For nonprofits and mission-driven organizations, data is a tool for learning, improving programs, and making the best strategic decisions. Strong data practices can help organizations understand what’s working, adapt in real time, and demonstrate impact.
Professional data use goes beyond basic reporting or compliance. It refers to how organizations actively embed data into the day-to-day decision-making process to enhance programs, allocate resources, guide strategy, assess outcomes, evaluate impact, and predict future trends.
Because of this, many organizations invest in capacity building: efforts designed to strengthen how they collect, analyze, and use data internally. But not all capacity-building strategies are equally effective.
Researchers at the Northwestern Network for Social Impact (NNSI) have found that evaluation capacity building is not just about access to tools or expertise. Rather, it’s about how learning happens within networks.
The Pressures That Shape Organizational Behavior
To understand how organizations adopt new practices, researchers often turn to the institutional theory of isomorphism. Developed by sociologists Paul DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell, Isomorphism explains why organizations tend to behave more similarly over time, especially when facing uncertainty.
There are three main types of pressure:
Mimetic pressure: Organizations imitate peers they see as successful
Coercive pressure: Organizations conform to external requirements, like funder expectations
Normative pressure: Organizations adopt standards promoted by experts or professional communities
The research also highlights an important distinction in how organizations operate within networks:
Ego-centric (direct partnerships): These are close, one-on-one relationships in which organizations collaborate through shared programs, data, or resources.
Coalition-based (group membership): These involve larger groups united by a shared mission or initiative.
Both structures are common in the nonprofit and social impact space. But do they influence learning in the same way?
Understanding How Organizations Learn
Evaluation capacity building is not just about access to tools or expertise. It’s about how learning happens within and between organizations.
This distinction matters because organizational learning is different from individual learning. In professional development, an individual staff member may gain new skills or knowledge, but unless those practices are adopted across teams, processes, and decision-making structures, the organization itself doesn’t change.
Organizational learning, by contrast, occurs when new ways of working, like using data strategically, become embedded in how the organization operates. It is a systematic process that aims to enhance overall organizational knowledge and adapt its practices to operate in dynamic environments.
Being part of a coalition with strong data practices did not have a meaningful impact, nor did receiving technical assistance or connecting to expert organizations significantly influence behavior. However, organizations with direct partners who used data effectively were significantly more likely to adopt strong data practices themselves.
To understand why, consider the difference between dancing in pairs and a flash mob. A coalition is like a flash mob: a large group performing a collective choreography toward a shared goal, but with little individual interaction. In contrast, direct partnerships are like a pair dance; the partners are close, allowing them to observe their moves and adjust their own in real time.
Through this, organizations naturally imitate the successful behaviors they observe in their closest peers. This ego-centric, peer-level influence builds an organization’s “absorptive capacity”—the ability to recognize the value of new information and actually apply it to improve performance. This lateral influence is the only factor that consistently predicts whether an organization will move beyond mere reporting toward strategic data use.
Rethinking Capacity Building
When organizations work closely with peers, share data, solve problems together, and observe each other’s processes, they learn in ways that feel tangible and actionable. They don’t just hear about good practices; they see them in action.
So what does this mean for organizations trying to improve how they use data? It suggests a shift in focus from large coalitions, abstract best practices, and external expertise to meaningful partnerships, observable behaviors, and peer-driven learning.
Capacity building isn’t just about access to knowledge. It’s about how that knowledge is learned, transmitted, and reinforced. This kind of learning is inherently human. It’s built on trust, repetition, and shared experience.
Read the full article here to explore how these findings can inform more effective approaches to evaluation capacity building.
Written by Jenna Jeon (Class of ’27)