Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

that I cooperated with people with busy schedules. Planning a meeting was a lot of
work for the involved secretaries. However, busy schedules explain only partly the
duration of the project. Given the span of time of and the many things which happened
during the project I condensed my narrative by highlighting some issues and by
recapitulating some subjects not in a strictly chronological way. Therefore in my
analysis of and reflections on the narrative sometimes I will mention details which are
not presented in my narrative.
This narrative will have a rather detached tone of voice. The angle taken is a discursive
one with the intention to clarify the cacophony of used arguments (Dekker, 2013) and
the way the organizational reality is framed (Homan, 2013) in these discussions. This
discursive angle also mirrors the rather rational and detached way in which the discussions
evolved. Even when emotionally charged words were used, they were used
rather argumentatively. However, the most important reason to take a discursive
angle is the explorative character of the discussions. There were no big incidents
which preceded these discussions, but of course former personal experiences and
different responsibilities played a part in the arguments used. As will be seen, in due
course the discussions took different turns. My analysis and reflection afterwards will
amongst others elaborate on these turns.
First of all I will present the narrative and the themes which emerged out of the
discussions and reflections upon it (see 6.1 and 6.2). Because dissent has to do with the
topics of power and control I will elaborate on these topics (see 6.3). Departing from
that elaboration I reflect upon the way the discussions about dissent evolved - as
described in my narrative - and which and how arguments are used within these
discussions (see 6.4). To explain the way the arguments are used I focus on how uncertainty
and time are entwined in these discussions (see 6.5) and how this entwinement
of uncertainty and time enable a reflection upon provoking interruption as a
way to enable dissent (see 6.6).
6.1 A narrative about consent about dissent
December – March: a long prelude
Paul Broersen (President of the Board) and I discussed the necessity of appointing me
as a Corporate Critical Friend. I argued that there is an upcoming appeal to appoint
corporate jesters to prevent mismanaging (e.g. Heuvel, 2012; Välikangas and Sevon,
2010). Regarding the UAS amongst others Paul and I discussed that openness or
critical feedback was wished for. Rather thoughtless I talked about the need of ‘countervailing
power’, a concept that strongly emphasizes opposite interests. This was
instantly replaced by Paul with ‘dissenting opinions’, a concept that emphasizes disagreement.
I assumed that the topic at hand is touchy and complicated, as it is about
existing hierarchical relations. Therefore I thought it not clever to discuss exact definitions,
because immediately the discussion would be about an interpretation of the
6. A case of consent about dissent | 147