Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon
Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon
Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
whether a c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> would be realistic or acceptable. Our editing of the text to avoid<br />
evocative expressi<strong>on</strong>s elucidates that. That being aware of some<strong>on</strong>e else’s opini<strong>on</strong>s is<br />
what Mead would call the presence of generalized others, through which the members<br />
of the coordinati<strong>on</strong> not <strong>on</strong>ly can be members of staff of the same UAS but also<br />
bear in mind that they work for and with colleagues and that they share with them a<br />
lot of ideas <strong>on</strong> our reality.<br />
Evaluati<strong>on</strong><br />
I c<strong>on</strong>clude that my advisory work of preparing c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s which others formally have<br />
to draw, is far from being a shrewd game of framing. From the very first beginning<br />
unavoidably I bear the others in my mind. It’s not me who makes the differences, it is a<br />
joint effort. Philosophically spoken I even d<strong>on</strong>’t exist, although my ‘I’ exists. I cannot<br />
imagine my work without the (virtual) presence of the other. By definiti<strong>on</strong> an advisory<br />
positi<strong>on</strong> is interrelated and <strong>on</strong>e can hardly discern the input of participants. Yet <strong>on</strong>ce a<br />
year my superior and I show logical behaviour by being illogical. In our yearly evaluati<strong>on</strong><br />
we commit an ex post facto fact fallacy (Shotter, 1993) by suggesting that all my<br />
work was d<strong>on</strong>e by me. As my b<strong>on</strong>us depends <strong>on</strong> this fallacy, I can live with that.<br />
4.7 Reflecti<strong>on</strong>s from a complex resp<strong>on</strong>sive process-perspective<br />
Looking back to the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s as produced by the coordinati<strong>on</strong><br />
team, I am both happy and disappointed with the results. I am disappointed<br />
because the results are a mixture of different perspectives <strong>on</strong> development and change,<br />
a sort of impossible mixture of planning and planned sp<strong>on</strong>taneity. I am happy<br />
perhaps because at the end the introducti<strong>on</strong> of open c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong>s gave me hope of<br />
having promoted a stimulus for self-organizati<strong>on</strong>. From a comm<strong>on</strong> sense point of view<br />
I could call the results lame compromises. However, reflecti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> self-organizati<strong>on</strong><br />
from a complex resp<strong>on</strong>sive process-perspective may elucidate other dimensi<strong>on</strong>s to<br />
explain what happened.<br />
Management c<strong>on</strong>trol it will be<br />
Although, at the end <strong>on</strong>e could say that the way we worked is quite exploratory by<br />
allowing ourselves to share and c<strong>on</strong>verge our opini<strong>on</strong>s, the results (including the<br />
planning of open c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong>s) are an expressi<strong>on</strong> of management c<strong>on</strong>trol (Speklé,<br />
2002). It is as if we proclaim the importance of self-organizati<strong>on</strong>, but being not c<strong>on</strong>fident<br />
in its outcomes, we plan the self-organizati<strong>on</strong> in open c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong>s. That is why<br />
I called it a paradox of planned sp<strong>on</strong>taneity, but presumably in practice it will turn out<br />
as something that is experienced as invented by the staff of the UAS, agreed up<strong>on</strong> by<br />
the board and to be implemented by some members of staff. At the end I assume that<br />
it will still be experienced as a m<strong>on</strong>ovocal Homan (2005, 2006) and planned change<br />
initiated by the top and thus fruitless according to its own standards and unpredictable<br />
in its outcome. It appears to be a victory for the social-systems change discourse in<br />
which (quasi outside) managers and experts are making plans which have to be reali-<br />
108