This paper contributes to the rather young field of research on performance management in the third sector, by providing a unique overview of current terms and definitions used in both research and professional practice. In current performance management literature, no attention is given to the fact that key terms are used inconsistently and even somewhat contradictorily. We follow the assumption that ambiguous terminology prevents further development of the topic and hampers both practitioners and academics. Therefore, we stress the importance of standardized definitions and terminology as well as present an approach to address the issue of how performance management should be understood in the third sector. The chosen concept is the one promoted by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/DAC). This concept is applied for two reasons: first, the OECD/DAC already has endeavored to unify terms and definitions in the field of development cooperation since its foundation in the 1960s; second, these terms and definitions are already widely used due to its large membership base. By adopting the OECD/DAC approach, this paper aims at a more unified use of third sector performance concepts in both research and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchleitnerA.-K., LutzE., MayerJ., & Spiess-KnaflW. (2013). Disentangling gut feeling: Assessing the integrity of social entrepreneurs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 93–124.
BarmanE. (2007). What is the bottom line for nonprofit organizations? A history of measurement in the British voluntary sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18, 101–115.
BeckerH. A., & VanclayF. (Eds.). (2006). The international handbook of social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
6.
Bell-RoseS. (2004). Using performance metrics to assess impact. In OsterS. M., MassarskyC. W., & BeinhackerS. L. (Eds.), Generating and sustaining nonprofit earned income: A guide to successful enterprise strategies (pp. 269–280). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
BergerP. L., & LuckmannT. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin.
8.
BermanE. M. (2006). Performance and productivity in public and nonprofit organizations (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
9.
FoundationBertelsmann (2008). Engagement mit Wirkung: Warum Transparenz über die Wirkungen gemeinnütziger Aktivitäten wichtig ist. [Involvement with impact: Why transparency regarding the impact of non-profit activities is important] Retrieved January 20, 2014, from http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/de/media/xcms_bst_dms_27153_27154_2.pdf.
10.
BonoM. L. (2006). NPO Controlling: Professionelle Steuerung sozialer Dienstleistungen [NPO controlling: Professional management of social services]. Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.
11.
BonoM. L. (2010). Performance-Management in NPOs: Steuerung im Dienste sozialer Ziele [Performance management in NPOs: Management in the service of social objectives]. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
12.
BouriA. (2011). How standards emerge: The role of investor leadership in realizing the potential of IRIS. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(3), 117–131.
13.
BuschorE. (1994). Von der Kameralistik zur Kosten- und Leistungsrechnung [From cameralistics to cost and performance accounting]. In MorathK., & BuschorE. (Eds.), Wirtschaftlichkeit der öffentlichen Verwaltung: Reformkonzepte, Reformpraxis (pp. 25–39). Bad Homburg, Germany: Frankfurter Institut für Wirtschaftspolitische Forschung.
14.
CampbellD. (2002). Outcomes assessment and the paradox of nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12, 243–259.
15.
ClarkC., RosenzweigW., LongD., & OlsenS. (2004). Double bottom line project report: Assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from http://www.riseproject.org/DBL_Methods_Catalog.pdf.
16.
DawsonA. (2010). A case study of impact measurement in a third sector umbrella organisation. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 519–533.
17.
de WaalA., GoedegebuureR., & GeradtsP. (2011). The impact of performance management on the results of a non-profit organization. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60, 778–796.
18.
de WaalA., & KourtitK. (2013). Performance measurement and management in practice: Advantages, disadvantages and reasons for use. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62, 446–473.
19.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Evaluation (Ed.). (2010). Verfahren der Wirkungsanalyse: Ein Handbuch für die entwicklungspolitische Praxis [Methods of impact analysis: A handbook for practice in development policy]. In OberndörferD., HanfT., & WeilandH. (Eds.), Freiburger Beiträge zu Entwicklung und Politik. Freiburg i. Br., Germany.
20.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [GIZ] (2011). On the use of results chains in natural resource governance: Basic concepts and exemplary applications to the extractive industries. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://www.giz.de/static/themen_umleitung/index.html.
21.
EbrahimA. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31, 813–829.
22.
EbrahimA., & RanganV. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance (Working Paper 10–099). Boston: Harvard Business School General Management Unit.
EtzioniA. (1973). The third sector and domestic missions. Public Administration Review, 33, 314–323.
25.
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006). Evaluierungskriterien für die deutsche bilaterale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit: Eine Orientierung für Evaluierungen des BMZ und der Durchführungsorganisationen [Evaluation criteria for the German bilateral development cooperation: An orientation for evaluations of BMZ and performing organizations]. Retrieved 14 January 2014, from http://www.bmz.de/de/zentrales_downloadarchiv/erfolg_und_kontrolle/evaluierungskriterien.pdf.
26.
FojcikT. M. (2007). Erfolgsnachweis von Non-Financials bei Social Entrepreneurs: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen [Proof of success of non-financials among social entrepreneurs: Possibilities and limits]. Unpublished diploma thesis, University of Hamburg, Germany.
27.
FreimannJ. (1994). Das Theorie-Praxis-Dilemma der Betriebswirtschaftslehre: Wissenschaftssoziologische Überlegungen zu einem besonderen Verhältnis [The theory-practice dilemma in business economics: Scientific sociological thoughts on a special relationship]. In Fischer-WinkelmannW. F. (Ed.), Tagung der Kommission Wissenschaftstheorie. Das Theorie-Praxis-Problem der Betriebswirtschaftslehre (pp. 7–25). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
GillS. J. (2010). Developing a learning culture in nonprofit organizations. Los Angeles: SAGE.
30.
GlynnJ. J., & MurphyM. P. (1996). Public management: Failing accountabilities and failing performance review. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(5/6), 125–137.
31.
GohlE. (2000). Prüfen und lernen: Praxisorientierte Handreichung zur Wirkungsbeobachtung und Evaluation [Verifying and learning: Practice-oriented handout for observating and evaluating impact]. Bonn, Germany: VENRO.
32.
GreatbanksR., ElkinG., & ManvilleG. (2010). The use and efficacy of anecdotal performance reporting in the third sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 571–585.
33.
GreilingD. (2009). Performance Measurement in Nonprofit-Organisationen [Performance measurement in nonprofit organizations]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
34.
GreilingD. (2010). Balanced scorecard implementation in German non-profit organisations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 534–554.
35.
GreilingD., & HalachmiA. (2013). Accountability and organizational learning in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 36, 380–406.
36.
GrimesM. (2010). Strategic sensemaking within funding relationships: The effects of performance measurement on organizational identity in the social sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 763–783.
JägerU. (2010). Managing social businesses: Mission, governance, strategy, and accountability. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
JannW. (1981): Kategorien der Policy-Forschung [Categories of policy research] (Speyer working papers No. 37). Speyer, Germany: German University of Administrative Sciences.
42.
JannW., & WegrichK. (2003). Phasenmodelle und Politikprozesse: Der Policy Cycle [Phase models and political processes: The policy cycle]. In SchubertK., & BandelowN. (Eds.), Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse (pp. 71–104). Munich, Germany: Oldenbourg.
43.
KettigerD., & SchwanderM. (2011). Wirkungsorientierung in der Sozialen Arbeit: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen [Impact orientation in social work: Possibilities and limits]. In FritzeA. (Ed.), Management und Systementwicklung in der Sozialen Arbeit (pp. 114–133). Berlin, Germany: Nomos.
44.
KießlerO. (1994). Betriebswirtschaftslehre: Eine Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Praxis [Business economics: A theory of economic practice]. In Fischer-WinkelmannW. F. (Ed.), Tagung der Kommission Wissenschaftstheorie. Das Theorie-Praxis-Problem der Betriebswirtschaftslehre (pp. 55–73). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
KurzB., & KubekD. (2013). Kursbuch Wirkung: Das Praxishandbuch für Alle, die Gutes noch besser tun wollen [Course book impact: The practical guide for everyone wanting to do good things even better]. Berlin, Germany: Phineo.
47.
LehnerM. (2011). Wirkungsorientierung: Eine österreichische Perspektive [Impact orientation: An Austrian perspective]. In FritzeA. (Ed.), Management und Systementwicklung in der Sozialen Arbeit (pp. 336–346). Berlin, Germany: Nomos.
48.
LeppertT. (2013). Social Entrepreneurship in Deutschland: Einflussfaktoren auf den Gründungsprozess von Social Entrepreneurs [Social entrepreneurship in Germany: Influential factors on the founding process of social entrepreneurs]. Hamburg, Germany: Kovac.
49.
McEwenJ., ShoesmithM., & AllenR. (2010). Embedding outcomes recording in Barnardo's performance management approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 586–598.
50.
MeyerM., & SimsaR. (2013). Entwicklungsperspektiven des Nonprofit-Sektors [Nonprofit sector's development prospects]. In SimsaR., MeyerM., & BadeltC. (Eds.), Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation: Strukturen und Management (5th ed., pp. 509–518). Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.
51.
MoynihanD. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
52.
MutterT. (1998). Aussagefähigere Erfolgskontrolle durch verbesserte Methoden [More meaningful control of results through improved methods]. In BrüneS. (Ed.), Erfolgskontrolle in der entwicklungspolitischen Zusammenarbeit (pp. 132–151). Hamburg, Germany: Deutsches Übersee-Institut.
53.
NajamA. (1996). Understanding the third sector: Revisiting the prince, the merchant, and the citizen. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 7, 203–219.
54.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/The Development Assistance Committee [OECD/DAC] (2000). Results based management in the development co-operation agencies: A review of experience. Retrieved January 13, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/31950681.pdf.
55.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/The Development Assistance Committee [OECD/DAC] (2002). Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management. Evaluation and Aid Effectiveness Series No. 6. Retrieved January 13, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/development/peer-reviews/2754804.pdf.
56.
OsborneD., & GaeblerT. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Plume.
57.
OsborneS. P., BovairdT., MartinS., TrickerM., & WaterstonP. (1995). Performance management and accountability in complex public programmes. Financial Accountability and Management, 11, 19–37.
58.
PfefferJ. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620.
PoisterT. H., PashaO. Q., & EdwardsL. H. (2013). Does performance management lead to better outcomes? Evidence from the U.S. public transit industry. Public Administration Review, 73, 625–636.
ProellerI., & SiegelJ. (2009). Performance Management in der deutschen Verwaltung: Eine explorative Einschätzung [Performance management in the German administration: An exploratory appraisal]. dms - der moderne staat - Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 2, 455–474.
63.
ReedR., & LuffmanG. A. (1986). Diversification: The growing confusion. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 29–35.
64.
RoderB. (2011). Reporting im Social Entrepreneurship: Konzeption einer externen Unternehmensberichterstattung für soziale Unternehmer [Reporting in social entrepreneurship: Conception of an external reporting for social entrepreneurs]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
65.
RossiP. H., FreemanH. E., & LipseyM. W. (1999). Evaluation: Asystematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE.
66.
SchillemansT., van TwistM. & VanhommerigI. (2013). Innovations in accountability. Public Performance&Management Review, 36, 407–435.
67.
SchneiderV. & JanningF. (2006). Politikfeldanalyse: Akteure, Diskurse und Netzwerke in der öffentlichen Politik. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
68.
SchoberC., RauscherO., & MillnerR. (2013). Evaluation und Wirkungsmessung [Evaluation and impact measurement]. In SimsaR., MeyerM., & BadeltC. (Eds.), Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation: Strukturen und Management (5th ed., pp. 451–470). Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.
69.
SchröderJ., & KettigerD. (2001). Wirkungsorientierte Steuerung in der sozialen Arbeit: Ergebnisse einer internationalen Recherche in den USA, den Niederlanden und der Schweiz [Impact-oriented management in social work: Results of an international research in the USA, the Netherlands and Switzerland]. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/Broschuerenstelle/Pdf-Anlagen/PRM-23998–SR-Band-229.
70.
ShortJ. C., MossT. W., & LumpkinG. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 161–194.
71.
ShortJ. C., PayneG. T. & KetchenD. J.Jr. (2008). Research on organizational configurations: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 34, 1053–1079.
StockmannR. (2006). Evaluation und Qualitätsentwicklung: Eine Grundlage für wirkungsorientiertes Qualitätsmanagement [Evaluation and quality improvement: A basis for impact-oriented quality management]. Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.
ToepelK., & TissenG. (2000). Stand und Perspektiven der Evaluation in Deutschland: Eine Einführung [State of and perspectives on evaluation in Germany: An introduction]. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 69, 347–349.
UebelhartB. (2011). Das Social-Impact-Modell (SIM): Vom sozialen Problem zur Wirkung [The social-impact-model (SIM): From the social problem to impact]. In FritzeA. (Ed.), Management und Systementwicklung in der Sozialen Arbeit (pp. 289–312). Berlin, Germany: Nomos.
ZimmerA., PrillerE., & AnheierH. K. (2013). Der Nonprofit-Sektor in Deutschland [The nonprofit sector in Germany]. In SimsaR., MeyerM., & BadeltC. (Eds.), Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation: Strukturen und Management (5th ed., pp. 15–36). Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.
