A case study in a large financial organization that compares the impact of fixing weaknesses versus building strengths on improving leadership effectiveness. Which do you think was the better approach?

1. Strengths vs. Weaknesses
A case study that won’t waste your time.
Arranged by Jared Harding, Sr. Client Executive, jharding@zfco.com. Research conducted by Zenger Folkman ©2016

2. The Big Question
2
Which has more impact
on personal improvement,
fixing weaknesses or
building strengths?

3. The Big Question
3
Because you are clicking
through these slides I am
guessing you are going
with building strengths…

4. The Big Question
4
But what’s the usual
reaction when this
happens…

5. The Big Question
5

6. The Big Question
6

7. The Big Question
7
Still going with strengths?

8. The Big Question
8
It’s true we are culturally
wired to focus on fixing
weaknesses.

9. The Big Question
9
At Zenger Folkman, we
believe the most effective
path to improvement is
building on strengths.

10. The Big Question
10
In fact, people improve to
extraordinary levels when
focused on their strengths.

11. The Big Question
11
Since you think I am making
this up, let’s look at a case
study of a large financial
services organization.

12. © 2016 Zenger Folkman
Case Study
Large U.S. Financial
Services Organization

13. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
The organization believes that ensuring future
organizational success will come by increasing
the level of leadership effectiveness across the
organization.
The Challenge:
13

14. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Sr. Division Leader – “We measure everything
else in this company: profits, margins,
productivity, turnover, etc., but I don’t have a
clue how our leaders would stack up with
those in other organizations.”
The Challenge:
14
People Perspective

15. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Leverage a data-driven, strengths-based
approach to accurately measure, benchmark,
and identify the most impactful path for
development with the top three leadership
levels.
The Solution:
15

16. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Senior HR Director – “Zenger Folkman’s
strength-based approach created so much
positive momentum that improvement was
inevitable.”
The Solution:
16
People Perspective

17. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
The 18 month program included a 360 pre-
assessment, follow-up surveys, group
workshops, accountability from managers,
continuing dialogue with direct reports, and a
final 360 post-assessment.
The Solution:
17

18. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
The Results:
18
Oh, you want to see the numbers,
Just keep clicking, just keep clicking…

19. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
The Starting Point
19
50th
Percentile
This is the Zenger Folkman
GLOBAL NORM
a dataset of 80k+ leaders
How did the financial
leaders compare to the
global norm after their first
round of 360 feedback?

20. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
The Starting Point
20
50th
Percentile
This is the Zenger Folkman
GLOBAL NORM
a dataset of 80k+ leaders
57th
Percentile
The Case Study organization’s
ORG NORM
of top three levels of leaders

21. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
The Starting Point
21
50th
Percentile
This is the Zenger Folkman
GLOBAL NORM
a dataset of 80k+ leaders
57th
Percentile
The Case Study organization’s
ORG NORM
of top three levels of leaders
7 points higher is
not a bad starting
point, but this
was a surprise to
all the leaders in
the group.

22. The Starting Point
22
One leader commented,
“We just assumed we
were terrific leaders but
we never had a way to
assess our effectiveness
compared to others.”

23. The Starting Point
23
Getting an accurate
sense of where a group is
starting from provides
additional motivation for
improvement.

24. Reassessment Results
24
After 18 months of
development activities,
how did the leaders
score overall in the
reassessment?

25. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Reassessment Results
25
65th
Percentile
The post-assessment
ORG NORM #2
of top three levels of leaders
57th
Percentile
The pre-assessment
ORG NORM #1
of top three levels of leaders
The average for
the entire group
raised 8 points
with the post-
program results.

26. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Reassessment Results
26
65th
Percentile
The post-assessment
ORG NORM #2
of top three levels of leaders
50th
Percentile
Zenger Folkman
GLOBAL NORM
a dataset of 80k+ leaders
The group
average ended
up 15 points
higher than the
global average.

27. Case Study Insights
27
And I hear crickets….
I get it. An 8 point
increase doesn’t seem
like that big of deal.

28. Case Study Insights
28
That’s because it isn’t.

29. Case Study Insights
29
The big insights
actually came when
we divided the leaders
into three groups.

30. Case Study Insights
The first group included
leaders who chose to fix a
weakness but didn’t have a
“derailer” or “fatal flaw.”
1
Fixed Weaknesses

31. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Group Norms from Initial 360 Assessment
31
54th
Percentile
The pre-assessment
GROUP #1 NORM
Fixed Weaknesses

32. Case Study Insights
32
The second group are the
leaders who focused on
building their signature
strengths.
32
2
Built Strengths
1
Fixed Weaknesses

33. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Group Norms from Initial 360 Assessment
33
54th
Percentile
The pre-assessment
GROUP #1 NORM
Fixed Weaknesses
56th
Percentile
The pre-assessment
GROUP #2 NORM
Built Strengths

34. Case Study Insights
34
The final group did have a
“derailer” or “fatal flaw.”
3
Had Fatal Flaws
2
Built Strengths
1
Fixed Weaknesses

35. Case Study Insights
35
Fatal flaws are the one
instance where we
recommend fixing a
“weakness.”
35
3
Had Fatal Flaws
2
Built Strengths
1
Fixed Weaknesses

36. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Group Norms from Initial 360 Assessment
36
54th
Percentile
The pre-assessment
GROUP #1 NORM
Fixed Weaknesses
56th
Percentile
The pre-assessment
GROUP #2 NORM
Built Strengths
20th
Percentile
The pre-assessment
GROUP #3 NORM
Had a Derailer or Fatal Flaw

37. Case Study Insights
37
Let’s see how each of these
three groups measured up
in their 360 reassessment.
37
2

38. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Norm Comparison with 360 Reassessment Results
Group #1 Fixed Weaknesses Group #2 Built Strengths
38
54th 56th

39. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Norm Comparison with 360 Reassessment Results
Group #1 Fixed Weaknesses Group #2 Built Strengths
39
54th
66th
56th
+ 12
Points

40. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Norm Comparison with 360 Reassessment Results
Group #1 Fixed Weaknesses Group #2 Built Strengths
40
56th
82nd
+ 26
Points!
66th
+ 12
Points
54th

41. Strengths vs. Weaknesses
The good news is that
groups #1 and #2
improved their overall
effectiveness.

42. Strengths vs. Weaknesses
But, those who built
strengths yielded over
2x the improvement
than those who fixed
weaknesses.

43. The Big Question
43
Clearly, building strengths
has the most impact on
improving effectiveness.

44. Strengths vs. Weaknesses
What about group #3 that
had the career derailers?

45. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Group Norms for Leaders with Fatal Flaws
Group #3 Possessed Fatal Flaws
45
20th
50th
+ 30
Points

46. Group #3 – Addressing Fatal Flaws
46
Wow! The group that
made the most dramatic
improvement was the
group that addressed
their derailer.

47. The Big Question
47
Going back to the original
question, is the winner
building strengths or
fixing weaknesses?

48. The Big Question
48
Let’s look at the final
numbers again for all
three groups.

49. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Reassessment Effectiveness Scores by Group
Group #1
Fixed Weaknesses
Global Avg. Group #2
Built Strenghts
Org Avg. Group #3
Had Fatal Flaws
49
50th
66th
82nd

50. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Reassessment Effectiveness Scores by Group
Group #1
Fixed Weaknesses
Org Avg. Group #2
Built Strengths
Global Avg. Group #3
Had Fatal Flaws
50
50th
66th
82nd
65th
Group #1 rises to meet
the org average for
effectiveness.

51. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Reassessment Effectiveness Scores by Group
Group #1
Fixed Weaknesses
Org Avg. Group #2
Built Strengths
Global Avg. Group #3
Had Fatal Flaws
51
50th
66th
82nd
50th
Group #3 rises to meet
the global average
for effectiveness.

52. Outcome of Fixing Weaknesses
52
Leaders that fixed
weaknesses did improve,
but only rose to average
levels globally or within
their organization.

53. LL51.2© 2016 Zenger Folkman
Outcome of Building on Strengths
Group #2
Built Strengths
Org Avg. Group #2
Built Strenghts2
Global Avg. Group #3
Had Fatal Flaws
53
82nd
Building strengths was the
key differentiator of
leaders who rose to an
extraordinary level.

54. Closing Thought
54
We believe that
employees are inspired
and enabled to become
extraordinary...

55. Closing Thought
55
…when they are engaged
in building their
signature strengths.

56. Thank you for viewing!
Was this helpful, insightful, slightly entertaining?
Let me know your thoughts:
Jared Harding
Sr. Client Executive
jharding@zfco.com
801-995-4382