Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

Thus one of the results of our deliberations is that we reify the core values as if they
can and should be managed and controlled from above or outside by someone. For me
this reification is not something that endangers personal freedom (Stacey, 2007). I
mostly wonder whether this kind of reification has contra productive effects. Shotter
speaks of entrapment of the imagined “while any attempt to complete them [in this
case the core values - FS] as real objects destroys their nature, and can lead to an
enclosed (mechanical) form of social life.” (Shotter, 1993: 80; italics Shotter). It makes
me wonder if my co-creative preferences are illusions. If the bottom line is that diversity
and cooperation are asked, what then are the consequences for the way we act
after having written down these ambitions? Whatever I or we do, it seems always to
get associated with some kind of management control.
I suppose there are contingencies which have to do with the way discussions unfold in
the interactions in the coordination team, with the results as documented. I want to
explore them. Contingencies also may have to do with my position as an adviser of the
board. In general my work implies that I prepare conclusions which formally have to be
drawn by the members of the executive board. Probably my effectiveness depends on
more than just my opinion regarding some subjects. I realize that I also have to produce
something that is accepted and acceptable for many other people.
4.5 Psychological interdependency: social contagion and cognitive
dissonance
Are the conclusions and recommendations of the members of the coordination team a
sum of well-considered arguments? I would say that the results are a matter of mutual
influence during a lot of formal and informal conversations. The almost taken for
granted repression of a top down approach is the most obvious example. However, the
apparent avoidance of discussions on topics as the critical remarks made on the
managers, the compromises in interpretations of the report or remarks on the used
branding model also show a lack of argumentation or even negotiation. We never
discussed explicitly our different perspectives on how to develop or change an organization.
Is this lack of fundamental discussions to explain because the people involved
in the coordination team have good working relations and would fundamental discussions
have brought with them the risk of tearing down the curtain of smooth cooperation?
Interdependency
Did the members of the coordination team agree beforehand on the main subjects so
there was nothing to discuss? Were the members part of an organizational prefabweb
in which is regulated how to interpret different kind of subjects and how to
behave properly? Or was the team busy with political games in which the winner
takes it all (Homan, 2001)?
100