Measures Are Not Neutral Tools – They Are Expressions of Goal Construction

Measures are less rational problem-solving tools than symptoms of a fundamental epistemological dilemma.

They arise from the interplay between the organization's inner world and its constructed outer world, and thereby become expressions of their own logic of origin. This systemic feedback manifests in the indistinguishability between actual goals and retrospective justifications, which turns measures into self-willed actors that outlive and transform their supposed purposes.

Organizations Respond to Their Own Interpretation of Reality

Measures in organizations are not neutral tools but expressions of a complex, nested inner world that mirrors itself in the outer world – and vice versa. What writer Peter Handke (1969) described as "The Inner World of the Outer World of the Inner World" finds its practical counterpart in organizational contexts.

Organizations do not respond directly to external conditions but always to their own interpretation of this outer world. This interpretation, however, is already pre-shaped by the organizational inner world – a web of routines, expectations, power dynamics, and latent anxieties.

Societal norms, market logics, political requirements, and technological innovations penetrate the organization, where they are filtered, reinterpreted, or repelled. From this exchange process, the organization generates its own unique inner world – an interpretive framework that in turn acts back upon the outer world.

Through measures, the organization shapes its external appearance, while it simultaneously remains unclear whether these actions actually respond to "objective" external requirements or to the internally constructed version of the outer world.

The dynamics of this interplay can be specified through developmental psychologist Jean Piaget's (2003) concepts of assimilation and accommodation. Organizations do not passively process external demands but undergo an active process of appropriation: in assimilation, new impulses are integrated into existing patterns of thought and action without fundamentally altering them.

External challenges are interpreted to fit the accustomed logic – the inner world remains stable, but the risk of distorting reality grows. Accommodation occurs when the organization must adapt its internal structures to manage contradictory demands. This process transforms routines, power distributions, and expectations – the inner world changes, but this requires energy-intensive processes of adjustment.

Goals and Measures Cannot Be Separated

It is often unclear whether organizations take measures to achieve certain goals – or whether they define goals to justify existing measures. From the fundamental insight that organizations perceive their environment only through their own filters, a central dilemma arises.

This interplay between goals and measures cannot be steered linearly: every decision changes both internal processes and the relationship to the environment. Frequently, they stabilize power structures or conceal latent interests.

For example, a department introduces a new reporting tool – officially to increase efficiency, but in practice to expand control. The actors involved, however, rationalize this as an "unavoidable necessity," which makes it harder to reflexively penetrate the self-interest at play.

The capacity for learning requires accommodation – a process that inherently provokes resistance. At the same time, assimilation cements existing routines and limits the scope for action. This coexistence is not a defect but an inherent property of social systems. Organizations always navigate between two poles: too much stability leads to rigidity, too much flexibility to loss of control.

Routine Outlasts Effectiveness

The longer measures exist, the more they become routine – regardless of their actual effectiveness. They then shape not only action but also the way goals are formulated.

An organization that has been fixated on metrics for years will automatically express new goals in numbers – even when qualitative aspects would be more important.

A company clings to outdated Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) even though market requirements have long since shifted. The reason is not rational pragmatism but the fear among decision-makers that new metrics would cause them to lose their interpretive authority. The organization's "inner world" – shaped by historical success patterns and internal power alliances – filters the "outer world" until it fits into its own worldview.

In uncertain situations, organizations resort to a paradoxical mechanism: they implement measures to demonstrate the capacity to act – even when their benefit is questionable. Or, in the words of management scholar Günther Ortmann (2009):

“When the supposedly firm ground beneath our feet begins to sway or sink, vertigo seizes us, and almost inevitably we reach for something to hold on to.”

Measures become "masks of desperation," concealing inner helplessness to the outside while simultaneously cementing internal logic. A hospital, for instance, introduces a new admissions system to reduce waiting times. But instead of addressing the causes of the waiting times, it optimizes documentation – the measure stabilizes the system rather than changing it.

Self-Reflection Reproduces the Logic It Criticizes

Organizations face an irresolvable dilemma when they attempt to recognize their own blind spots. The attempt to question their own wishful images is itself an expression of those very images. Every attempt to overcome problematic measures through reflexive practices reproduces the logic of the system being criticized.

Organizations that recognize that their constant production of measures is a fundamental characteristic of their system can develop strategies that do not try to prevent this property. Instead, they can find ways to use this logic meaningfully and derive advantages from it.

The art lies in rethinking the internal filters. Precisely a failed initiative can – when properly reflected upon – reveal routines, expectations, power dynamics, and latent anxieties, and grant new actors access. Exposing the interests behind measures, however, requires the willingness of actors to make decision-making processes visible as arenas of competing interpretive claims and expectations.