To be more effective as a leader, should a person focus on building their strengths or fixing their weaknesses?
This question confronts everyone who is serious about accelerating their development. The answer shapes whether a leader thrives in new roles, derails at critical transitions, or plateaus despite their potential. Yet most leaders lack a systematic approach for making this choice. Without clear diagnostic criteria, they either follow their instincts or focus on whatever feedback feels most urgent. Neither approach consistently maximizes growth.
Some experts argue that leaders who deliberately build on their signature strengths create greater momentum and engagement. Others contend that it’s more important to address weaknesses since they can derail a team and a career. The advice in this article is not to choose one approach or the other but to diagnose what a specific situation requires by asking four key questions, identifying both superpowers and dangerous derailers as well as untapping potential, considering the context, and then taking action.
Four Questions for Self-Diagnosis
Work through these questions systematically before deciding where to focus development time and energy.
1. What does success require in the current role?
Identify the capabilities needed to perform effectively. These requirements establish the baseline below which a leader cannot fall. Position expectations vary significantly by level and function. A first-line supervisor needs strong execution and team management skills. A division president needs strategic thinking, stakeholder management, and the ability to make decisions with incomplete information. A chief technology officer needs both technical credibility and the ability to translate tech strategy for nontechnical executives.
Beyond one’s own perspective, it is essential to seek a manager’s view on what truly matters. The two assessments often differ in revealing ways. A manager may emphasize capabilities that have been underweighted or dismiss concerns that have consumed attention.
2. What are the current capabilities?
Rigorously map strengths and weaknesses against position expectations. This is harder than it sounds. Many leaders struggle to identify their key assets because what comes easily often feels ordinary. An exceptional leader who builds trust across diverse stakeholder groups might see themselves as just “good with people.” A leader who synthesizes complex information quickly may not realize the ability is unusual.
The challenge intensifies as one advance. Senior leaders often receive filtered feedback. Direct reports hesitate to identify weaknesses. Peers avoid difficult conversations. Unconscious incompetence—not knowing what one does not know—is especially dangerous because blind spots can affect entire teams. Therefore, this article suggests actively seeking unfiltered input from people willing to be candid. Consider structured feedback processes, external coaches, or trusted colleagues outside reporting relationships.
3. What is or can be compensated for?
Identify which weaknesses can be addressed through team design, partnerships, or support systems. Not every flaw needs personal development. Task-based skills can often be delegated. Differences in cognitive style can complement each other. Gaps in functional expertise can be addressed through hiring. A visionary leader who struggles with operational details might work effectively with a chief officer who excels at execution. A technically talented executive who finds stakeholder management challenging could partner with a chief of staff who handles cross-functional relationships.
Some gaps, however, demand direct attention from the leader.
4. Where is the untapped potential?
Identify capabilities yet to be developed or discovered. This differs fundamentally from fixing weaknesses because it involves exploration rather than remediation. Untapped potential refers to opportunities that have not yet been explored because the leader has been highly effective at leveraging existing strengths. A leader who succeeded through strong analytical thinking might not have realized they can also inspire others through storytelling. Someone who built their career on execution excellence may not have ventured into strategic visioning. This becomes especially important during transitions when skills are required that were not needed before.
Three Categories for Development
After completing the diagnostic work, focus on these three categories. The rest can often be managed, compensated for, or deprioritized.
Superpowers
These are exceptional strengths that set a leader apart from peers—areas where they show energy and consistency, perform in the top quartile, can cite specific business wins, and offer something others cannot easily imitate. Small investments in these capabilities frequently produce significant improvements because one is leveraging existing excellence rather than building from scratch. Therefore, leaders should double down on their superpowers. Find ways to deploy them more frequently and in higher-impact situations.
Dangerous Derailers
These are unmanaged weaknesses that cause negative ripple effects on a team and others; they occur frequently enough to be seen as a pattern; they cannot be offset by team design or support systems; they damage trust, psychological safety, relationships, and teamwork; and they risk current or future success. Addressing these derailers must take priority over everything else.
Untapped Potential
Many top performers have never explored certain capabilities because their current strengths worked so well or they were too busy trying to fix their flaws. However, it’s also important to think about where there is untapped potential to grow, especially when the business is shifting in ways that require new capabilities, when moving to a role requiring skills not previously needed, or when adjacent strengths exist.
Context Factors That Shape Focus
Three factors typically determine how to divide time between further developing superpowers, fixing dangerous derailers, or exploring untapped potential.
Position Expectations
Ask: Where can key strengths be deployed to outperform in this job? Where is the performance at or below minimum standards? What else could be done to enhance personal and team performance? What will truly move the needle?
Career stage
In early to mid-career, success and advancement can often be achieved mainly by enhancing key strengths. As leaders rise into more senior roles, they must address weaknesses that were previously tolerable. For example, a vice president ascending to the C-suite cannot avoid enterprise strategy even if execution has always been their strong suit.
Job transitions
Timing within career moves is also critical. During onboarding, focus on deploying existing strengths to build credibility and seizing untapped potential. Once established, shift attention to both strengths and significant derailers. If facing remedial pressure, address serious issues directly. Many leaders wait too long to tackle development priorities.
Taking Action
The answer to the “should you work on your strengths or your weaknesses?” debate is to diagnose what is needed and when. That judgment starts with the four diagnostic questions. It continues with disciplined focus on three categories: superpowers, derailers, and untapped potential. Context shapes how these priorities are balanced. Mastering this framework will accelerate any leader’s career.
Source: Harvard Business Review
