Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

However, as mentioned before, the question remains how to explain that deciding on
a strategy - vision, mission, targets included - has no consistent consequences for
what will be done in an organization (Aardema, 2010; Brunsson, 1989)? If Homan
(2005) states that up to 80% of all changes in organizations emerge spontaneously
within polyvocal processes, one can hardly assume that an organization is crowded
with passive consumers (see also Burnes, 2005). Research underlines that intended
strategy has unintended outcomes in which for instance middle managers actively
consume and transform the organizational strategy (Balogun and Johnson, 2005;
Groot and Homan, 2012; Suominen, 2009).
Obviously plans, policy and managerial decisions do not enjoy a straight forward
transformation into the daily organizational reality. Apparently the organizational
Panopticons do not work properly, as far as a panoptical perspective departs from a
rather linear view on strategy and implementation. One can interpret this lack of
straight forwardness as a token of resistance to change from a social technological
perspective on change management (Cozijnsen, 2004; Szabla, 2007), from a political
point of view as opposition (Scott, 1990) or rebellion (Courpasson, 2011), or as a source
of organizational resilience from an interactionist perspective (Aardema, 2010; Brunsson,
1989; Weick and Sutcliffe, 2007). Even rumours can be interpreted as a way of
transformation of formal policy (Ginneken, 1999; Kimmel, 2004). Basically the question
is: what happened in the discussions regarding dissent?
Different discourses
During the discussions about dissent aspects of different perspectives came into play.
The involved tapped out of different discourses and thought over the different arguments
without appealing to an unambiguous position. To clarify what I mean I highlight
some issues out of the narrative. Table 3 gives a brief summary of used arguments
with regard to different perspectives.
A social technological perspective is recognizable in a meeting with the board members,
when stated by one of the board-members that dissent and discussion is okay,
but that we can’t afford to discuss every time too much and too long. Things have to
be decided. From a social technological perspective it is imperative that change should
be short termed, “… changing too slow must be prevented in any case.” (Cozijnsen,
2004: 32). Planned organizational change is depending on management and control of
the different phases of change and is tenacious in the belief that organizational development
can be speeded up. Local subcultures, personal priorities, hidden rules and
emotions are resistant obstacles for needed change (Cozijnsen, 2004). It is obvious
that the used argument, through which the need for quick deciding is taken for granted,
draws from a social technological discourse. Seen through the eyes of a member
of the board who sees his or her many target-responsibilities as self-evident, it seems
to be a logical argument. Although one might wonder if daily experiences do not point
into another direction.
160