Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

king became visible, a way of decision making sometimes supported by lucky coincidences.
In the narrative is to observe which folds are smoothed over in the final document
regarding the performance agreements.
With respect to my position and my acting I again asked the question if in my work as
an adviser traits of a jestership were to be recognized. To explore I related my work to
the work of a consultant, a profession which evolved from the beginning of the twentieth
century. I explored and criticized the role of an adviser from a complex responsive
process perspective. In the process of drawing up the agreements complex responsivity
became apparent by mapping which unforeseen occurrences and the way micropower
within interdependent relations, ‘helped’ to bring about the final results. The
perspective on the efforts of a jester was accentuated. In a foolish and unpredictable
world - in which Higher Education is subjected to a way of producing education comparable
to the way McDonalds produces food - the jester appeared of use as a nonthreatening
mediator among a lot of different points of view. Although, by reading
about the presence of a bricoleur new questions about my jestership evolved. In
chapter 7 I will come back to that.
Consent about dissent
The intensive journalistic and political attention paid to mismanagement in amongst
others some educational institutions put the subject of jestership also on the agenda
of the Executive Board. An appointment of me as a Corporate Critical Friend was
considered, as one of the possibilities to prevent abuses. For different reasons this idea
was abandoned.
In the narrative (in chapter 6) I recount about what discussions arose about the idea of
constructive dissent. Stimulating constructing dissent is a topic which is put on the
agenda by the Ministry of Education in order to prevent mismanagement in Higher
Education. The discussions were held within the Executive Board, within and sometimes
together with a think tank which I organized to that purpose. It appeared to be
easier to discuss about the necessity of dissent, than to have a dissenting discussion
about a topic. Hierarchy, power and strategy remained present in every conversation.
From an exploration of literature I learned that the approach of power issues from the
tradition of Critical Management Studies is rather unilateral and linear. As if management
is the big wrongdoer and every times finds ways to push through its interests.
From an analysis and a reflection from a complex responsive process-perspective it
became clear that management is no monolithic entity and as everybody wrestles
with the style of management which is imposed by for instance the performance
agreements. This wrestling happens all the time and an important conclusion is that
one should find more opportunity to dwell on what we ‘actually’ are doing.
238