Quite some cases of failure of policy or mismanagement are reported. Mismanagement among others in software companies, financial institutions, institutions for the care of elderly people and institutions for education arouse quite some societal and political dissatisfaction. Resigning board members, judicial investigations or imposed controls are consequences.

Apparently a deterioration within organizations happens gradually. Moreover, in the era of New Public Management the requirement to plan and control is so excessive, that deteriorations lie in ambush. In hindsight often it is a question when and why early warnings were not taken seriously.

As an advisor to the executive board - in practice a bit cloaked as the organizational fool - being aware of the risks for mismanagement of our university and spurred on by a letter of the Dutch Minister and State Secretary of Education, in which they announced the obligation to organize constructive dissenting voices, I instigated a project ‘consent about dissent’ as part of my PhD-research. In a detailed autoethnographic account I reported about what happened.

I wondered whether it would be possible to organize something around dissent without reifying the topic into umpteenth new rules. I assumed that an obligation to organize constructive dissenting voices would be counterproductive as it paradoxically would increase the amount of control and thus potentially deteriorations.

After first discussions with the executive board I organized a think-tank. I approached some (former) deans, the director Finance and Control - known for their critical attitude - and the ombudsman - sometimes confronted with the daily consequences of mismanagement - to explore the possibilities of constructive dissent.

Exploring the subject first of all we acknowledged that a lot of things remain unsaid for different reasons. It was understood that courtesy, anxiety, strategic avoidance and power relatedness play their part. Moreover, the acting of the board was criticized as becoming more and more technocratic. Secondly to practice dissent we proposed to have an open but critical discussion with the board about some issues. In this discussion different experiences with issues which should have been criticized, would be on the agenda. The board agreed. Thirdly both parties prepared and agreed on the conditions for the discussion. For instance: to avoid ‘we versus them’-discussions and only to discuss concrete topics connected to one’s own experience. Fourthly a discussion was held. Stating what one really felt and thought did not occur, despite several attempts to stir up things. The discussions appeared to be a polyvocal orchestra of many divergent and even contradictory arguments. What resulted was an analytically impressive long list of issues concerning a lack of dissent: hierarchy, increased instrumentality, speed and volume in policy, peer pressure and loyalty, resignation, individual priorities, lack of ownership, cautiousness, existing non-feedback habits, lack of quality of input, complexity of some subjects, no evaluative traditions, language games, maintaining myths, external pressures, bad planning and the lack of social interaction with meaninglessness as a consequence. The meeting was summarized by stating that we should take more opportunities to (reflexively) interrupt what we are doing. A follow up meeting was intended.

However, a follow up meeting was never organized and as up to now nobody - apart from me - ever refers to the meeting or the conclusions. Reflections afterwards indicate that intentions were good, but despite differences in opinion courtesy, anxiety, safety and comfort prevailed during the discussion. And I assume still prevail. Despite all the good intentions, the acknowledged need to be in touch with what really happens in daily organizational life, and the wish to forestall deteriorations the discussions fizzled out. So what about needed dissent? 

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2012). Making sense of management. A critical introduction (1996 ed.). Los Angeles - London - New Delhi - Singapore - Washington DC: SAGE Publications Ltd. Firth, D., & Leigh, A. (1998). The corporate fool. Oxford: Capstone. Frentz, T. E. (2008). Trickster in tweed. My quest for quality in faculty life. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc. Gabriel, Y. (2002). Essai: on paragrammatic uses of organizational theory - a provocation. Organization Studies, 23(1), 133-151. Groot, N. (2010). Zelforganisatie en leiderschap. Een uitdagende paradox. [Self-organization and leadership. A daring paradox]. Amsterdam: Mediawerf. Homan, T. (2013). Het et-cetera principe. Een nieuw perspectief op organisatieontwikkeling.[The principle of etcetera. A new perspective on organizational development] Den Haag: Academic Service. Mowles, C. (2011). Rethinking management. Radical insights from the complexity sciences. Farnham - Burlington: Gower Publishing Limited. Mowles, C. (2015). Managing in Uncertainty: Complexity and the paradoxes of everyday organizational life. London - New York: Routledge. Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations. A complexity approach to change (2010 ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Simon, F. (2015). Rumbling on performativity. The complex practice of policy development in a University of Applied Sciences. Open Universiteit, Heerlen. Sparkes, A.C. (2001) Myth94:Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative health research, 11(4), 538-552 Stacey, R. (2007). Strategic management and organizational dynamics. The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations (5th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Stacey, R. (2010). Complexity and organizational reality. Uncertainty and the need to rethink management after the collapse of investment capitalism (2010 ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Stacey, R. (2012b). Tools and techniques of leadership and management : meeting the challenge of complexity. London: Routledge. Stacey, R., & Griffin, D. (2005). A complexity perspective on researching organizations. Taking experience seriously. Abingdon: Routledge.