Success in social impact enterprises is often measured by tangible improvements — increased incomes, enhanced skills, and stronger communities. But what about those left behind? What happens when well-intended initiatives create unintended exclusions or even reinforce inequalities? Too often, negative impacts are overlooked, leaving critical lessons unaddressed.

The Intergenerational Entrepreneurial Mindset Development Program (Intergen), run by Social Innovation Movement and funded through the Hasanah Special Grant (HSG) 2022 by Yayasan Hasanah and the Ministry of Finance Malaysia (MoF), presents a compelling case study in holistic impact management — not just maximizing benefits, but also identifying and mitigating harm.

At its heart, the Intergen project is about bridging generational divides through entrepreneurial mindset development (EMD), fostering collaboration between younger and older generations to create sustainable economic opportunities. The program operates community hubs in Sabah and Sarawak, supporting upcycling initiatives and community-based business activities (CBA) with the goal of establishing a dedicated upcycling hub in Borneo Island, Malaysia.

Dorothy: the voice for the community

Through skills training, the initiative empowers seniors with technical expertise in sewing and crafting, while equipping youth with marketing and digital capabilities to amplify sales. These intended outcomes — economic resilience, social inclusion, and sustainable enterprise — have been achieved in many cases. However, impact is rarely linear.

A wake-up call: The unexpected surge in rejected bags

One of the biggest risks in impact measurement is fixation on positive numbers — tracking the number of people trained, businesses started, or income generated, while failing to capture struggles, stress, and unintended harm experienced by participants. This tendency to prioritize success metrics over challenges can lead to blind spots in program evaluation. What happens when something goes wrong? Dr. Jane Chang, Intergen Program Director, recalled a pivotal moment that forced the team to rethink their approach: “We began noticing something alarming. The number of rejected bags at the sewing station suddenly spiked. Why was this happening?”

The program operates community hubs in Sabah and Sarawak, supporting upcycling initiatives and community-based business activities (CBA) with the goal of establishing a dedicated upcycling hub in Borneo Island, Malaysia.

At first, the team assumed the issue was technical skill-related — perhaps participants were struggling with sewing techniques, or the materials were faulty. However, a closer investigation revealed a far more fundamental issue.

Structural misalignment: When program design becomes a barrier

At the Intergen project sewing station in Kampung Pukak, Sabah, senior participants spent their mornings farming, tending to their land, or managing household responsibilities. By afternoon, they were physically drained and accustomed to taking a much-needed rest before the evening’s work. Without realizing it, the program’s fixed afternoon sewing sessions conflicted with their normal routine.

They now faced two choices:

• Prioritize their rest, risking disengagement from the program
• Attend the sewing sessions while exhausted, leading to frustration and mistakes

The unintended consequence?

• A surge in rejected products, not due to lack of skill, but due to physical fatigue
• Increased frustration and self-doubt among participants
• Dropouts, as some seniors quietly withdrew from the program, feeling inadequate

“It wasn’t just that people were making mistakes,” Jane reflected. “They were making mistakes because they were tired. But this wasn’t something we were capturing in our impact data.” Instead of identifying why the errors were happening, the initial focus had been on correcting mistakes — without realizing that the root cause was structural misalignment. This discovery challenged the way success was being measured. Was it fair to evaluate participants solely on their ability to produce high-quality output, without considering whether the program itself was designed to support their needs?

The spike in rejected bags wasn’t just a production issue — it was a signal that something was wrong in the design of the intervention. Those who struggled most felt embarrassed. Some began skipping sessions. Others disappeared completely. If left unaddressed, this kind of exclusion was invisible because of another oversight: survivorship bias.

Survivorship bias: The silent disappearance of struggling participants

Another critical gap in impact measurement is survivorship bias — where only those who succeed are counted, while those who drop out or struggle are ignored. The danger? It creates a distorted sense of effectiveness, making a program appear successful while failing to address the challenges faced by those who quietly exited. At a glance, program data looked promising — participation rates were high, and many seniors were completing their training.

But who was missing from the numbers? Dr. Jonathan Choo, the coordinator for Intergen impact data, noticed an anomaly. “The data looked great,” he observed. “But when I looked deeper, I realized something was missing — there was no negative feedback, no mention of any struggles. That just didn’t seem right. Not a single person faced difficulties?”

Then, an interesting story surfaced.

In our conversation with Dorothy, the 72-year-old community leader, we discovered that participants were indeed eager to join the program. They attended the sessions with enthusiasm. But some struggled with sewing techniques. Those who struggled saw others progressing while they remained at the basics. Feeling left behind, they began skipping sessions. Eventually, they stopped coming altogether.

The assumption? They have lost interest. The reality? We didn’t give them the opportunity to learn at their own pace.

And here’s the real issue: their absence wasn’t documented as a failure of the program — it wasn’t documented at all. “It’s easy to celebrate success when you’re only looking at those who make it to the end,” Jonathan reflected. “But if we only measure who stays, we never learn why others leave. And if we don’t learn that, we can’t call what we’re doing truly inclusive.”

Survivorship bias hides displacement, allowing projects to ignore the very people who needed them the most.

Rewriting the narrative: From exclusion to inclusion

Most organizations might not have noticed who was no longer in the room. But the Intergen team did something different — they tracked down those who left. And what they found changed everything:

• Dropout wasn’t due to lack of interest — it was due to feeling inadequate.
• Instead of empowering seniors, the program structure accidentally discouraged them.
• The issue wasn’t just skill — it was confidence, fatigue, and unmet learning needs.

Dr. Jane Chang posed a critical question: “Is the project accountable for these negative experiences?” Rather than accepting dropout rates as inevitable, the team took action:

• Flexible scheduling was introduced, allowing seniors to choose times that suited them.
• Alternative roles were created — some participants handled fabric cutting or quality control, allowing those struggling with sewing to contribute meaningfully.
• Dorothy, once disengaged, was reassigned to quality control — and she thrived. She is now the community leader for the hub.

“What we learned is that impact isn’t about pushing people through a rigid structure,” Dr Jonathan Choo reflected. “It’s about asking: What’s stopping people from succeeding? And how do we remove those barriers?”

Final thoughts: The future of impact measurement

Ignoring negative unintended outcomes weakens social impact in three critical ways:

1. It distorts impact measurement — giving a false sense of effectiveness.
2. It misallocates resources — assuming that current structures are effective while overlooking participants who are excluded.
3. It undermines social value — failing the very people who need the intervention most.

Dr. Jane Chang reinforced the need for a shift in mindset: “This has to change. We need to start focusing more on the negative to ensure we can manage and maximize our impact.”

True impact measurement is not about counting success stories. It is about ensuring that no one is left behind. I hope this story can help capturing the full picture so that every project can learn, improve, and truly deliver social value.