Theme 2: (Mis)alignment between the focus of a measurement

mechanism and individual’s beliefs

“Because I think the staff motivation for work in this organization is about the young people and making a difference to their lives. They see stats as a monitory thing, a necessary evil in order to get the resources. So they're less interested in that. I'm generalizing hugely here, but I think it’s fair to say that our staff motivation, why they come to work for [Youth Futures] is not to make us rich, it’s not about that. It’s about something else” (Director of Operations, YF)

Throughout the multiple described experiences of people utilizing PM, there were several examples of the process generating positive responses, others negative, and also the instance of external coordinators whereby responses were purposefully mediated. The main difference between these potential scenarios appears to be linked to the alignment, or not, of the measured properties of the measurand and the beliefs the individual engaging in the measurement process has in relation to that measurand8_.

The cases where alignment was happening (e.g., moderated blog posts, Outcome Star, LSW Portfolios, and Housing KPIs) demonstrated strikingly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

8_{While it is recognized that alignment may happen at multiple levels (e.g., the PM practices}

with the organization’s strategy, the people with the organization, etc.), as the aim of this thesis is to understand people’s subjective responses to PM, the focus here is on fleshing out the nuances of alignment between the individual’s beliefs and the PM practices. Also, it is assumed that the alignment between organizational strategy and PM practices in these two organizations already exists to some extent, as determined through a theoretical sampling of established social enterprises actively applying PM and explored in Chapter IV where the practices were described.

positive effects for individuals (e.g., motivation, enthusiasm, engagement) and organizational performance (e.g., achieved objectives and capacity to evidence progress). These individuals believed in the actions requested of them by measurement. Conversely, misalignment (e.g., a focus on determining welfare performance through figures depicting beneficiaries gaining employment rather than on self-skill development needed to uphold those employments) often led to negative behaviors and outcomes.

The negative effect of measures being misaligned with organizational strategy has been widely discussed in the PM literature. However, what is often overlooked are the negative repercussions misalignments have at an individual level (i.e., the disappointment concerning funder reporting at YF versus the joyful contributions to the blog at OE). In the words of the Head of Fundraising at YF: “I do think at [Youth Futures] we sometimes get a bit lost in what we're doing and reports… what we don't do enough of is take this step back and … congratulate each other. Because, you know, we're all here because we want to be. We know we make a difference, but we don't communicate what we're achieving enough”.

This discrepancy in potential responses is especially important in social enterprises where multiple dimensions of performance are imperative to overall achievement of aims. Therefore, paying attention to the symbolism attached to selected measurement mechanisms matters for what can be achieved and by whom. According to the data, a Project or External Coordinator who translates the organizational message into a meaningful presentation for external stakeholders, and shapes potential donations or opportunities through meetings can actively mediate this process by using PM on a case by case basis to selectively communicate and engage particular people: “I would say that the main part of my role is that I get my foot in the door, on the first impression for [Organic Earth]. I research who to contact within an organization, what the organization is about and what they may want to hear about and take that information with me, plus other bits and bobs… Within that first meeting I have to find out what type of [performance] information they want to hear to be engaged from that point” (External Coordinator, OE). Likewise, a manager of a social enterprise could learn to play this mediating role between measures and

internal stakeholders for the organization by investigating beliefs and attitudes for particular objectives before designing and allocating measures.

Based on the variety of PM practices and individual responses uncovered in this study, the effects of PM use are a function of the alignment between the meanings embedded into a measurement process and the symbolism the individual allocates to the measurand. The findings suggest that stakeholders, who have a logic for particular performance objectives (i.e., attitudes and beliefs for rational actions in accordance with particular objectives), interact with PM that embodies a logic (i.e., represents organizationally defined rational actions, behaviors, and norms for the performance objective being measured for). These interactions can be more or less aligned across the focus of a particular measurement mechanism and individual’s beliefs for the measurand, leading to several potential responses in accordance with the level of alignment. These alignments can be of three types:

1.! Alignment of the properties measured by a measurement mechanism with individual’s symbolism for measurand, in which a reinforcement of beliefs, attitudes, and actions occurs leading to positive implications for people and the organization (e.g., impact measurement, housing KPIs, finance’s statements, SROI for funders)

2.! Mediated alignment of properties measured by a measurement

mechanism(s) with individuals’ symbolism for measurand, in which a reconciliation of multiple beliefs, attitudes, and actions occurs through the selective coupling of the content of PM practices with people’s beliefs and attitudes, leading to positive implications for people and the organization (e.g., external coordinators, co-defined funder reporting, cross-sector collaborations, inter-departmental meetings)

3.! Misalignment of the properties measured by a measurement mechanism

with individual’s symbolism for measurand, in which an inhibition of beliefs, attitudes, and/or actions occurs, leading to negative implications for individuals and the organization (e.g., unhealthy partnerships, overreliance on commercial or welfare based practices, attending a meeting but neither listening nor contributing).