipes. La Gazette continue à recevoir de nombreux témoignages anonymes. Cela n'est pas sain. J'invite tous les membres du personnel qui veulent témoigner à le faire auprès de Thomas Kallstenius. Les commentaires anonymes, injurieux ou sans lien explicite avec l'article ne seront pas publiés. Priorité sera donnée aux questions de fond et à l'analyse des dysfonctionnements du passée.

Claude Wehenkel

Témoignage

An example of the openness to dialogue practised at LIST: the collaborative council

On his first day of office, Thomas Kallstenius has sent an email to all LIST staff. In it, he let us know that he will meet everyone, first the personal delegation and the collaborative council (members of the staff elected to advise the board of directors over scientific and strategic matters), then all staff in small group meetings. Good initiative, very good initiative. Just a word of warning to him. The so-called collaborative council is so collaborative that in its two years of existence, it has sent exactly ONE newsletter to the staff it is supposed to represent. No information session, no regular news about the agenda of the next meetings with the board of directors (so that staff could react by making proposals to whatever subject was to be discussed, you know). This is typical of the LIST mentality: once an ounce of power is delegated to someone, that person or group will feel entitled to do whatever it pleases without consulting the rest of the staff. How the council can represent people it never communicates with is a mystery to me. In his email, Thomas Kallstenius cited someone called Ken Blanchard, who apparently said: “No one of us is smarter than all of us”. If that means working together, openly, honestly and without hierarchical barriers, well, dear Thomas Kallstenius, I am afraid that the LIST is the absolute opposite. At LIST, most people work “for” someone.

Pablo N.

A litre ou à relire

Jeudi 27 octobre 2016 (1): la crise du LIST fait la "Une" du QUOTIDIEN qui publie en pages intérieures un dossier accablant. 

f

Télécharger 

Témoinage

Reforming radically the human resource management

In the email sent by Thomas Kallstenius on his first day in office, one could also learn that Fernand Reinig would “ focus on two special projects from now until the summer: Human Resources and the transition period of [...] our new Director of Administration and Finance ”. He did the same job at CRP-CUL/Lippmann during 27 years. Let us be honest here, Mister Reinig is absolutely not the right person for these two “special projects”.

A l'origine de La Gazette en 2015

Discours de remerciement lors de la remise du FNR Special Award 16.10.201

Merci Här Président,

No souvill Komplimenter fir meng Persoun, erlabt mer och a

Kompliment un Iech ze adresséiren. Den FNR huet sech no engem

zimlech kaoteschen Start am Johr 1999 permanent verbessert, an

daat besonnescht ënnert ärer Présidence. Bravo.

Analyse/Réflexion/Témoinage

LIST: a dangerous monopoly

One of the main reasons given by the government to merge both CRP Lippmann and CRP Tudor was to reach “critical mass” in research areas that were covered by both centres. Theoretically, it made sense, but left open the possibility of creating a monopoly, which is not necessarily a growth fostering situation. I cannot say for sure for the material sciences and IT departments, but as far as the environmental sciences at LIST are concerned, it has sadly turned out this way. There is within the ERIN management a extremely strong tendency to establish and expand its monopoly over environmental research, and after the disappearance of the two separate entities that were the CRPs, this is bad news. I will explain why.

Firstly, one has to understand that the energy propelling the ERIN management is at its core the