Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

always hierarchical relationship or habitual distrust regarding management. And
sometimes the ascribed responsibility for everything to them is too easily taken for
granted by people. They realize that to keep staying in touch with different opinions
an ongoing attention is needed. What’s more, dissent is also experienced as being at
odds with demands of performativity, as results are wanted. A question asked was
how can we discuss with each other without evaluating each other or assuming that
we are being evaluated? The members of the board acknowledge that dissent is a
tough subject which should not be institutionalized. Surprise should be accommodated.
It has to do with openness, with the acknowledgement of differences and the
preparedness to learn from each other.
Agenda
For the meeting of the think-tank and the members of the board an agenda is mutually
settled:
1 We will start with an exploration on how to discuss with each other. It will be
important to explore a topic and not to prove your point, to stay close to one’s own
experiences and to avoid reproaches.
2 We will discuss topics like the ceremony for the opening of the academic year, the
UAS magazine, the amount of hours of contact for our students and our yearly
networking day for companies.
3 We want to draw some conclusions about stimulating dissent/openness.
The main question will be that apparently it is impossible to discuss about some
issues with sufficient openness and what can be done about this situation. A follow-up
meeting will be planned to reflect and to discuss opportunities.
April – May: the winding up
In the meeting, animated, rather safe and comfortable discussions a lot of topics
passed in review. Dissent or openness was associated with a lack of broad discussion
or critical reflection, negating or masking early warnings, working around instead of
discussing subjects, and having or giving opportunities to discuss. In the discussion the
generally experienced lack of openness was connected to a host of variables: hierarchy,
increased instrumentality, speed and volume in policy, peer pressure and loyalty,
resignation, individual priorities, lack of ownership, cautiousness, existing non-feedback
habits, lack of quality of input, complexity of some subjects, no evaluative traditions,
language games, maintaining myths, external pressures, bad planning and the
lack of social interaction with meaninglessness as a consequence.
What surfaced was captured and summarized by me in the word: interruption. Meaning:
interrupting what you are doing is needed, to create a chance to dwell upon
subjects and after that then - maybe otherwise - carry on. Practical implications could
be more time to reflect about what we are doing, for instance by reflective conversations,
asking more often questions about the practicality of plans, less detailed planning
or putting fake subjects on an agenda to surprise everyone with extra reflection time.
6. A case of consent about dissent | 153