At peace with results: Navigating results in Swedish peacebuilding support

Abstract Motivation This study contributes to the literature on the conditions under which results‐based management (RBM) practices enhance or undermine development policy implementation, and research on how aid bureaucrats respond to competing institutional demands. Purpose The case of the Folke Bernadotte Academy (FBA), the Swedish government agency for peace, security, and development, contributes to the relatively limited literature on RBM in peacebuilding contexts. Approach and methods The analysis of FBA's responses to competing results demands is based on a qualitative research design combining document analysis, focus group interviews, and in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with staff across organizational functions. The analytical framework centres on institutional logics and strategic responses to conflicting institutional demands, and an ideal‐typical model is developed representing two co‐existing institutional logics for results: a Public Administration (PA) logic associated with requirements of upward accountability, precise measurement requirements and a Field‐based (FB) logic rooted in demands for adaptive, partner‐oriented implementation practices. Findings At FBA, results are predominantly interpreted in line with the FB logic, and few tensions between the logics are found. The less internally represented demands aligned with the PA logic on RBM are strategically redefined and decoupled from core operations using pragmatic bureaucratic skills, specifically a response we define as reversed commensuration . The case also reveals the use of proper organization proxies (legitimate structures, processes, and methods) to signal adherence and future results on the way. Policy implications Contrary to hegemonic beliefs in the field, the findings indicate that the tensions and adverse consequences commonly associated with RBM are not inevitable. The FBA case demonstrates how agencies can mitigate the dynamics of “result fetishism” by strategically mediating competing results demands while sustaining flexibility and responsiveness to partner priorities and avoiding hyper bureaucracy.