Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

ons. As a subject as such performativity was not put on the agenda, but it was there in
different remarks, worries and evaluations. It is interesting to notice that performativity
is debated, criticized and accommodated to daily practices and far from being
idealized as the preferable managerial way to act.
From our local discussions
For me it has become obvious that the assumed learnification of education (Biesta,
2012) can be recognized in the way the UAS, ‘should’ be managed, but that in practice
this way of management is accommodated, criticized and if needed evaded. The way
of working suggests a bit of hypocritical (Brunsson, 1989) muddling through (Lindblom,
1959).
From the narratives and the discussions among the many involved it may be clear that
NPM in its different manifestations is not a clear cut topic, it is neither embraced nor
implemented in a straight way. The different topics - like institutional identity, performance
agreements – belong to the discourse of NPM and thus have to be planned and
prescribed. At the same time they are adapted, altered, re-interpreted and kept away.
The discussions in the last narrative even explored the boundaries of what we are
doing. Should not we take more time to reflect upon what we are doing? Should we
not interrupt our daily business to reflect about why and how we are doing the things
we do?
In these discussions discomfort with NPM shines through. It is not that the members
of the board and the managers are the unmoved and uncritical apostles of NPM. We
are struggling to seek ways to take care of the interests of many stakeholders. I think
the narratives indicate that taking part and taking a position in the debate about NPM
is quite difficult and that talking about this difficulty as such is even more difficult,
although it is emphasized that talking about the last topic would be meaningful.
Equally important is to notice that the narratives exemplify that management is not a
monolithic entity in an organization, but a group of people who have different and
contradictory interests. The often depreciatory framing of managers (Alvesson and
Willmott, 2012; Metze, 2011; Verkroost, 2012; Wild, 2013; Wit, 2013) can be put in perspective.
In daily reality among managers there are ongoing negotiations and interpretations,
contagiously seeking ways out of trouble and taking care of many interests.
And every time it is unpredictable what these discussions may bring. Maybe the
discussions about dissent even provoke a “… hesitatingly space for little stories, the
cautious unmasking, the light irony with which things and people are described, which
in due course form counterpoints which turn over the system, and are the raw material
for a different story in which people prosper in a better way.” (Brinkgreve, 2014:
146).
Change and reform of educational practices happen all day long, emerging in local
conversations. In these conversations people construe and re-construe their reality
188