Module 4: Understanding the Commander’s Intent
To design a measurement system that adequately informs decision making, it is critical to understand the measurement objectives, how findings will be used and all the relevant stakeholders and their role in the measurement.
To design a measurement system that adequately informs decision making, it is critical to understand the measurement objectives, how findings will be used and all the relevant stakeholders and their role in the measurement.
Lessons
Lesson 1: Demonstrating impact
One of the main reasons that organisations seek to measure their social impact is to demonstrate that they are doing good in the world. This can and should apply to all organisations, whether they are in the private, public, or not-for-profit sector. All organisations need a social license to operate, and that license is based on their purpose for being and how they go about achieving it. That purpose cannot just be to make money, as money is just a means to an end. For organisations to endure they must be of some benefit to society and they must be able to demonstrate that benefit – hence the need for social impact measurement.
However, many organisations struggle to demonstrate their impact in a quantifiable way and must rely on anecdotal evidence. While personal stories can be powerful, from the outside it’s always difficult to know if these are special cases or the norm. This is where measurement comes in, and the most powerful way for an organisation to articulate its impact is through quantitative data that proves it, supported by qualitative data that helps explain it and anecdotes that bring the data to life. The most powerful impact measurement combines the use of science and storytelling.
“Purpose cannot just be to make money, as money is just a means to an end. For organisations to endure they must be of some benefit to society and they must be able to demonstrate that benefit – hence the need for social impact measurement.”
Lesson 2: Maximising impact
Improvement requires feedback. If we don’t know how we are performing and what is affecting our performance, any improvement attempts will be haphazard at best. This is why elite athletes measure almost every conceivable thing that might affect their performance – diet, training, technique, equipment, mental attitude and so on. They need a lot of data because the links between cause and effect are complex and rather than trying to build some huge theoretical model that would take a supercomputer to run, they rely on empirical evidence to understand what works and what doesn’t. This includes both subjective data (how did the athlete like the taste of the new energy gel) and objective data (how many extra calories was the athlete able to ingest with the new gel) that can be linked to performance data (did the athlete’s half marathon time improve).
It's the same in social impact measurement. Here we measure performance in terms of wellbeing and, rather than trying to build some super complex model of human behaviour, we focus on measuring aspects of people’s lives that are likely to affect their wellbeing. These aspects will change according to who is being impacted and their current context, and the method for selecting them is covered in the next modules.
We then want our measurement data to tell us which of these factors contribute most to Wellbeing so we can more effectively apply our resources and focus our improvement efforts. For example, the data may show that certain aspects of a program account for most of its impact, which may mean that re-allocating resources from low impact activities to high impact ones could increase the programs overall impact – for no extra cost. The data may also show that wellbeing is affected by factors outside the current program which might lead to either investment to expand the scope of the program or partnering with another organisation. Over time, measurement should enable us to direct resources to where they have the greatest impact.
Lesson 3: 1 Up and 2 Up
While at a high level demonstrating impact and maximising it are the main reasons for measuring social impact, at a more detailed level they will often mean different things for different stakeholders. Within an organisation their meaning will often depend on the stakeholder’s level of authority. Depending on who has commissioned the measurement, and the size of the organisation, there may be a few levels to take into account, the requirements of the person(s) who have directly commissioned the project, and the needs and requirements of people they report to, 1 Up and 2 Up.
To set your measurement project up for success, it is important to consider and capture the needs and expectations of the stakeholders at these different levels and continually check that the project is meeting these needs.
To start, consider the needs and expectations of the person(s) who has directly commission the impact social impact measurement. This is often the manager who directly controls the set of activities that result in social impact. They often want to confirm that what they are doing works and identify potential improvements and will often use the measurement results directly with stakeholders. For example, demonstrating impact may be used to help recruit more participants or volunteers. Measurement findings may also be used to provide feedback to staff as reinforcement of the value of their work and to guide how they go about it. There is often always a personal element to their motivations to measure their impact as well. Such as wanting to know that their work is truly what meeting the needs of the people they serve or being able to demonstrate to their managers where a change or investment is required, but they haven’t had the data to justify it. This is when we then turn to understand the needs and expectations of their managers, 1 Up.
1 Up manager(s) will normally be accountable for a wider range of organisational activities and be responsible for the commitment and management of resources over longer time frames. They will take more programmatic view in which the set of activities being measured is part of a larger program or portfolio and has a specific role to play within it. Demonstrating impact may therefore be about quantifying the contribution being made to the impact of the overall performance of the department or organisation as a whole.
A 2 Up manager is likely to be near the top of the organisational hierarchy which means their perspective will be increasingly strategic rather than operational – they tend to look outward more than inward. They will be concerned about the strategic value and implications of the measurement findings. For example, how might it help the organisation to differentiate itself from competitors, better position it in the eyes of its customers, secure more funding, form strategic alliances, or demonstrate compliance with regulators? They will also weigh the allocation of resources to these activities against a broader range of alternative uses and competing priorities.
There are 2 specific cases of 1 Up and 2 Up managers that warrant specific consideration – CEOs and Boards. CEOs are accountable to the Board for developing strategy, enacting this through a business plan and then executing to the plan. The Board’s role is to hold the CEO accountable and manage their performance. Both will therefore take a whole of business perspective in understanding measurement findings – CEOs focussing on strategic and operational implications and Boards focussing on governance implications. Both will also be concerned with business risk.
Understanding the Commander’s Intent therefore requires understanding the organisational contexts and priorities of the relevant 1 Up and 2 Up Managers. In addition to these organisational agendas each manager will also have their own personal agenda in terms of career ambitions and strategies - and there is always office politics. Understanding what role social impact measurement plays in people’s agendas and its potential political ramifications is important in ensuring that the organisation gains the most benefit from it. This is not an encouragement to play politics, but it is a warning that you ignore them at your peril. This is why independent measurement is often critical, as an external party can stay outside the internal politics and stand for the integrity and transparency of the process.
Notwithstanding any political motivations it is quite common for there to be some misalignment between the person who has commissioned the project, and the 1 Up and 2 Up managers, which may need to be addressed if it is likely to affect the success of impact measurement.
It should also be noted that in larger organisations accountability for social impact will often be ‘outsourced’ internally to a specialist department, rather than being seen as everyone’s responsibility. This means that as you move further up the management hierarchy understanding of social impact and its measurement will often decline. The ‘Commander’s Intent’ may therefore be based on limited knowledge or even misconceptions – which could result in impact measurement being set up to fail rather than succeed. It may therefore be necessary to increase knowledge and correct misconceptions as part of clarifying the ‘Commander’s Intent’.
Ultimately, we want the organisation and each individual we work with to be successful, which is why we should know why impact measurement is required and what the findings will be used for – the ‘Commander’s Intent’. Nor is this a one-off event. Things can change so it’s always wise to check and confirm the ‘Commander’s Intent’ regularly.
QUESTION & ANSWER
Your Logbook Exercises
Head to your logbook to see the activities in relation to module 4.
Additional study
Here are some additional resources we find thought provoking, clarifying and at times even inspirational:
If you have any questions or thoughts that will be relevant to all those on their accreditation journey please ask away and we will post a Huber Social Academy response below.