Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

that in my job now, I have to manage between ambitions from the top, interests of
different parties and my own beliefs and experiences.
To conclude: in a broad and general sense my research is a reflection on my experiences
with the policymaking and implementing in the realm of performativity within a
UAS. Focus will be on my position as an adviser of the board trying to figure out what
kind of work I am doing and what can be learned from my experiences. Point of departure
is my particular experience that we realize other things than we plan, apparently
we are doing good things and yet at the same time we are criticized for what we are
doing. To phrase this otherwise: I am not interested in designing an umpteenth instrumental
improvement of developing and implementing policy. I am interested in what
happens in the organization I work for when we are busy with ‘doing policy’.
As being involved in ‘doing policy’ and seeing what it brings, I had a hunch that I required
a research approach where the researcher is not positioned as looking from the
outside, but is positioned as an involved participant in what happens. After all, I was
there, the research concerned my ‘personal’ experiences and the questions which I
experienced as worthwhile evolved in my practice.
1.3 Insider research and ‘personal’ experiences within
Organization and Management Studies
When I state ‘a reflection on my experiences’ I literally mean a reflexive way of doing
research. My research departs from my own experiences, by taking my experiences
seriously and by trying to understand them. My research is done from a ‘personal’
perspective.
The possibility of doing research from a ‘personal’ orientation does not appear out of
the blue. The growing interest in research form a ‘personal’ perspective is embedded in
current discussions within the field of OMS. These discussions have to do with the
practical value of OMS-research, amongst others for the way organizations can or
should be managed (Bartunek and Egri, 2012; Mohrman and Lawler, 2012; Suddaby et
al., 2011). On one side there still is a firm believe that with a systematic use of general
management instruments the overall results of an organization will improve (Cozijnsen,
2004; Kaplan and Norton, 2004). In a recent overview about the most vital ways
to develop organizational strategies Vijverberg and Opdenakker (2013) claim that a
manager cannot do without strategy if he wants to secure the future. Even more,
Vijverberg and Opdenakker are convinced that for successful improvements a deliberate
use of many managerial instruments is decisive. On the other side there is very little
evidence for the proclaimed overall improvement by using managerial instruments.
Recent research underlines that intended strategy has unintended outcomes (Balogun
and Johnson, 2005; Groot and Homan, 2012; Homan, 2013; Suominen, 2009). Moreover,
Brunsson (1989) found that formal policy has little to do with what actually is carried
16