London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom
In recent decades there has been an explosion of accountability demands imposed on NGOs that receive funding to deliver services to others. Research so far has typically conceptualized organizational responses to such demands in terms of decoupling, disciplining, or resisting. In contrast, we adopt Horvath’s (2023) notion of supererogation to explain how and why organizations may use their performance measurement systems to over-comply with externally imposed accountability demands. Empirically, we draw on an organizational ethnography conducted within a charity contracted by the UK government to provide care services for survivors of modern slavery. The focus is on an internal reform project of the organizational performance measurement system, which sought to imbue the externally imposed contractual accountability measures (KPIs) with the values the organization held, particularly those underpinning trauma-informed and survivor-centric care. We examine the interplay of dissonance and resonance between organizational values and externally imposed performance measures and observe different activities aimed at reinfusing the externally demanded measures with organizational values. We develop the notion of ‘dignifying measurement’ to problematize and theorize the process by which the organization tinkers with these performance measures to give expression to resonant values and subdue perceived dissonances. Through ‘dignifying measurement’, we capture both the process by which measures are tinkered with and how the resulting measures are envisioned to give expression to resonant values and subdue dissonances. This study holds relevance for practitioners, policymakers, and academics involved in the development and interpretation of measures for values.
