Zurich commission criticises University of Zurich leadership

A routine parliamentary endorsement is now in doubt. The Zurich Cantonal Council’s Supervisory Commission for Education and Health, known by its German initials ABG, says it intends to withhold approval of the University of Zurich’s annual report. The commission set out its position on Thursday, October 22, 2026, turning an ordinarily straightforward step into a dispute over how the university is led and supervised.

The ABG prepares the annual report for consideration by the Cantonal Council. In most years, its recommendation to approve the report is followed without difficulty. This time, the commission has issued sharp criticism of the university’s management and says some people in leadership roles are not suited to them.

The Cantonal Council is due to discuss the report at a forthcoming meeting. The commission’s objections are expected to be raised during that debate, putting the university’s leadership practices and its accountability to elected representatives on the agenda.

The commission wants leadership ability to count for more. The ABG says the University of Zurich should give greater weight to management skills when selecting and training senior staff. It describes the university’s approach as an “outdated approach to leadership” and points to major shortcomings among senior management.

The criticism reaches beyond individual appointments. By calling for leadership skills to shape both recruitment and training, the commission is challenging how the university prepares people for senior responsibilities. Its concern is that academic standing alone does not ensure someone is equipped to manage an institution or lead its staff.

The commission’s statement says some people currently in management positions are not suited to their roles. That assessment gives the dispute a direct institutional focus: the university must address how it chooses and develops its leaders. The ABG’s intended refusal to approve the annual report adds parliamentary pressure to its call for change, although the Cantonal Council will have the final say when it debates the report.

Cooperation with the University Hospital remains a second pressure point. The ABG says information exchange between the University of Zurich and the hospital has improved significantly. Yet it still sees difficulty finding joint solutions when problems arise around people with dual appointments, who work at both institutions.

Those overlapping roles connect two organisations, but the commission says they can complicate efforts to resolve disputes. Its assessment distinguishes between better communication in general and the harder task of agreeing on a response when a specific problem involves a staff member with responsibilities in both places.

The commission described itself as “concerned” about ongoing problems in the relationship. Its comments place the university’s management challenge in a wider institutional setting, where decisions and responsibilities cross between the university and the hospital. The ABG’s criticism makes clear that it expects improvement not only in exchanges of information, but also in the ability of the two institutions to work through issues jointly.