Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

with our management information system, which would complicate the completion of
the indicators.
My participation on this subject was none, at that time not having expertise on this
matter and not being involved in what was done up till then. My outline was discussed
again. In general we agreed that our policy should remain connected to what we
already intended and to do no more than asked for. And it was recognized that we do
not have a strong tradition of strictly planning and strictly realizing. Paul Broersen
hoped that the performance agreements at last would offer the acknowledgment of
our achievements up till then. We feel a bit underappreciated. My summary was,
despite its evanishing tinge, found useful for a meeting of the board and senior management.
I was invited to join, but had to pass for private reasons.
February: wrapped in a second-hand garment
The 8th I got a call from Paul Broersen who invited me to suggest ideas about the
process of establishing the performance agreements. It has become routine in the UAS
to discuss intended policy with senior managers and associate professors. In this case
undoubtedly it was necessary given the obliging character of performance agreements.
From Fiona I understood that apparently the board had asked the two of us to
prepare something for a next meeting with senior management the 2nd of March.
The 17th I came to understand from Fiona that the board expected me and her to
manage the establishment of the performance agreements. It was an odd experience
for me as I was not aware of the question. Maybe I had misunderstood the phone call
of the 8th. We agreed to subdivide the tasks: she would prepare the indicators on
quality and educational success and I the indicators for profiling, spearheads and
valorisation. Together we prepared a precise overview of the indicators, the responsibilities,
the wished for involvement of other employees, the establishment of a taskforce
and a planning in time. We emphasized the importance of communication about
the process.
The 28th was a meeting with the board. Together we mainly restated earlier views
about content and reaffirmed former statements about our position. Out of the blue
for Fiona and me a document written by Paul Broersen was mentioned, which he
wrote as a first move of the profile of the UAS. In the document the characteristics of
the UAS were connected with our standing policy and the already chosen spearheads
in connection with the regional social economic demands. The board itself wanted to
discuss this document before spreading it in the organization. Next day Fiona and I got
this document.
In this meeting we shared uneasiness about the performance agreements: the review
framework was still unknown, we had difficulties in getting unambiguous internal
figures in regard of the performance criteria and about the short time we still had.
120