Positive Impact Measurement

One of the most common client questions when I run #wellbeing interventions—whether #coaching, team-building, or #leadership development—is: “How do we measure the impact?” There are, of course, several tools for this—360 feedback, personality tests, engagement surveys—but while these offer useful data, they don’t always capture the most critical factor: how people actually feel. Impact isn’t just about numbers; it’s about whether individuals experience positive change in their connection to others, their #umindset, and their sense of purpose. This is where one of my favorite frameworks comes in, CHIME. Originally developed in #mentalhealth recovery, CHIME provides a meaningful way to assess whether interventions foster authentic engagement, resilience, and transformation. CHIME stands for: ✅ Connectedness – Do people feel a stronger sense of belonging and support in the workplace? ✅ Hope & Optimism – Has their outlook improved? Do they feel that growth and progress are possible? ✅ Identity – Have they gained greater self-awareness and alignment with their values? ✅ Meaning – Does their work feel more connected to a greater purpose? ✅ Empowerment – Do they feel more autonomous, confident, and in control of their growth? Why Does This Matter? Many corporate well-being programs focus on surface-level engagement like team bonding activities, wellness perks, or short-term morale boosters. While these have their place, their impact fades quickly if they don’t address deeper psychological needs. By integrating CHIME as part of the evaluation of results, organizations can assess effectiveness by asking: ✔️ Are workplace relationships improving? (Connectedness) ✔️ Are employees feeling more hopeful and resilient? (Hope & Optimism) ✔️ Do they have greater clarity about who they are and what they want? (Identity) ✔️ Are they more connected to the company’s mission? (Meaning) ✔️ Do they feel a greater sense of ownership over their careers? (Empowerment) Rather than relying solely on metrics, subjective human experience is a critical indicator of #success as well, because basically to quote Luigi Pirandello: “Right you are, if you think so”.

If you don’t measure it, you can’t improve it. When I first started Youth Leads UK, I thought impact was obvious. Young people told us they felt more confident, more connected, more skilled - surely that was enough? But here’s the truth: passion convinces hearts, evidence convinces funders, partners, and policymakers. Without data, it’s harder to scale what works and fix what doesn’t. That’s why I’ve been working with Charlotte and Bethan at Bean Research to rethink our approach. They’ve helped us move from collecting feedback here and there, to building a clear, consistent framework that shows both the numbers and the human stories. A few lessons I’ve taken away from this journey: ↳ Focus on what really matters - not 20 measures, just the few that capture confidence, skills, and opportunity. ↳ Make it simple and consistent - small surveys, quick reflections, and clear tools beat complicated forms that nobody fills in. ↳ Pair data with voices - stats prove scale, but quotes prove depth. Together they paint the full picture. Impact measurement isn’t about ticking boxes. It’s about making sure our time, energy, and resources actually change lives - and being able to show it with confidence. 👉 If you’re leading a project, what’s the one impact you most want to measure, and why?

Beyond Likes and Clicks: Measuring the True Impact of Sustainable Media Clicks, views, and shares are easy to track, but do they tell the whole story of sustainable media's impact? This thought-provoking article in the Journal of Sustainability Education argues for a shift beyond traditional metrics and towards measuring the systemic change sustainable media can drive. Here's why it matters: Going deeper than vanity metrics: Likes and shares don't capture the nuances of behavior change, community engagement, or policy influence. Understanding the ripple effect: Sustainable media can inspire action long after consumption, impacting individuals, communities, and even entire systems. Shifting the narrative: Focusing on systemic change encourages media to move beyond awareness-raising and actively contribute to solutions. The article proposes alternative approaches: Community engagement metrics: Track participation in sustainability initiatives inspired by media coverage. Policy change indicators: Monitor legislative shifts influenced by media pressure. Long-term impact studies: Analyze the lasting effects of media campaigns on individuals and communities. Join the conversation! What are your thoughts on measuring the impact of sustainable media? Have you encountered examples of media driving systemic change? How can we encourage media to focus on deeper impact beyond traditional metrics? #SustainableMedia #ImpactMeasurement #SystemicChange #MediaResponsibility #BeyondMetrics #CommunityEngagement #PolicyChange Let's move beyond vanity metrics and work together to build a media landscape that measures and drives positive change for a sustainable future!

The amended #ESRS exposure drafts finally define what counts as a “positive impact”. And for many CSRD Wave 1 companies, it means their positive impacts will no longer qualify. The new definition in amended ESRS 1 General requirements para 36 states that: 1️⃣ Positive impacts shall be assessed in their own right (consistent with EFRAG Q&A ID 37) 2️⃣ No netting off against negative impacts 3️⃣ Results of mitigation or remediation actions on negative impacts caused by or contributed to by its compliance with law and regulation ≠ positive impact  4️⃣ Business activities, products and services that mitigate or remediate negative impacts of another party = impact When assessing a positive impact, you should also take into account the qualitative characteristics of information provided in ESRS 1 Appendix B, particularly its relevance and decision-usefulness for financial stakeholders and other users of the sustainability statement (QC1 & QC2). Taken together, this directly addresses two common pitfalls we saw in FY2024 reports: ➡️ Actions presented as impacts ➡️ “Low-threshold” positive impacts that amount to compliance or PR, not material positive impacts. So, what impacts would no longer be valid? ❌ A strong safety culture has a positive impact by increasing safety awareness. ➜Mitigating action for negative safety impact ❌ Paying adequate wages ➜Compliance with EU regulation + not decision-useful ❌ Training and development for own workforce ➜Compliance with EU regulation + not decision-useful ❌ Anti-bribery & corruption programmes ➜Mitigating action for bribery & corruption risk ❌ Transparent tax reporting ➜Compliance with EU regulation + not decision-useful What impacts are still valid? ✅ Enabling the green transition ➜Addresses a third-party harm ✅ Aid & Relief operations supporting communities and saving lives  ➜Addresses a third-party harm ✅ Reducing and preventing serious chronic diseases ➜Addresses a third-party harm What this means for FY2025:  👉The amended ESRS won’t be adopted until mid-2026 and won't apply until FY2027, but the definition already offers useful guidance.  👉Review your DMA now, some positive impacts won’t survive under the new definition. What’s your take on the new definition of positive impacts?

As a donor, 90% of the grant proposals I read fail to include strong, measurable goals. If a proposal lacks strong goals, why should a donor approve it? Many organizations focus on their activities such as how many papers they’ll write, how many events they’ll host, or how many social media posts they'll create. But while important, these numbers alone don't create impact. Activities only create impact when they contribute to a clear and measurable goal. Foundations may call them outcomes, deliverables, or something else, but the real question is: Are your goals focused on the impact of your work, and are they both measurable and meaningful to your mission? Your goals should reflect what you hope to accomplish because of your work, not just the work itself, and they may vary depending on what you're trying to accomplish. For example, if your project involves writing research reports, the goal isn’t just to produce a certain number of reports. The real question is what impact will those reports have? Are you hoping to educate the public? Then tracking reads or media mentions might be the right measure. A goal here might be 10 media mentions in the next 6 months. Are you aiming for policy change? Then citations in legislative or academic discussions might be more relevant than raw readership numbers. In this case, a better goal might be 6 citations in the 3 months following the report's release. In your personal life, you might set a goal to go to the gym 3 times a week (an activity), but that doesn't tell you how long to go, what exercises to do, or why 3 times a week is effective. But if your goal is to gain 5 lbs of muscle in 6 months (the impact), you can start answering those questions with clarity. Start with your big-picture goal, then ask yourself: What would need to happen for this to become a reality? 🤔 How can we track progress toward that outcome? 📈 Don’t just set goals to satisfy a donor’s requirements. Make them meaningful to your mission. When your goals align with the change you want to see, measuring progress becomes not just a reporting requirement, but a powerful tool for driving impact.

Measuring #impact is critical for #nonprofits; it is the most powerful mechanism they have to prove value to potential #donors and #volunteers. But it is also not straightforward. What metrics are the most important to measure? How do you know when something is working?  And, importantly, how should how you make impact inform the donors and volunteers you target?   One of our customers, Environmental Voter Project, has taken a particularly data-driven approach to combine #voter mobilization with measuring and optimizing impact. EVP uses voter analytics and predictive modeling to identify environmentalists who don’t vote, and reach out to them year-round with targeted, non-partisan messages encouraging voting in local, state, and federal elections. All voter mobilization campaigns are part of randomized, controlled trials to identify the most successful strategies and measure impact independent of outside variables like candidate campaigns or geography.    Using Bonterra's EveryAction solution, EVP has built a website to showcase success metrics and publish trial insights to show supporters how their efforts drive continuous learning and increased voter turnout. This transparent test-and-learn approach is a fantastic way to encourage involvement and bring your supporters along on your journey.     EVP is a textbook example of the value of combining targeted outreach with impact measurement and using each to inform the other. Awesome work!

85% of the universe is invisible. So is most of your marketing impact. Einstein once missed the invisible forces shaping the universe. Not because they weren’t real, but because the tools couldn’t detect them. Most marketing teams are making the same mistake. They kill campaigns that are working. They dismiss brand lift because last-click can't see it. They blame the creative, the media buyer, the channel. But it’s not a marketing problem. It’s a measurement problem. Let me show you what better measurement looks like: “Our brand building isn’t working.” → Run an MMM. Check your intercept or baseline. That is the revenue you'd generate with zero marketing. If it is rising over time, your brand efforts are working. Attribution tools just can’t see it. “CTV was a waste of money.” → Run a causal impact analysis. Platform ROAS looks terrible. But every time we re-analyze these campaigns, we uncover positive lift, often 1.5 to 2 times incremental ROAS. The impact is there. You're just blind to it. “Attribution doesn’t make sense.” → Account for rolling reach and memory effects. Someone sees your CTV ad, then a podcast, then a display ad, then converts three weeks later. Last-click gives credit to the final touchpoint. But the real driver was cumulative exposure over time. Most tools can’t see that build-up. The pattern is always the same: Brands blame their marketing. But the real issue is measurement blindness. Einstein missed the invisible forces shaping the universe, not because they weren’t there, but because the tools were not ready. It took decades for better instruments to prove they existed. Your best growth drivers might be invisible right now. Not because they are not working, but because your measurement cannot see them. The brands that win at scale do not just market better. They measure what others cannot see. And scale because of it.

Business metrics tell you if healthcare AI sells. Clinical impact metrics tell you if it actually works. Healthcare AI companies track ROI, implementation speed, and user adoption. These satisfy investors but ignore the essential question: does this improve care? Clinical impact requires measuring what matters: 1) Patient outcomes. Error reduction. Treatment outcome improvement for specific disorders. Patient satisfaction with their care experience. 2) Physician wellbeing. Burnout reduction. Lower cognitive load during clinical work. Job satisfaction increases. A tool that boosts billing efficiency while exhausting physicians isn't successful healthcare AI. A system that speeds documentation but increases medical errors isn't valuable technology (regardless of revenue growth). Business metrics measure product-market fit and financial sustainability. Clinical metrics measure whether the tool actually helps people. Healthcare AI needs both frameworks. Strong business performance without clinical impact means you're scaling something that doesn't work. Strong clinical impact without business viability means you can't sustain the solution. The measurement gap explains why some heavily-funded healthcare AI companies struggle with clinical adoption despite impressive sales metrics. They optimized for the wrong outcomes. *** Which clinical impact metric would reveal the most about whether a healthcare AI tool actually improves care… error reduction, treatment outcomes, or clinician wellbeing? Let me know in the comments!

Rethinking Performance Reviews: From Ratings to Impact What if we stopped assigning performance ratings and instead started recognizing performance by its impact? Employers: If you are embracing a performance model rooted in continuous feedback and want to develop a growth-oriented culture, consider using “Degree of Impact” as your metric. "Degree of Impact" measures the scope, significance, and sustainability of an employee's contributions across four dimensions: 1.       Business Outcomes – Driving team and organization results 2.       Customer Value – Improving customer results, experience, and satisfaction 3.       Team Success – Collaborating to elevate others and their results 4.       Enabling Others – Coaching, mentoring, and sharing tools as well as knowledge Instead of a static rating scale, we assess outcomes in terms of Low, Medium, or High Impact: Low Impact - Definition: Contributions are consistent with role expectations but have a localized or short-term effect. Indicators: (a) Completed assigned tasks reliably (b) Minimal innovation or change driven by employee (c) Supported team members occasionally (d) No measurable change in business or customer outcomes Medium Impact - Definition: Contributions moderately exceed role expectations and affect broader team or process outcomes. Indicators: (a) Initiated improvements or solved moderate challenges (b) Enhanced efficiency or quality in a repeatable way (c) Regularly assisted peers or improved team dynamics (d) Helped retain customers or improved customer feedback High Impact - Definition: Contributions significantly exceed role expectations, drives lasting change or substantial business/customer success. Indicators: (a) Led major initiatives or innovations (b) Directly contributed to revenue growth, cost savings, or major customer wins (c) Elevated team performance through mentoring, coaching, or creating reusable resources/tools (d) Role-modeled feedback and improvement culture; helped multiple others succeed This model shifts the focus to fueling high performance broadly. It gives leaders better insight into who’s creating real, scalable, and sustainable value. It can also be linked to compensation and career growth: Base pay increases and bonuses reflect the level of impact, not just tenure or task completion. This approach helps build a culture of ownership, growth, recognition, and continuous improvement. Are you using something similar in your organization? #Compensation #CareerDevelopment #HR #TotalRewards #PerformanceManagement #ContinuousFeedback #PeopleFirst #CompensationConsultant #TalentManagement https://shorturl.at/0BeN4

I used to rely on “feeling” like I was making progress in my career. I learnt it the hard way that this was a big mistake, and here is why: 👇 🔥 You cannot improve what you cannot measure. Period! 🔥 Early in my career, I’d walk into performance reviews with vague statements like “I worked really hard this year” and “I made a big impact.” Then I realized the professionals who advanced fastest weren’t necessarily the “hardest” workers - they were the best measurers, and improved what needed to be improved as a result. 🚀 How High Performers Measure Progress: ↳ “I increased team productivity by 23% through process optimization” ↳ “I generated $2.4M in pipeline from my networking efforts” ↳ “I reduced customer churn by 15% in my territory” ↳ “I mentored 6 junior employees, 4 of whom got promoted” 👏 The Career Metrics That Actually Matter: ↳ Revenue Impact: How did your work directly contribute to the bottom line? ↳ Efficiency Gains: What processes did you improve and by how much? ↳ Team Development: How many people did you help grow or promote? ↳ Problem Solving: What specific challenges did you solve and what was the measurable outcome? 🙌 Why Measurement Transforms Careers: ↳ Clarity: You know exactly where you’re winning and where you’re losing ↳ Confidence: You can articulate your value with precision during reviews ↳ Course Correction: You can adjust tactics quickly when metrics decline ↳ Credibility: Leaders trust people who speak in data, not feelings ↳ Promotion Readiness: You always have concrete examples of your impact How do you measure progress? Share below 👇 — ↻  ✰ Share to inspire change ✰ ＋ ✰ Follow me for more if you found this useful ✰