Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

evaluation reports, that they can understand where the discussions are about, without
reading the evaluation report.
In my narrative I give a sketch of the processes in which our final policy document for
the executive board is produced, leading to themes for further reflection. A more
profound reflection on what happens during the deliberations is undertaken thereafter.
I continue with a reflection from what I understood at that time of a complex
responsive process-perspective on what happens in a process of developing institutional
policy. What I started to learn about my position as an adviser to the board will be
the subject of the last paragraph of my narrative.
4.1 From the first draft to final conclusions and
recommendations
From the first draft to the final report
The step from the first draft of the evaluation report to the third, final report took four
weeks in which the first and second draft of the report was discussed mostly between
Inez Reker, Cees Corte and me. This discussion largely went by e-mail. All the e-mail is
sent by and to Inez Reker, Cees Corte, Marc Claassen, Henk Rademakers and me. The
result of this period was the third and final draft, which was the formal object of the
first meeting of the coordination team regarding this report. Discussion by e-mail
implicated that communication was done in a rather precise formulated way, at least
for my part because I know how easy e-mailed communication can lead to misunderstandings.
On the first incomplete draft of Inez Reker I reacted by putting questions and remarks
in the text and sending them Inez Reker, Cees Corte, Marc Claassen and Henk Rademakers.
My first remarks regarded different points:
- we should talk about core values instead of brand values,
- a technical correction of the percentage of employees who were familiar with the
core values from 55,4 to 76,8%
- the suggestion that the used category ‘neutral’ should be interpreted as an affirmative
score instead of a score for indifference,
- I asked attention for the fact that the results showed that between the employees
and the managers of the UAS there was a gap in understanding and in giving
significance to the core values.
My first three remarks were rather technical, based on what we had agreed upon
earlier and on close reading of the report. The last remark was rather political, because
I wanted to emphasize that in my opinion this kind of change-programmes are rather
pretentious in their goals but quite ineffective in their overall results. And I realized
that the more the conclusions would suppress this difference the less the potential of
this programme at all would be.
90