Sample Deliverable
Sample Leader Impact Report
A one-page, de-identified version of what a client receives after the first survey, with targets set in advance and the re-measure that followed four months later.
About This Sample
Drawn from a real engagement with a statewide small-business nonprofit in the Southwest. Names, locations, and identifying details are removed. The numbers are the real numbers.
1. The Read
Two experiences of the same workplace.
Eleven senior leaders took the Leader Impact Survey at lunch during the June workshop. Six averaged between 7.8 and 9.1 out of 10 across 14 workplace measures. Five averaged between 3.7 and 5.6. Nobody fell in between.
The widest gap was on whether leadership is transparent about decisions: 9.2 for one group, 2.8 for the other. Fair workload and recognition was the lowest-scoring item overall, at 5.0.
2. June Baseline
Where the team started.
| Item | June score (0 to 10) |
|---|---|
| Fair workload and recognition | 5.0 |
| Transparent group (6 leaders) | 9.2 |
| Strained group (5 leaders) | 2.8 |
| All 14 items, overall average | 6.8 |
3. Recommendations
Six recommendations in the written report.
The July report included six recommendations drawn from the survey's weak spots, the open comments, and the June workshop debrief. Specifics are omitted in this sample for client confidentiality. The adopted one that is visible from outside: the CEO began sending a weekly all-staff email explaining decisions and company status, to close the transparency gap the survey found.
4. Targets Set in July
Three numbers, written down before anyone knew the outcome.
| Target | June | Target for October |
|---|---|---|
| Fair workload and recognition | 5.0 | 6.5 or higher |
| Size of "strained" group | 5 of 11 | 3 or fewer |
| Transparency gap between the two groups | 6.4 points | Narrower |
5. October Results
All three targets met.
| Target | June | October | Met? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair workload and recognition | 5.0 | 7.0 | Yes |
| Size of strained group | 5 of 11 | 1 of 8 | Yes |
| Transparency gap | 6.4 points | 4.6 points | Yes (directional) |
Across all 14 items, the overall average rose from 6.8 in June to 8.0 in October. The biggest gains came on workload, transparency, safety, work-life balance, and feeling safe raising problems.
All 8 returning leaders said their team is better than in June: 6 said "much better," 2 "somewhat better." Seven of the 8 said something from the workshop now shows up in their work. Compensation, growth opportunities, and access to SOPs stayed roughly flat.
6. Limits
What the numbers do and do not say.
Small groups: 11 leaders in June, 8 returning leaders in October against 21 all-staff respondents.
Self-reported scores. No comparison group. The October group is not identical to June's.
Other changes were under way at the same time: leadership changes, new hires, and departures. Staff partly credit those too.
We claim contribution, not sole cause.
More on the instrument: The Leader Impact Survey.
The full case study: A statewide nonprofit hits every leadership target in four months.
Work With Us
Want a report like this for your team?
Start with a 20-minute call. We will tell you whether the Leader Impact Survey is the right instrument for the question you're trying to answer.
Book a 20-minute call