Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

you act and its implications. I experience that Paul Broersen is receptive for my ideas,
but that his concern is more about risk management.
Session 1
A first meeting with the think-tank is planned. I emphasized that for me a think-tank
works in an open setting. To prepare for the first meeting I suggested a reflection
upon what the members themselves would not discuss with the board and what
subordinates supposedly would not discuss with them. I have invited Daniëlle Faassen,
a dean of a faculty, rather recently appointed, coming from another organization and
thus with a fresh mind regarding our organization. Olivia Maas I invited because she is
our ombudsman and often confronted with troubles in our organization. Furthermore
I have invited two directors for educational development and policy of two different
faculties, known by me as critical regarding our institutional policy. Their names are
Dan Ebbers and Dolf Peters. Apart from his critical mind I invited Detlef Aarts, dean of
a faculty, to include artistic possibilities of dissenting voices. Moreover, I invited Fiona
Cornips, director Finance and Control, already known by the reader as a critical companion
in my work regarding the performance agreements (chapter 5).
In the first meeting my colleagues express different reasons why they like to participate.
Curiosity how hierarchy works (DF), concern about integrity (OM), needed
quality of professionals (DE), experienced perversion of some policy (DP), consequences
of unexpressed dissenting voices but practised obstruction (FC) and exploring the
reality of factual and needed dissenting voices (DA) are their main concerns. Quite
some topics are reviewed: the (classical) disconnection of shop floor and management,
the present cynicism, indifference or unfamiliarity with the formal policy, the feel good
way the UAS is presented in our internal and external communication, but also the
hypersensitivity for negative feedback and the fear to give feedback. The fear of losing
one’s face might be strong from the top downwards and vice versa and might be one
of the reasons for the distaste for the pedometers of quality control. Also an experienced
contradiction between a needed pedagogical tolerance in education and the
strictness of performance oriented policy, and the in praxis unmanageable self-organizing
character of reality are not openly discussed. In discussing the self-experiences
about the lack of dissenting voices topics as courtesy, fear, carefulness, power relatedness,
cultural traditions, context and tactical avoidance of subjects are reviewed. It is
also obvious that as a manager you have to deal with many different stakeholders, but
as Detlef pointed out, in reflecting on his self-experience he wondered why for instance
he did not discuss with the President of the Board that our last ceremony for the
start of the year was a bad experience for him. And why he did not discuss his critical
opinion about some contributions with the contributors. Experiences we all share!
Session 2
Detlef tells that he has found a moment to discuss his criticisms on our opening ceremony
with a member of his staff who was co-responsible for the ceremony. An important
observation is that to criticize you need a situation à deux to ensure a sense of
150