In the previous staff wellbeing survey – conducted at the end of 2023 – UT received a grade of 7.4. This time, that score has dropped slightly to 7.2 (out of 10). The Net Promoter Score – measuring whether staff would recommend UT as an employer – also declined, from 7.4 to 7.1. Trust in the organisation fell from 7.0 to 6.6.
Vulnerability and trust
To explain the decline, researchers from the faculty of BMS point to the ‘broader context’. ‘The survey was conducted during a period characterised by financial pressure, organisational adjustments and uncertainty about the future of higher education. Our analyses show that employees’ experienced vulnerability during this period is the strongest predictor of reduced trust in the organisation.’
This effect is particularly pronounced at the faculties of ITC and S&T. HR distributed the survey at the end of 2025. At that time, ITC in particular was in the midst of a reorganisation process. As a result, trust among ITC staff fell sharply, from 6.7 in 2023 to 5.3 in 2025. The wellbeing survey also measured employees’ sense of ‘vulnerability’ for the first time. This score was ‘significantly higher’ at ITC and S&T compared to other units within the university.
Work pressure
In other areas, UT appears to have made some gains. Scores for psychological safety have improved, while performance pressure has decreased. Speak-up behaviour has also increased. At the same time, the picture is mixed in other respects: mindfulness scores have declined, whereas autonomy has increased. And while mental well-being has dipped slightly, the score for ‘strain’ is somewhat more positive.
One notable omission in the report is a statistic on experienced work pressure. In the previous wellbeing survey, 49 percent of UT staff reported experiencing high or very high work pressure. Although the question is explicitly included in the survey, no corresponding graph is presented. The report does offer some indication based on qualitative feedback from staff: ‘A large number of comments refer to high work pressure, particularly a heavy teaching load, administrative burden and understaffing as a result of hiring freezes or staff cuts.’
‘Clarity first, then relationships’
The researchers identify several positive and negative factors that influence UT staff wellbeing. In particular, good workplace relationships and respectful leadership contribute to employees’ ability to thrive, they conclude. However, ‘when employees feel exposed to uncertainty about decisions, resources or their professional future, trust in the institution declines, regardless of the quality of interpersonal relationships’.
They therefore argue that the findings have a ‘clear strategic implication’ for UT: ‘Employees consistently link relational wellbeing to organisational conditions, such as clear governance, transparent decision-making, manageable workloads and administrative simplicity.’ Their key insight is described as a ‘sequencing principle’: ‘Structural clarity must precede relational care.’
Executive Board response
In a formal response, the Executive Board acknowledges the report’s conclusions and findings. ‘It clearly shows that the recent period, in which financial challenges, organisational changes and broader societal developments have had an impact, has affected the sense of security and trust within the university. At the same time, we see positive developments, particularly in the area of social safety and the willingness to speak up. The outcomes of this study provide an important compass for further improvements.’
