Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

led a discussion about an internalization approach, even started doubting the used
model within the programme. Apparently my strategy was to bring the programme as
close as possible to ‘the shop floor’ instead of even suggesting that we could inject the
mind-sets of the colleagues with the true values. Although at the same time I realized
that the identity-management programme was developed on quite a distance of the
shop floor. I see that for my part I made the best of everything as a sort of compromise
between what I prefer and what is assumed to be possible with an identity-management
programme. My preference for involving as many members of staff as possible
and my doubts about a rational approach of change made themselves felt. I even
suppose and noticed that the others involved – apart from the institutional researcher
- became more modest in their ambitions regarding the possibilities of an identitymanagement
programme. Whatever, the way I reflected upon my acting together
with the members of the learning group triggered question about my professional
identity. Pointed the way I acted despite my bunch of inconsistent taken for granted
assumptions towards acting as a jester?
Performance agreements
In the narrative about the performance agreements I apparently succeeded in producing
a document while toning down ambitions. Dominantly for my part I propagated
an approach in which we stay connected to what we are already doing, by staying
connected to our daily activities and by pointing to our inabilities. More or less my
acting was aimed at slowing down the amount of new policy, to guard members of
staff from a next and new set of critical performance indicators. Instead of endorsing a
planned change-approach after we had concluded the performance agreements,
together with a colleague I propagated some sort of conversational self-organizing
approach. I was running a project of which I felt restrained, convinced that these
performance agreements are not a very effective way of improving quality of Higher
Education. In producing the document for my part I somehow bridged the different
opinions and interests of different people about content and ambitiousness. Precisely
my bridging while showing doubts about the value and attainability of the performance
agreements, ignited again a reflection about corporate jestership.
Consent about dissent
Strictly speaking I should have shown much enthusiasm in doing what was described
in the narrative about dissent. After all, the discussions opened ways to reflect more or
less openly about some touchy issues. In my mind I was very happy with the opportunities.
I felt backed up in my calling attention for openness and acting as a corporate
jester. I was well aware of the fact that we started to do rather brave things. However,
still I acted aloof. Exploring touchy issues needs to be done carefully and cautiously out
of respect for the vulnerability of the involved persons and practically because we are
colleagues who have to move on jointly. Moreover, being on uncharted territory
implicates that I did not know how things would evolve and that I should be able to
adapt to new circumstances. In times I had to conquer my doubts that this was accepted,
without being accounted for concrete targets.
178