Outcome drift — When the process becomes the end rather than the means
A recurring theme in my work in the social impact space has been a well-intentioned process designed to achieve positive outcomes can become a barrier to those very outcomes. This phenomenon goes beyond mere box-ticking. It occurs when the original goal of a process is forgotten, and the process itself becomes the measure of success. The focus shifts from achieving the intended outcomes to merely completing the tasks and meeting the metrics. I call this 'Outcome drift' and I think it may be one of the biggest challenges we face in making meaningful change.
Consider a process designed to minimise the risk of bad actors accessing a service, ensure that recipients have their needs met, or guarantee the safety of children in state care. Initially, a set of tasks and metrics are established to ensure these outcomes. However, over time, the focus often shifts from the outcomes to the tasks themselves. The original aim is obscured. The process becomes the end rather than the means.
Once this happens, the process can start to produce outcomes that are the direct opposite of those originally intended. Success is measured by whether the prescribed tasks were completed, not whether the desired outcomes were achieved. Attempts to improve services, systems, and policies are undone because changing the broken processes would mean failing to meet compliance or funding obligations.
This issue has been explored by several thinkers, who have some potential solutions. However, implementing these solutions within a rigid system is a challenge in and of itself.
Some food for thought
David Graeber, in his book The Utopia of Rules, calls this "bureaucratic capture." He suggests we need to empower individuals within organisations and allow for more flexibility. Instead of sticking to rigid hierarchies, let’s make decisions based on what’s actually needed. Graeber also talks about making work meaningful again—because if people care about what they’re doing, they’ll focus on real outcomes. A lot of this thinking overlaps with another of his books "Bullshit Jobs", where he suggests that the value of the work you do is generally inversely related to how much you earn.
Ivan Illich, in Deschooling Society, critiques how institutionalised education becomes counterproductive, a concept he terms "institutional inversion." Illich advocates for dismantling rigid systems in favour of decentralised and personalised approaches. In Tools for Conviviality, he talks about designing tools and processes that enhance human interaction and autonomy. Tools for Conviviality is a big influence on modern co-design titles such as The Convivial Toolkit, Design When Everyone Designs and Design for the Pluriverse.
Michael Power, in The Audit Society, highlights the overemphasis on "rituals of verification"—basically, checking boxes. He suggests balancing audits with trust and professional judgment. Instead of just ticking off tasks, we should look at real-world impacts and set clear, meaningful goals.
James C. Scott talks about this in Seeing Like a State. He warns against "authoritarian high modernism," where top-down plans ignore local knowledge and end up missing the mark. Scott says we should listen to local insights and make small, manageable changes rather than huge overhauls.
David Rushkoff, in Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus, discusses how systems can become self-perpetuating and counterproductive. He emphasises human-centred design—getting users and stakeholders involved to ensure their needs are met. Rushkoff also advocates for localism and decentralisation, arguing that smaller, community-driven initiatives are more resilient and effective.
John Kay, in Obliquity, suggests that complex goals are best achieved indirectly. Instead of focusing on strict targets, we should aim for broader principles and values. This approach allows for flexibility and long-term thinking.
While these ideas sound great, implementing them in a rigid system isn’t easy. Here’s why:
Institutional Inertia: Big organisations resist change. Empowering people and decentralising decisions can threaten existing power structures.
Compliance and Accountability: It’s hard to balance trust with the need for compliance and accountability, especially when regulations are strict.
Resource Constraints: Making these changes requires resources that might be tight. Organisations on a budget might struggle to find the flexibility needed.
Cultural Shift: Changing the way people think and work takes time and effort. It’s not something that happens overnight.
Authorising Environment: To make these changes, you need buy-in from everyone involved—from top management to frontline staff.
Nevertheless, here are some themes or principles to keep in mind.
Build in Flexibility: Cut down on rigid hierarchies and make decisions based on actual needs.
Decentralisation: Embrace community-based, personalised approaches.
Balance Trust and Verification: Focus on real-world impacts and meaningful goals, not just compliance.
Local Knowledge: Value the insights of those directly affected by policies and processes.
Meaningful Participation: Make sure the people who use the systems are involved in designing them.
Broad Principles over Hard Targets: Focus on broader principles and values, and plan for the long haul.
Creating an environment that supports these changes means:
Leadership Commitment: Get strong support from the top.
Change management: Involve everyone in the process to build consensus.
Clear Communication: Explain the benefits clearly and show how changes align with the organisation’s goals.
Training and Support: Provide the resources and training people need to adapt.
Flexible Evaluation: Keep track of progress and make adjustments as needed.
We need a process and systems that keep us accountable to the outcomes and impacts that we want to achieve. We need to call out Outcome Drift when we see it take action against it in whatever small way we can. Even if that is just asking “Is this really going to achieve what we want it to?”
