Strengths vs. Weaknesses - A case study that won't waste your time

Strengths vs. Weaknesses

A case study that won’t waste your time.

Arranged by Jared Harding, Sr. Client Executive, [email protected]. Research conducted by Zenger Folkman ©2016

The Big Question

2

Which has more impact on personal improvement,

fixing weaknesses or building strengths?

The Big Question

3

Because you are clicking through these slides I am

guessing you are going with building strengths…

The Big Question

4

But what’s the usual reaction when this

happens…

The Big Question

5

The Big Question

6

The Big Question

7

Still going with strengths?

The Big Question

8

It’s true we are culturally wired to focus on fixing

weaknesses.

The Big Question

9

At Zenger Folkman, we believe the most effective

path to improvement is building on strengths.

The Big Question

10

In fact, people improve to extraordinary levels when focused on their strengths.

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.

© 2016 Zenger Folkman

Case Study

Large U.S. Financial Services Organization

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


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


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


Senior HR Director – “Zenger Folkman’s strength-based approach created so much positive momentum that improvement was inevitable.”

The Solution:

16

People Perspective


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


The Results:

18

Oh, you want to see the numbers,

Just keep clicking, just keep clicking…


The Starting Point

19

50thPercentile

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?


The Starting Point

20

50thPercentile



57thPercentile

The Case Study organization’s

ORG NORM of top three levels of leaders


The Starting Point

21

50thPercentile



57thPercentile

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.

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.”

The Starting Point

23

Getting an accurate sense of where a group is

starting from provides additional motivation for

improvement.

Reassessment Results

24

After 18 months of development activities,

how did the leaders score overall in the

reassessment?



25

65thPercentile

The post-assessment

ORG NORM #2 of top three levels of leaders

57thPercentile

The pre-assessment


The average for the entire group raised 8 points with the post-

program results.



26

65thPercentile

The post-assessment


50thPercentile

Zenger Folkman


The group average ended

up 15 points higher than the global average.

Case Study Insights

27

And I hear crickets….

I get it. An 8 point increase doesn’t seem

like that big of deal.

Case Study Insights

28

That’s because it isn’t.

Case Study Insights

29

The big insights actually came when

we divided the leaders into three groups.

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


Group Norms from Initial 360 Assessment

31

54thPercentile

The pre-assessment

GROUP #1 NORMFixed Weaknesses

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

54thPercentile

The pre-assessment


56thPercentile

The pre-assessment

GROUP #2 NORMBuilt Strengths

Case Study Insights

34

The final group did have a “derailer” or “fatal flaw.”

3

Had Fatal Flaws

2

Built Strengths

1

Fixed Weaknesses

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

54thPercentile

The pre-assessment


56thPercentile

The pre-assessment

GROUP #2 NORMBuilt Strengths

20thPercentile

The pre-assessment

GROUP #3 NORMHad a Derailer or Fatal Flaw

Case Study Insights

37

Let’s see how each of these three groups measured up in their 360 reassessment.

37

2


Norm Comparison with 360 Reassessment Results

Group #1 Fixed Weaknesses Group #2 Built Strengths

38

54th 56th




39

54th

66th

56th

+ 12 Points




40

56th

82nd

+ 26 Points!

66th

+ 12 Points

54th


The good news is that groups #1 and #2

improved their overall effectiveness.


But, those who built strengths yielded over 2x the improvement than those who fixed

weaknesses.

The Big Question

43

Clearly, building strengths has the most impact on improving effectiveness.


What about group #3 that had the career derailers?


Group Norms for Leaders with Fatal Flaws

Group #3 Possessed Fatal Flaws

45

20th

50th

+ 30 Points

Group #3 – Addressing Fatal Flaws

46

Wow! The group that made the most dramatic

improvement was the group that addressed

their derailer.

The Big Question

47

Going back to the original question, is the winner building strengths or fixing weaknesses?

The Big Question

48

Let’s look at the final numbers again for all

three groups.


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



Group #1

Fixed Weaknesses

Org Avg. Group #2

Built Strengths


Had Fatal Flaws

50

50th

66th

82nd

65th

Group #1 rises to meet the org average for

effectiveness.



Group #1

Fixed Weaknesses

Org Avg. Group #2

Built Strengths


Had Fatal Flaws

51

50th

66th

82nd

50th

Group #3 rises to meet the global average for effectiveness.

Outcome of Fixing Weaknesses

52

Leaders that fixed weaknesses did improve, but only rose to average levels globally or within

their organization.


Outcome of Building on Strengths

Group #2

Built Strengths

Org Avg. Group #2

Built Strenghts2


Had Fatal Flaws

53

82nd Building strengths was the key differentiator of

leaders who rose to an extraordinary level.

Closing Thought

54

We believe that employees are inspired and enabled to become

extraordinary...

Closing Thought

55

…when they are engaged in building their

signature strengths.

Thank you for viewing!

Was this helpful, insightful, slightly entertaining?

Let me know your thoughts:

Jared Harding

Sr. Client Executive [email protected]

801-995-4382

mailto:[email protected]

Strengths vs. Weaknesses - A case study that won't waste your time

Leadership & Management

Transcript of Strengths vs. Weaknesses - A case study that won't waste your time