When impact-oriented management was introduced in the Austrian federal administration in 2013, my first encounter with the concept was anything but inspiring. At the time, I was working in a line ministry. What reached me and my colleagues on our desks were templates, reporting requirements, and formal instructions. We were expected to define impact objectives, output measures, and indicators, yet no one could convincingly explain what these objectives were meant to achieve, how they related to our daily work or why they mattered in the first place.

Impact-oriented management felt like an administrative burden rather than a meaningful reform, characterized by an additional workload, new reporting obligations, and a limited connection to day-to-day management. The broader logic behind the reform remained largely invisible. A few years later, this perception underwent a fundamental shift. During my postgraduate studies at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, I engaged more deeply with the theory and international practice of impact-oriented management. For the first time, I understood the ambition behind the concept: to shift the focus of public action from activities and outputs to societal outcomes; to connect political goals, administrative action, and resource allocation through a coherent logic of impact; and to help organizations ask not only whether they are doing things right, but whether they are doing the right things.

Since then, my professional path has allowed me to observe impact-oriented management from multiple perspectives: as a researcher analyzing its early implementation, as a practitioner involved in the further development of the system at the federal level, and as an advisor supporting organizations in strengthening their management capabilities. These experiences have led me to a clear conclusion: impact-oriented management rarely fails because of weak indicators or imperfect tools. It fails when it is treated as a technical reform instead of being understood and led as a long-term cultural change.

The Promise of Impact-Oriented Management

At its core, impact-oriented management is a powerful idea. By starting with desired societal outcomes, it challenges organizations to clarify their purpose, align their activities with political priorities, and make their contribution to public value more transparent. It provides a structured way to link resources, measures, and results, thereby supporting both efficiency and effectiveness.

Beyond its managerial dimension, impact-oriented management also carries a strong governance promise. By making goals explicit and effects visible, it can enhance transparency, strengthen accountability, and improve dialogue between politics, administration, and the public. It is therefore no surprise that many governments have adopted impact- or results-oriented approaches. Yet the gap between conceptual ambition and practical reality remains striking. Based on my experience, three recurring patterns help explain why the promised benefits so often remain unrealized.

Formal Adoption Without Managerial Use

In many organizations, impact-oriented management exists primarily as a reporting exercise. Objectives and indicators are defined because they are required, not because they actively guide decisions. Reports are produced, submitted and archived, but rarely discussed in management meetings or reflected in strategic choices. When impact information does not influence priorities, resource allocation or leadership conversations, it quickly loses credibility. What remains is a layer of formal compliance detached from actual management practice.

Bureaucratization Instead of Learning

A second, more subtle pattern is often described as bureaucratization, yet the problem does not lie in formalization as such. In complex public organizations, formal correctness, completeness, and clearly defined procedures are a necessary precondition for legitimacy, accountability and legal certainty. The challenge arises when formal requirements are not accompanied by communication, sense-making and opportunities for reflection. When impact-oriented management is primarily experienced as a set of reporting obligations, without a shared understanding of its purpose and use, its learning potential remains untapped. In such cases, the issue is not too much bureaucracy, but too little organizational learning. Without structured spaces to discuss results, question assumptions, and adjust practices, impact-oriented management risks being reduced to compliance exercise rather than becoming a driver of continuous improvement.

Delegated Responsibility

A third, particularly critical pattern concerns the delegation of responsibility for impact-oriented management. In many administrations, specialized impact or controlling units are established to ensure methodological quality, coherence, and continuity. Such units are indispensable. They provide expertise, coordinate processes, and often act as the institutional backbone of impact-oriented management. The existence of specialized units does not diminish managerial relevance; it does so only when leadership disengages and delegates ownership entirely to these functions. Impact-oriented management can only unfold its steering potential when senior leaders actively engage with impact objectives, use impact-related information in their decisions, and signal its importance through their actions.

Specialized units can support, advise, and challenge leadership, but they cannot replace it. Impact-oriented management becomes effective only when professional support structures and leadership ownership reinforce each other. Taken together, these three patterns illustrate why impact-oriented management so often remains symbolic. Addressing them requires more than refining indicators or reporting templates. It requires leadership ownership, organizational learning, and a willingness to engage seriously with uncertainty and complexity. In Part 2, I will turn to what impact-oriented management requires to succeed in practice and why, beyond managerial concerns, it matters for governance, evidence-informed policy-making, and democratic legitimacy.

You're nvited to read Part II on Feb 24.