Semi-Structured Interviews

Interviews provide researchers with access into people’s lived experiences, the meanings they attach to social phenomena, and their versions of reality (Silverman, 2010). For this particular study on the interrelationships between people and PM, the data collected from interviews is therefore very important to illuminate the interplay between these elements. Interviews were conducted with members from all the important stakeholder groups utilizing performance measurement (e.g., Board of Directors, managers, employees, donors, and regulators). Following Silverman (2010), the semi-structured interview style was adopted to enable both flexibility in questions and a comparison of the responses across stakeholder groups. The overarching research questions were therefore transformed into interview questions containing no theoretical language (Kvale,

2008), and posed to participants in non-technical terms in order to enable understanding. Please see Figure 3.1 for the transformation of the research questions into a set of appropriate interview questions.

This study built upon the semi-structured interview template proposed by Tracey, Phillips and Jarvis (2011) in their study of a social enterprise, and developed and subsequently refined a protocol with the principal informants at each organization (Gioia et al., 2013). This led to a refinement of the overall protocol prior to beginning official interviews across the organizations’ stakeholders (Voss et al., 2002).

Over a nine-month period the researcher conducted 50 semi-structured interviews across both organizations (30 at Youth Futures, 20 at Organic Earth) with directors, managers, employees, and external stakeholders, each one lasting between 30 and 120 minutes. One focus group of 60 minutes at Youth Futures including organizational members from the Youth Centre and external partners was also undertaken. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, with the exception of two participants who preferred not to be taped. The interview protocol varied slightly depending on whether managers, employees or commissioners were being interviewed. Furthermore, as the study progressed, the questions were somewhat adapted to better address the emerging theoretical issues, eventually requesting respondents to provide greater details on specific performance measurement practices (e.g., Social Return on Investment, certain key performance indicators, particular meetings, etc.). A copy of the semi- structured interview protocols is provided in Appendix A.

! !

Table 3.3: Data collected at case organizations

Method Youth Futures Organic Earth Total

Semi-structured interviews Directors (6) Management (5) Fundraising (3) Support Workers (8) Housing Workers (2) Commissioner (1) External Partners (2) Total= 30 Directors (3) Management (6) Fundraising (3) Researchers (2) Project staff (3) Gardens staff (2) Commissioner (1) Total=20 50

Observations Head Office (10 days) Accommodation projects (4 days) Total= 14 days Meetings Management Briefing (3) Support Workers (2) Housing Management (2) Project Team (2) Case Review (1) External Evaluations (2) National Youth Reference Group (1) Total=13 Head Office/Gardens (11.5 days) Programs (1 day) Total=12.5 days Meetings Management (2) Total=2 26.5 days 15 meetings Performance Documents Business Plans (4) KPI Reports (14) Feedback (4) External communications (7) Internal communications (10) Total=39

Business and Strategy Plans (9)

KPIs (9)

Projects bids and evaluations (11) Member’s survey (1) External communications (6) Internal communications (11) Total=47 86 documents

Figure 3.1: Theoretically derived interview questions

3.4.3.2. Observations

The observation activities included time at head offices and at service delivery sites, as well as participating in performance meetings held across the organizations. At Youth Futures, fifteen meetings were attended at all organizational levels: Board of Directors (1), management (8), accommodation projects (4) and with external partners (2). There were also fourteen days of observation, which included visits to four accommodation projects where beneficiaries are housed. At Organic Earth two Management Meetings were attended and twelve days of observation were conducted at the Head Office, and encompassed participation in service delivery for one of the organization’s ongoing programs. Fewer observations occurred at this site because the organization did not have many formalized meetings, only a Senior Management monthly meeting and a Corporate Resources meeting. The researcher was not granted access to the latter, further reducing the opportunity of observations. However, as much of the PM practices in OE at the employee level were informal, the time spent at Head Office was sufficient to access rich data related to the conversations and practices surrounding measurement.

RQ1: How and why does performance measurement in social enterprises lead to diverse subjective responses at the individual level?

How do you use performance measurement in your role? Can you give me an example?

How useful/valuable/meaningful do you find performance measurement?

RQ2: How do people of social enterprises perceive, value, and use performance measurement?

What are the benefits of performance measurement? What are the challenges or the disadvantages? Can you provide an example?

3.4.3.3. Document analysis

All main performance measurement related documents at each of the case organizations were collected and analyzed. These included: Business Plans, Annual Reports, Key Performance Indicator reports, funder reports, bid proposals, performance appraisal templates, and meeting minutes. Other documents of interest were identified throughout the interviews and observations (i.e., database entry forms concerning beneficiaries, monthly stakeholder newsletters, announcements of project outcomes, etc.). The efforts resulted in the collection of 86 performance related documents. Furthermore, numerous public documents, available for example on websites, annual reports, posters and brochures were referred to.

3.4.3.4. Research diary

A journal was kept from the beginning of theoretical sampling, in which the researcher’s progression of thoughts, comments, questions, and ideas throughout the case study were recorded. Short notes during interviews and meetings were also made, so as not to disrupt the participants but to ensure emerging insights or questions were captured.

3.4.3.5. Case database

A database was created as a central mechanism for storing all the schedules, documents, notes, and transcripts for each case in the study. This served as an organizing instrument and as a trail of the progression of the project. Furthermore, it is a source which could be checked by any other researcher or participant to establish reliability and transparency of analysis and findings.

3.5. Analytical Approach

The analysis undertaken was abductive, which involves the ‘systematic combining’ of theory, empirical world, and cases (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). This process is outlined as Figure 3.2 below. Abductive analysis applies both inductive and deductive reasoning to iteratively seek for, question, and explain patterns in empirical data (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). The process involved iterating between initial theoretical frameworks for PM processes and social enterprise institutional logics, the data collected, and analysis of the data until a ‘matching’ occurred between the evolving theoretical framework and the empirical data. This analytic method is especially useful for exploratory case based research as it enables better ‘handling of the interrelatedness of the various elements in the cases’ (Dubois & Gadde, 2002: 555).

Firstly, the researcher gained in-depth familiarity with each of the cases individually by deducing the instantiations of institutional logics (e.g., values, beliefs, and meanings) across the PM processes, main operations, and individuals (Reay & Jones, 2015). Subsequently, the three-staged Gioia method was followed for inducing a theory explaining subjective responses to PM (Gioia et al., 2013). Effectively, a process of ‘rediscovery’ unfolded as the emerging case data inspired changes to the preconceived theoretical framework, which then illuminated nuances of the findings. The framework evolved in light of the new insights until theoretical concepts which explain the interrelationships between people and PM were ‘discovered’. Each stage of the abductive analysis, the associated coding, and iterations to the theoretical framework are described in Table 3.4.

Figure 3.2: Abductive analysis process

(Adapted from Dubois & Gadde, 2002)