Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

However, I realize that the broad support for the strategy is no guarantee for its
realization. I still had questions, amongst others provoked by the lack of results of the
preceding strategy. Will the new strategy be realized because it is developed according
to the principles of the wisdom of the crowd and for that reason lacking the sharp
difference between design and implementation? Or will it be realized because its
objectives are formulated in accessible language and where the four main objectives
are converted into activities which are close to business as usual? And what will really
be changed? I even ask myself if a prescribed general strategy is needed or possible,
given that societal developments are different as foreseen and therefore a strategy
always limps. Why should an organization ever need a strategy? And if, what kind of
strategy should that be?
Alongside the wiki project I became engaged as an adviser for our bureau for communication.
In 2009 we started a project on internal and external branding. A high ranking
UAS with a lot of ambitions had to do better on presenting itself. It should have a
recognizable identity in working together. For this project we hired a consulting
company. Together with the consultants from that company we started a programme
in which we revised the architecture of our brand and in which we tried to stimulate
that everyone became inspired and recognized by our brand identity. A strong brand
pays off (Eck et al., 2008; Riel, 2003). In line with the propagated co-creativity the
programme was also designed in such a way that all our faculties and offices became
responsible themselves for introducing and implementing the internal branding. If
wished they could be supported by the consultants of the company. The new brand
was distilled from an analysis of our results, our evaluations, our way of acting and
marketing, and our way of talking about ourselves. Meetings with the board, managing
directors, associate professors, communication officers and employees supported
this analysis.
Despite that bottom up analysis, revising the architecture of the brand and stimulating
a common ground for our identity has proven to be a touchy subject. It also proved to
be an assignment with which managers felt themselves unfamiliar. The reception of
the programme was very different throughout the UAS. In general our offices and four
out of twenty faculties were enthusiastic, around five faculties more or less ignored
the programme and around ten faculties did something about it, but at a lingering
pace.
At the very moment of writing this narrative for me the question regarding this programme
is what will be realized if I will look back in a couple of years? My hypothesis is
that the outcomes will be something else than designed and intended and it is interesting
to know what is really happening in programmes like this. I experience that
outlines are changing, that the way the programme is managed is shifting and that
compromises are sought. Given my convictions I even stimulate adaptation to what is
perceived as possible. However, at the same time I wonder if the proclaimed wisdom
of the crowd – by involving many members of staff in the discussions during the
78