Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

publish these findings in this way, but we never discussed it. In between we agreed
that the report and conclusions could be informally discussed in already arranged
meetings with managers and the board. We did not want to be secretive about the
results, although we made the restriction that these conclusions were preliminary.
Before the meeting I stipulated by e-mail that we agreed to speak about core values,
and that there are differences in making sense of the core values between employees
individually and the managers. I thought this of importance to prevent a possible
interpretation that a high familiarity with the values meant that everybody felt the
same way. We discussed the same topic in the meeting of the coordination team. I
supposed that Cees Corte wanted to report positive results of their efforts. For me it
was important to show that although nominally 77 % agreed upon knowing the
values, there still was a loose identification of the professional with the organization
as such. I did not want to advance illusions about artificial general avowal. During the
meeting we agreed upon a formula in which differences are acknowledged within a
surprisingly high familiarity with the core values. With malicious fun all of us had
examples of how we acknowledge the values, but practice something else. For instance
a core value is openness, but in practice many procedures start from distrust regarding
the honesty and dedication of members of staff.
After the meeting Cees Corte and I edited the text by replacing evocative and too
technical terms. For instance a statement as ‘a general manifest attitude’ was replaced
through ‘an often pointed out attitude’ to reduce the implicated bias of the first. We
knew that ill-chosen terms would bring about un-prolific reactions. The edited version
was sent to the board. Before the presentation in the board I discussed the main
issues with the President of the Board, to inform him as the member of the board
responsible for this programme.
My purpose was to sustain conversations about the identity of the UAS in any form
and not to foreclose discussions. I thought it important that people keep on talking on
who we are or should be. Beforehand Cees Corte and I had the idea to introduce the
idea of open conversations; the up till then used term cascade-conversations appeared
to be ill chosen because of its suggestion of top down interventions. For me
open conversations were a way of introducing elements of unpredictability in the
organization. Anything should be talked over with maybe surprising effects.
From the presentation to the final conclusions and recommendations
The meeting with the board was in two ways important to us as the coordination
team. First the board should (re)identify with the programme and validate our conclusions
and recommendations, formally to be supported by a decision which would be
made public in the organization. Second the conclusions and recommendations should
be integrated into other policy, for instance in the human resources-policy. For the
coordination team working towards and starting from this meeting was decisive for
further actions. This way of working matched our regular way of working: our executive
board is the alpha and omega of formal policy.
92