> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.contributionism.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.contributionism.io/valuing-and-rewarding-contributions/estimated-value-performance-and-long-term-impact.md).

# Estimated value, performance and long-term impact

Labour can be evaluated at different stages. A more useful framework would distinguish between expected contribution, observed performance and longer-term impact. These are related perspectives, not necessarily three amounts that should always be added together.

## **Estimated value**

Estimated value is assessed before or during the contribution period. It may reflect skills and experience, expected responsibilities, agreed working time, comparable roles and the organisation’s requirements.

Salaries and contracted fees often rely on this type of assessment. The estimate provides predictability. Contributors need to understand what they will receive without waiting years for every outcome to become clear.

## **Performance value**

Performance review considers what the contributor actually did. Relevant questions include:

* Were agreed responsibilities fulfilled?
* Was work completed to an appropriate standard?
* Were deadlines and resource limits respected?
* Did the person improve processes?
* Did they support others?
* Were important risks identified or prevented?

Performance should not be reduced to output volume. Producing more work of poor quality can create additional costs. Preventing a serious problem from happening can be valuable even when it generates no visible output.

## **Impact value**

Impact review considers the wider consequences of a contribution. Examples include:

* A design becoming central to a successful product.
* A process improvement reducing costs across several teams.
* Mentoring that develops future organisational capability.
* Research opening a new line of activity.
* Customer support strengthening long-term retention.

Impact may emerge after the contributor’s immediate task is complete. However, later success can also depend on subsequent work. Historical impact should not be attributed as though the original contribution acted independently of everything that followed.

## **Avoiding overlapping rewards**

Suppose a worker receives a performance bonus for improving an internal system. A later review finds that the same improvement produced lasting benefits. An additional impact reward may be appropriate, but the organisation should consider what has already been recognised. It should not automatically count the same result as:

* Additional salary value.
* A full performance bonus.
* A separate impact valuation.
* A further risk-adjusted claim.

A record of compensation against each type of reward should be documented for clarity and justifying any compensation outcomes.

## **A practical review cycle**

An organisation might use:

1. An initial role and compensation agreement.
2. Periodic feedback during the work.
3. An end-of-period performance review.
4. A later review of selected high-impact contributions.

Not every contribution requires every stage. A small organisation may use a simpler process. A shared-benefit organisation may focus mainly on whether responsibilities were fulfilled and whether improvements deserve recognition.

## **Evidence and uncertainty**

Reviews should identify the evidence used. Possible evidence includes completed work, quality measures, customer feedback, peer observations, financial outcomes, process changes ad documented decisions.

Where attribution is uncertain, the organisation should state that uncertainty. A range, category or shared team allocation may be more honest than an apparently precise individual figure.

## **Review safeguards**

Contributors should be able to see the criteria, submit relevant evidence, correct factual errors, understand the decision and challenge material inconsistencies. Reviews should also consider whether the evaluation method systematically overlooks less visible work.