Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

discussing with and among them what is happening and should be done? A second
paradox of the plan is that the plan builds on the quality of the educational professionals
and at the same time reduces their present-day involvement and professionalism
in a quite depreciatory way. The paradox is strikingly voiced by Prick, one the most
influential Dutch critics on educational policy: “in the Netherlands it would be a good
thing if the teacher would get more trust and space. But that is only possible if he or
she is well educated.” (in Kneyber, 2013: 39).
The plan also depreciates present-day members of boards and managers in a strong
way, which by the way is quite common in the discussion about what is wrong in
education (Metze, 2011; Verkroost, 2012; Wild, 2013; Wit, 2013). Apparently members of
the boards and managers must be seen as the uncritical accomplices of management
consultants, who according to McKenna (2006) from the 1950s penetrated the nonprofit
sector with their tools and techniques. Are management consultants - or all the
MBA-trained managers (Metze, 2011) - then the specific group of people or organizations
who planned (or at least caused) the apparent lack of quality of education? Or
everything else that apparently is wrong in education?
My research from a complex responsive process-perspective and the Delta plan
The narratives, analyses and reflections about identity-management and the drawing
of the performance agreements illustrate that plans neither are produced nor implemented
in a linear and rational way. And somehow these narratives, or better: the
interactions as described in the narratives reveal that there is an ongoing, partly
hidden debate about how performativity invades organizational life. Recapitulating
therefore, from my research I conclude that a Delta plan or such a thing as performance
agreements keep on being confronted with a double barrier. First of all it may
be obvious that performativity as such is debated in daily practice. Second it may be
obvious that daily practice is not to be organized according to a blueprint. From the
perspective of a complex responsive process-approach, reform cannot successfully
organized or imposed, but it will be an evolving connection by taking close interest in
what people are doing, by being far more iterative and self-reflective about what
management is doing itself, by engaging in the politics of everyday life in organizations
and by being aware of the richness and potential of experience (Groot, 2010b; Mowles,
2011). Once again it is far more appropriate to start working and exploring with the
people, to figure out what works and what not, to make sense of what happens and to
be prepared to discover unexpected solutions.
To conclude: although research from a complex responsive process-perspective is
neither research based on a representative sample taken from a large population, nor
research based on in-depth interviews with experts in the field, the research still
offers a meaningful contribution to general discussions about education.
7. <strong>Rumbling</strong> on performativity: a reflexive perspective on advisory work | 201