Evoking personally powered performance

To understand the array of individual-level responses to PM witnessed in this study it is necessary to combine the two presently independent perspectives concerning alignment. That is, the success of measurement mechanisms in aligning stakeholders’ actions within the two social enterprises was achieved by the distribution of particular types of performance indicators across an organization (Dossi & Patelli, 2010; Melnyk et al., 2004; Micheli & Manzoni, 2010), and the manner in which the content of those measures imposed language and meaning onto stakeholders (Hoedemaekers & Keegan, 2010; Oakes et al., 1998; Townley et al., 2003). However, while from the latter perspective PM mechanisms are traditionally seen as allocating organizational power to the managers and confining individual action, stakeholders were found to have and enact what is conceptualized of here as personal power10, in that they interpret and respond to the content of the measures based on their own values and beliefs. Individuals always retain power over their own performance as they decide, or not, to put full concentration and effort into the use of measurement mechanisms and performance information. Measurement in both case organizations affected whether people utilized their personal power by determining to some extent what people could pay attention to, how they paid attention, their attitudes towards the measured phenomena, and their ability to be(come) with(in) the organization (Hallett et al., 2009). Ultimately, people’s contributions to performance goals along the three logics in each organization were limited to a particular set of actions, discourse, and relationships through interactions with practices which defined rational responses in adherence to a particular institutional logic (Gendron et al., 2007). For instance, managers at YF were continuously frustrated by having to conduct performance appraisals based only on the organizational KPIs, as they felt it led to a plateau of performance for higher achievers whom were re-directed to the same, already attained, goals. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10 _{Personal power in this sense is not understood in the same manner Mechanic (1962)}

discovered it, as for him personal power was witnessed as a function of stakeholders’ organizational positioning. Here it is rather concerning individuals’ association to the different goals present in the organization and how well the measurement mechanisms enable them to manifest actions and behaviors in accordance with those beliefs.

Likewise, support workers were limited in their abilities to spend time building confidence and self-esteem within the service-users as donor imposed KPIs related only to the number of beneficiaries gaining employment, emphasizing securement of a job over capacity to maintain the job, even though it overlooked important aspects of support services and support workers’ beliefs for effective service delivery. In social constructionist terms, PM affected people’s “knowledge worlds” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) without always taking it into account in the first place, leading to a myriad of effects on organizational and individual performance.

Each of the logics a PM practice may substantiate predisposes the individuals interacting with it to particular vocabulary and actions (i.e., knowledge world), and these have specific meanings and rationales that bound what can be considered rational for a given organizational goal. Interactions with, and the necessity to respond to, the various PM practices bounds the individual to particular meanings and symbols as well as actions and decisions (Townley et al., 2003). From this view, organizational practices and actions, such as problem resolution, conflict mitigation, learning, and dealing with uncertainty (Cyert & March, 1963; Gavetti et al., 2012) mean something more than just contributing or not to an organization, as they represent and enact responses according to specific personal values (Klein, 2015). That is, depending on which organization people work in, their own beliefs, actions, and values while in pursuit of certain goals, is assumed to be aligned with a particular logic. In a social enterprise this means that people may be pushed to learn social welfare values, mitigate conflict in commercial goals, and deal with uncertainty related to public sector beliefs, etc. (Cyert & March, 1963; Voronov & Weber, 2016). If a person’s beliefs and values are continuously divorced from the actions the organization is requesting of them, then emotional strain and even stress may occur. By understanding PM processes as the source of these positive, or negative, interactions which create emotional responses, it becomes possible to mitigate and intervene (Hall, 2016).

Therefore, people’s personally powered performance - their attention and energies underpinned by personal values and beliefs for goals - may be invoked or not, through the interactions with the logic(s) embedded in particular measurement practices (see, e.g., Binder, 2007). As people have beliefs and values concerning organizational objects (e.g., beneficiaries, gardens, coworkers,

external partners), measurement, which is also embedded with particular meanings for organizational objects, affects their subjective state in relation to the measured object, and their own ability to perform. Since the nature of people’s response may be positive or negative in relation to the demands of the measure, there are implications for alignment of efforts, and organizational performance.

The concept of personally powered performance, invoked by an alignment between the measured properties and personal beliefs for the object being measured, highlights one way in which to explore the generation of positive emotions in the workplace (Hall, 2016; Marginson et al., 2014). As emotions are now being considered integral to meaningful and beneficial organizational experiences (Voronov & Weber, 2016), the inter-linkages between organizational processes and emotions should be a priority for scholars. Yet, a person’s personally powered performance within an organization (i.e., their decision to pay attention to and give concerted energies towards the actions and behaviors required of them), likely will not be evoked solely from aligning measures with organizational strategy. Instead, people’s beliefs and values concerning what is legitimate in pursuit of organizational goals (e.g., to help beneficiaries, to increase revenues, or to broaden access to services for a particular demographic), must also be considered and aligned within the PM practices in order to stimulate an exercise of personal power, and hence positive responses to measurement, positive experiences of organizational life and hence enhanced organizational performance.