A meeting count can tell us that contact occurred. It cannot, by itself, tell us whether participants understood the information, influenced a decision or developed the capacity to act.
When an initiative depends on partnerships and participation, the performance story needs room for those questions. Transactional measures remain useful, but they need not be the only lens.
Look beyond the interaction
Research by Bassey, Cookingham Bailey and Steccolini on accountee-ability offers a useful example. Their article examines the capability to interpret, question and mobilize public information and identifies civil-society roles as direct accountees, enablers and co-producers.
The distinction is relevant to a relational performance conversation. Participation is not simply the receipt of a report or attendance at an event. It can involve interpretation, challenge and the production of additional knowledge. The authors also caution that capability, independence, access and power affect how these roles work.
Add a question about the relationship
As PPX editorial suggestions, consider pairing an activity count with a question about its meaning. Alongside the number of meetings, ask whether the intended participants could engage. Alongside the number of resources distributed, ask whether people could use them. Alongside the number of partners, ask how their perspectives informed the work.
These are not validated indicators or claims that one relationship causes an outcome. They are prompts for identifying what an activity count leaves unanswered.
Keep evidence and interpretation distinct
A relational perspective should not replace one set of assumptions with another. Attendance does not prove trust, and a positive comment does not demonstrate sustained influence. Be explicit about what the evidence shows and what remains an interpretation.
Colin Ross's distinction between descriptive and evaluative assurance is useful here. Evidence about activity and evidence supporting a conclusion about results are not interchangeable. A clear performance story explains the connection rather than relying on the volume of interactions.
Lesson learned
Relationships can be part of how an initiative works, but they need careful examination rather than automatic celebration. The practical objective is to make participation, capability and influence discussable alongside delivery.
For organizations working across sectors, this offers a way to connect results thinking with the experience of partners and communities. Start with the change the initiative seeks, then ask what the relationship needs to contribute and what evidence could illuminate that contribution.
Which important part of your partnership work is missing from the measures you currently report?
Share the question with the PPX community and compare how different settings describe results that depend on working together.
Sources and further reading
- Edidiong Bassey, Elizabeth Cookingham Bailey and Ileana Steccolini. New development: Accountability without capability? Civil society organizations as infrastructure for accountee-ability. Public Money & Management, 2026.
- Colin Ross. Debate: The performance audit paradox: more evidence, more confidence, but not necessarily more insight. Public Money & Management, 2026.
Continue learning with PPX
Explore results-based management training, browse PPX learning events, or join the PPX community.
Comments are closed.