Implications for social value measurement

Part of the problem in developing robust social value measurement methodologies seems to be in wanting to distinguish PM practices for social value generated in the social sector from those for social value created by for- profit organizations (Moxham, 2014). The underlying message is that rather than pre-determine what is or could be social value by imposing pre-defined PM practices (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014; Kroeger & Weber, 2014), we need to be discovering it through the people realizing and creating it.

The findings of this thesis suggest that what instead does matter for social value measurement is how the processes unfold for individuals in the creation and expression of the social value. Ultimately, there is a need to work differently with stakeholders in order to achieve social value: considering multiple perspectives, embedding divergent needs, and communicating across value sets (Ellis & Hogard, 2006; Hall et al., 2015; Smith, 1995b). The traditional underlying assumptions for PM as a mechanism for generating effectiveness and efficiency are insufficient for the task. In their place mechanisms underpinned by community accountability for outcomes, ensuring genuine experiences, and co- creation of performance must be developed (Manetti, 2014). That is, organizations should be purposefully trying to evoke people’s personally powered performance in accordance with desired social value aims. The PM practices found to generate a reconciliation response in this study (e.g., coordinated donor meetings, collectively defined partner outcomes, etc.) hint towards how these ‘new’ aims for measurement can be achieved across complex stakeholder networks, although further studies are needed which investigate the nuances of reconciliation within these particular PM practices.

One existing model of performance co-creation that is supported by this thesis is Benjamin and Campbell’s (2015) theoretical propositions of ‘co- production work’. Tools that generate ‘co-productive work’ encourage relationship building, aid in collectively designing support plans, and enable the clients themselves to take actions in accordance with learned behaviors, thereby allocating a level of agency to the service users in orienting their programs and understanding success (Benjamin & Campbell, 2015). Although for Benjamin and Campbell (2015) the exact types of tools for accomplishing such feats are not mentioned, we may be able to derive several key lessons from the Outcome Star which had very similar characteristics.

For instance, the Outcome Star is an externally developed tool that is designed to be applied in a variety of services related to the improvement of wellbeing for people (e.g., physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual dimensions) (Denny & Suddon, 2014). In a sense, this ensures that the tool will not focus on programmatic outcomes as it is not designed for any one program, but instead a portrayal of many potential client outcomes. The focus and use of this tool is different than typical measurement tools that have a specified program outcome

(e.g., KPIs for planned or unplanned departures are noted on the basis of whether they did, or did not, happen), thereby enabling the worker and the beneficiary to decide and plan for outcomes that are appropriate to the situation (not only the organization). The portfolios used to evaluate young people’s progress along the support service modules were of a similar co-producing nature as the content for evaluation was selected on a case by case basis (e.g., quizzes, photographs, videos, artefacts, statements, etc.).

While it might be easy to propose that organizations seek external and independent evaluation mechanisms for the purpose of social value measurement, the suggestion based on the findings encompassed within this thesis is that organizations should rather become farther open-minded about how, and by whom, measurement outcomes are designed and reported. Allowing beneficiaries, and workers, the discretion to select and modify a course of action (and its final measure) in pursuit of social value creation is more appropriate to build on the subjective reactions, preferences, and outcomes involved in these aims. Yet, this will also require that the type and form of information utilized to ascertain success be broadened (Hall et al., 2015; Nicholls, 2009).

7.3.1. Revisiting the design and use of social value measurement tools

The findings of this thesis reveal several interesting dynamics which may help to illuminate the shortcomings of popular SVM tools such as SROI (Mook et al., 2012). As the content of a measure has been determined to matter greatly for how stakeholders placed around an organization may interact with measurement processes to facilitate organizational goal achievement, managers must become much more aware of how the content of particular SVM tools will be received by the individual’s put in charge of implementing them.

If we take SROI as an example, while some of the steps involved in arriving at an SROI measurement make attempts at involving the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders (Hall et al., 2015; Maier et al., 2015), the final product of the measurement process is a financial figure meant to depict social value creation. Ultimately, the meanings of this measurement output (e.g., money, profitability, cost comparisons, etc.) are not highly useable by the frontline workers, whom are responsible for social welfare aims. Instead of helping these

individuals to perform better, these measurement processes distract them from their duties improving the lives of beneficiaries and create an inhibited sense of performing (e.g., a misalignment between personal beliefs for measured object and the properties being described). In other terms, frontline workers do not typically associate beneficiaries to a monetary symbol; as SROI attempts to describe the object (e.g., the beneficiaries’ improvements) in monetary value, the experience of the measurement process is uncomfortable, or even frustrating (Millar & Hall, 2013), rather than informative. On the other hand, it is understandable that funders and managers find the SROI useful (Manetti, 2014) as their aims typically derive from similar financial meanings (e.g., revenue generation, efficiency, cost savings, etc.). Overall, it is fair to assume that no measure will be equally as important to (and understood by) all stakeholders. But, these findings highlight that it is possible to consider how certain measurement processes are more beneficial in generating interest and energy from certain stakeholders than others (i.e., funders will be more interested in attributing value to social welfare outcomes through the use of SROI mechanisms, whereby social workers will be more likely to be motivated and engaged by tools such as the Outcome Star).

At the same time, although tools such as the Outcome Star, which are semantically rooted in social welfare logics, do appeal to frontline workers and tend to overcome the inhibitory effect known to occur from the use of tools such as SROI (Gibbon & Dey, 2011), they do not help social organizations in any way balance the need for also performing commercially. Indeed, while this research shows that measurement practices can be designed to meet individual level needs and generate positive subjective responses, it only begins to suggest how to overcome performance tensions at the interstice of competing institutional logics, such as the balancing of commercial and social value.

7.3.2. Balancing social and commercial value

A point of contestation in the SVM literature concerns how organizations balance the competing demands that arise from channeling large amounts of organizational resources towards social value over commercial performance, or

vice versa (Mook et al., 2015; Quarter & Richmond, 2001; Roy & Karna, 2015; Stevens et al., 2015). Some authors suggest the tensions arise due to the different skills and mind-sets required to succeed in each area, and others that indeed economic viability, while not the base of skill-sets in the social sector (Dees, 2012), still needs to be the priority in order to even have resources for social and environmental performance (Battilana et al., 2015). For instance, social value is purported to be related to a normative identity that concerns others and pays attention to social goals, whereas financial performance is related to a utilitarian identity that is self-concerned and prioritizes economic goals (Stevens et al., 2015). As social enterprises tend to attract individuals of the former identity (Tracey & Phillips, 2015), these organizations, and other forms striving for social value, ultimately struggle to find a balance between commercial and social elements.

Barman and MacIndoe (2012) discovered that it is the presence of commercial logics within the stakeholders of socially-oriented organizations that largely influences the adoption of SVM tools. Indeed, they find that institutional pressures on their own (e.g., normative and coercive) are not sufficient to explain variation in adoption, as what really matters are that organizations have the capacity (e.g., presence of written rules and accountancy expertise) to implement the measurement mechanisms. These capacities are related to knowledge and values that stem from a commercial logic. While tools such as SROI are found to strongly support the market logic (Maier et al., 2015), this does not necessarily lead to improvements for the organizations themselves, and is thus often a communication tool rather than a management mechanism. Funders, conversely, may use the SROIs of grantees to gain legitimacy in their own networks and with particular audiences (Maier et al., 2015).

Lessons for building SVM tools in line with frontline workers’ needs (Benjamin & Campbell, 2015) may be learned from this study. In particular, understanding firstly the institutional logics the workers have for the objects involved in social value creation, rather than pre-determining which objects should be chosen as measurands of SVM, can help identify how to design measurement processes to align with individuals’ needs, and hence improve

individual level performance. Likewise, this process can be repeated for employees responsible for commercial performance. Finally, where it is necessary that stakeholders from both ‘sides’ work together, PM processes may assist by offering a space of reconciliation whereby a mediator creatively combines the logics (e.g., language, values, and meanings) during a collaborative meeting. Ultimately, the imperative of measurement should become to build processes which evoke understanding and value for performing at an individual level, rather than dictate from an organizational level what ‘needs’ to be accomplished.

Overall, SVM beckons for organizations to work with and through their stakeholders, embedding their deepest interests and needs into functioning and growth at all levels, thereby ensuring organizational actions are positively influencing people and society while in the pursuit of (multiple forms of) value creation (Hall et al., 2015). Recognizing and harnessing the institutional logics present in an organization with social value motives may thereby enable a managerial approach in which individuals’ meanings and motivations for performance are embedded along the creation process, rather than assuming the meaning for social impact and commercial objectives are shared between individuals and organizations. Furthermore, organizations generating social value are also linked to higher overall organizational performance (Felico et al., 2013), hinting that social value and financial value are much more complementary than initially conjectured.

!