Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

ecome ‘glass cages’ (Gabriel (2005) cited by Alvesson, 2013) in which every member of
staff is kept in place by the transparency of its performances and the internalization of
organizational values. In line with Foucault (1975) one can speak of the rise of the
panoptical organization. Apparently the discourse of power has changed from external
control on performances to self-control on ultra-performances, exactly because of
all the emphasis on participation and invitation to speak out (Courpasson and Thoenig,
2008).
In line with what Elias (1969) saw as the hallmark of western civilization process, this
intensifying of “Selbstzwang” (self-restraint) is not surprising. One can speak of organizational
refinement of civilized behaviour. Power differences and a strong sense of
interdependency nourish the correctness of organizational behaviour for both supervisors
and subordinates (Soeters and Iterson, 2002). From the perspective of CMS the
discourses promoting participation can be interpreted as a way of centralization of
policy by involving as much as many organization members in the development of
policy. Participation in development of policy is to be interpreted as tactics of complicity
(Metze, 2009), cloaked in empty fashionable concepts like ‘empowerment’ or
‘mean and lean-management’ (Alvesson, 2013).
Emancipatory perspective
The criticism of managerial practices from the CMS-perspective is nourished by an
emancipatory perspective on human society (Alvesson et al., 2009b; Alvesson and
Willmott, 2012). Emancipation will be realized if decision-making processes take direct
account of the will and priorities of diverse stakeholders instead of only the financial
and managerial priorities of the elite. Emancipatory transformation should promote
greater autonomy and responsibility through which human interdependence instead
of individualism can be realized (Alvesson and Willmott, 2012).
Nevertheless, an interesting emancipatory opening can end when people become
locked in into unreflective thinking, causing them to give up their autonomy and to
identify with the priorities of the managerial elite. This is illustrated by research from a
CMS-perspective. Rebelling middle-managers became the successors of their former
senior managers (Courpasson and Thoenig, 2008) and self-management turned into
tight control of fellow workers (Barker, 2005). Therefore a critical reflection and a
critical analysis from a totalizing historical perspective always will be imperative.
Whatever it takes, local “… struggles … must be appreciated as a medium and outcome
of broader processes of transformation” (Alvesson and Willmott, 2012: 197). Apparently
ordinary people are not able to be critical and blamed for a certain functional stupidity:
“... a lack of reflexivity, substantive reasoning, and justification.” (Alvesson and
Spicer, 2012: 1196).
One way in and out
Being suspicious by nature (Mumby, 2004) CMS is all about structural managerial
domination and hegemony. Even when organizational members are participating their
158