Managing the complexity of outcomes: a new approach to performance measurement and management

Abstract

Governments, philanthropic agencies and public sector organisations have given increasing primacy to outcomes across their operations in recent years, particularly within the domain of performance management. We argue that societal outcomes challenge public agencies to respond to four specific forms of complexity -compositional, experiential, dynamic and governance complexities -which taken together confound the conceptual basis of traditional performance management systems. We adopt this understanding of complexity in a constructive capacity to consider the design parameters of a complexity-appropriate performance management system. We conclude that two theoretical transitions are necessary in a complexity-appropriate performance management approach: a shift from principal-agent theory to stewardship theory, and from technical to social management control theory.We explore the characteristics which such a model of performance management might take in practice, and conclude by outlining a research agenda to explore the potential applications of this new approach.

Digital elixir? The Aakash tablet as a social innovation in information and communication technology for development (ICT4D)

“…Such a network in turn would have facilitated the adaptive learning which is the basis for emergent innovations (Goldstein and Hazy, 2008). It was the inability of system agents to facilitate these linkages over the obstacles presented by the governance complexity within this landscape (French et al , 2021) that ultimately led to the failure of the Aakash as an SI.…”

“…The SI approach has the equally important advantage of being able to incorporate notions of complexity theory which is essential given the multiple levels, actors and domains within which we delineate the Aakash’s development. In addition, it enables both a fresh compositional and diagnostic understanding of the problem while also proposing possible pathways for innovation through complex system dynamics and the activity of key actors (French et al , 2021). Among the mechanisms within a classic complex system structure, the adaptive cycle, are nonlinear dynamics (e.g.…”

Guest editorial: Complexity as a model for social innovation and social entrepreneurship: is there order in the chaos?

“…The focal points of many social innovation efforts – societal outcomes like obesity, educational attainment or criminal recidivism – are created by a constellation of factors from personal decision-making and individual psychology to broader economic, technological or cultural institutions (Finegood et al , 2010). French et al (2021) argue further that all social outcomes which may be targeted by social entrepreneurs are densely interconnected (compositional complexity), vary from individual to individual (experiential complexity) and change over time (dynamic complexity). In this context, authors have recognised the significance not merely for scaling proven social innovations but of fostering institutional capabilities of responsiveness and adaptability generally to address the need to constantly innovate in response to evolving challenges (Westley and Antadze, 2010).…”

Making performance management relevant in complex and inter-institutional contexts: using outcomes as performance attractors

“…“Agents” are also likely to face internal directives for which accountability is likely more direct and immediate (Bouckaert and Halligan, 2008). Secondly, the causality of social outcomes is also far more complex than organisational outputs, making causal inference difficult and further problematising the application of results-based accountability (French et al , 2021). The imposition of linear results-based management in this context is likely to produce a range of deleterious performance paradoxes, including gaming, spiralling transaction costs and goal displacement (Van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002).…”

“…A growing volume of critical PMM literature in the public (Moynihan et al , 2011; Jakobsen et al , 2017; Rajala et al , 2019; French et al , 2020) and private sectors (Melynk et al , 2014; Bourne et al , 2018) has argued that PMM theory, which is built on the assumption of centralised authority, vertical accountability regimes and extrinsic incentive systems, must be rethought in complex and inter-institutional contexts. Recommendations from this body of literature share a number of common threads: to maximise local and professional autonomy rather than constrain it through externally imposed performance measures, to focus on emergent learning rather than performance accountancy, to foster internal motivation rather than imposing extrinsic incentives and to use measures in boundary-crossing dialogue rather than as technical management controls.…”