Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

security. For a discussion with one of the members of the board he has not found an
opportunity. In discussing why he has not found an opportunity issues like postponement
of difficult questions, difficulties to be honest, hesitations to discuss things with
the captain but also a felt growing inaccessibility for feedback or dissenting opinions
by the President go by as an explanation. The acting of the board is experienced as
more and more technocratic, focussed on the performance agreements and alienating
senior managers by deciding and unexpectedly presenting topics in an unclear and
inconsistent way. Deans and directors live under the impression that the members of
the board are annoyed with critical questions and even exclude critical managers. It is
the personal experience of Dan but also to be noticed during meetings of senior managers
and reflected in the high rate of turnover in senior management. Fiona shares
her experience, as relatively new in the organization she successively became amazed,
irritated, fascinated and almost cynical about the way topics are (seemingly) not
discussed, not evaluated or are organised in an arbitrary way. It seems as if the expertise
of external advisers is more trusted than the present internal expertise. Although
it is recognized that the pressure of external stakeholders is huge, it brings urgency
and many obligations regarding accountability about. There is a dire need for a broad
discussion, according to Detlef and Dolf, in which the sense and significance of the
different topics of policy are discussed.
Back to the topic of dissenting voices it still is the question how this lack of discussion
can be explained. Fiona did some explorations in her department. She encourages her
colleagues to be open-minded and critical, notices that piecemeal people start to be
more feedback-minded, but also recognizes that it took a colleague one month to give
her feedback on an apparently unfortunate joke she had made. Often the secretary of
the manager knows more about the criticisms and acts as a hatch.
The question whether everybody is afraid to be critical comes up. The reticence in
being critical might be explained by feelings of vulnerability, by wanting to be a congruent
person, by showing avoidance and tactical behaviour, by being loyal and the
wish to uphold good working relations. Important seems to be a bit of a calculating
approach in which everybody chooses his battles instead of fighting for every inch.
Striking is the lack of tactical behaviour. As far as known deans and directors build no
tactical coalitions and do not oppose in a strong way.
It is also acknowledged that it is not the board alone which brings about this situation.
It is a common dynamic within management. It also is an interesting question how
every dean or director manages dissenting voices, which is underlined by Olivia who is
confronted with conflicts and complaints of members of staff from different departments.
Good practices of inter-subjective evaluations might give a hint how to manage
difference in opinions. Not everything is to be interpreted as a clash or opposition,
a well-organized dialogue might help.
6. A case of consent about dissent | 151