Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

The members of the coordination team have different perspectives on subjects, as
became clear during the discussions. Cees Corte in representing the commercial
company has great interests in the effective results of the programme. We use his
company’s model for our programme and success or failure of the programme reflects
on his business and reputation. Henk Rademakers as the director HR feels involved in
this programme because from within his professional discipline he understands that to
get employees committed is an important assignment for organizations. And core
values are an appropriate bonding agent, although for some time Rademakers felt
impeded by formal barriers to design his instruments upon them. Marc Claassen as
the director marketing and communication approaches the core values as an important
marker for efforts to stimulate reciprocal communication between management
and staff. For me our conclusions should be a snapshot of an ongoing dynamic and
development process and I am rather doubtful about an instrumental policy regarding
implementation of core values.
The lack of political games given the presence of different interests is amazing. However,
I suppose that the dominant organizational culture of politeness in the UAS is
insufficient to explain the lack of argumentation or negotiation. In practice the members
of the coordination team share a responsibility assigned to them and whatever
personal considerations, we have to draw up an advice for the board. Moreover, as a
matter of fact we are too far advanced with the branding programme to start fundamental
discussions (if we ever did...). And of course we know each other, are used to
each other and have developed an own pattern of interaction. For the coordination
team the programme has become a social object (Mead, 1934). I assume that the
common history of the team is one of the reasons that a great deal of the discussions
can be pursued by e-mail, since the members do not have relational issues to settle
(Block, 1996). In the conversations in the coordination team different interests, an own
and a common history, and an organizational obligation intermingle in a process out of
which conclusions and recommendations smoothly emerge. Maybe the members of
the coordination team are early representatives of a new species, the homo dictuus, and
a species which is determined by its connectivity and therefore ready to accept different
points of view (Christakis and Fowler, 2010). We are connected; our most common
feature is our interdependency (Elias, 1969).
In my experience interdependency has a dimension through which we are aware that
we have to work together. We are aware that it is impossible to superimpose unilaterally
our perspective on other people. This awareness is part of our strategic mental
make-up which evolved in the civilized western industrialized society (Elias, 1969). In
practice I observe that the most common and dominant strategic behaviour is expressed
through a polite interchange of arguments. Conversation is our way to deal
with matters. Given our common mental make-up one cannot decide to be or not to
be strategic, history has ‘programmed’ us to be strategic, it has become our normality
(Foucault, 1963).
4. Sense making in and of the internal branding project | 101