.png)
At one organization, the line about me was, "Don't bring Nayli unless you're ready for hard questions." I loved that line. Discernment is one of my gifts; I look at every angle, upstream and downstream, what is missing, what the constraints are, and I was doing it long before I had a name for it. It got me invited into rooms, and it got results once I was there.
Then my team kicked me out of our operational meetings. Those meetings needed execution, and there was nothing in them for me to discern, so I discerned minutiae. I asked hard questions about things that didn't need hard questions, and my team paid for every single one of them. The same strength that had created value for me became the wrong response for that moment, and what I didn't see yet was how tightly I had organized myself around it.
That's the pattern I want to talk about: the strength you are known for, rewarded for, and quietly organized around, showing up in a moment that needed something else.
Why the Strengths That Got You Here Are the Hardest Ones to See
Weaknesses are easy to spot because everybody is already looking for them. Strengths get a pass. They've earned you promotions, reputation, trust, and often access to bigger work, so when a strength starts becoming limiting, the last thing you question is the strength itself. You question the room, the people, the timing, and sometimes your own worth, long before you ask whether you brought the right instrument.
The literature points in this direction too. Robert Kaplan and Rob Kaiser's work on versatile leadership (2006) found that leaders can overuse the strengths that made them successful, and that overdoing a strength can become as limiting as lacking one. The leaders I interviewed described versions of this in their own words: humor that kept a room light and then got read as not taking the job seriously; assertiveness that moved the work and then got labeled bossy; directness learned in one culture and carried into another that received it very differently.
Here's what makes this difficult: the strength is real, and it still works in plenty of rooms. That's exactly why it can be so hard to put down in the rooms where it doesn't.
It isn't always a strength you were rewarded for
Some of the patterns we protect never drew applause. Among the leaders I interviewed, several named dispositions they had organized their leadership around without those dispositions necessarily being celebrated strengths. One described conflict avoidance he had worked on for years; another wondered whether empathy was costing him on performance; another said she leads too much with her heart and was still working out what she wanted to keep. These weren't simply capabilities that became ceilings after too much reward. They were ways of operating that had become familiar enough to feel like part of the self, and when a moment asked for something different, the different thing felt wrong.
When "That's Just Who I Am" Becomes the Constraint
Pay attention to what happens inside you when a moment asks for the opposite of your default: the collaborative leader who has to make a unilateral call, the decisive leader who needs to slow down and bring people in, the warm leader who has to deliver a hard verdict, the highly discerning leader who needs to stop analyzing and let the team execute. A strength can be highly useful in one moment and limiting in another. The important question is what happens when the alternative doesn't simply feel uncomfortable, but starts to feel like betrayal.
In my research framework I call one version of this the Signature Trap: a proposed internal pattern in which a leader becomes anchored to one identity or disposition and experiences an alternative response as a betrayal of self. I hold it as a working idea I'm testing, not a diagnosis, and it is only one possible source of the gap between the leader you intend to be and the leader who shows up in a particular moment.
A default tendency is not a limit, and your strength is still a strength. The question is whether you can hold it as one option among several, or whether it has quietly become the only response that still feels like you.
Is It the Strength or the Conditions?
This is where the distinction matters, because the same behavior can come from very different places. Sometimes you aren't using another approach because you're anchored to your default. Sometimes the room makes the alternative costly. Sometimes the broader environment carries rules about what someone like you is allowed to do there, and sometimes several of those are true at once.
One question helps me start sorting it: if you did the opposite thing, what do you believe would happen?
- "I wouldn't be me. That's not who I am." The first place to look may be in how tightly your identity is attached to this way of leading.
- "They'd read me as angry, difficult, weak, not serious. It would damage the relationship." The first place to look may be the room's response and the latitude actually available there.
- "People like me don't get to do that here." You may need to examine the Terrain, the broader rules of legitimacy shaping what is read as acceptable in that environment.
Your answer doesn't settle the interpretation; it tells you where to look first, and mixed answers are common. When the feared consequence is located mostly in the self, the work may involve building more range. When it's located in the room's response, range alone can't change the conditions; you also have to examine the latitude actually available. When it's located in the broader field, you may be looking at Terrain rather than a local room problem, and sometimes all three are interacting.
The Environment Can Reinforce the Trap With You
A pattern can start inside you and still be strengthened by the environment around you. When an organization repeatedly rewards one version of you, it gives you evidence that the version works. The hard-driving executive keeps getting promoted; the fixer becomes indispensable; the calm leader is always brought in to absorb tension; the strategist is always asked to think; the relationship-builder is always expected to smooth things over. Over time, the environment can reward the same response so consistently that the response becomes harder to examine, and success itself can help hide the forward constraint.
That doesn't mean the environment caused the pattern. It means Authorship and conditions can interact. If you lead a team, look at what you repeatedly reward, and ask whether people are developing range or learning that only one instrument gets applauded.
Sometimes the Right Answer Is to Keep the Strength
The goal is not to strip yourself of the things that make you good. One leader I interviewed had been told she was too direct. She spent time examining that feedback and had to work through the idea that her directness was inherently a problem, and her conclusion was to keep it. She examined it, considered the consequences, and chose to retain it; that is evidence of Authorship.
It isn't proof that directness will always be the right response, because an examined choice can still be wrong for a particular moment. Authorship doesn't mean every choice you make is wise. It means more of what you bring has become visible enough to examine and choose.
How to Find the Pattern You're Protecting: A Six-Step Audit
Don't just read this part; get something to write on.
Step 1: Name the strength people know you for
Write the thing people would say about you in one line: "She always asks the hard question." "He keeps everyone calm." "She gets it done." "He can see around corners." "She makes everyone feel heard." If you're not sure, ask two people you trust what people bring you in for.
Step 2: Find one moment when the strength became limiting
Think of a specific room where that strength showed up and the moment needed something else, then ask what it made harder. Did it cost you energy or credibility? Did it cost the team time, confidence, ownership, or speed? Did it make the work slower, less clear, or less effective, or make another response less available? Be as specific about the consequence as you were about the strength.
Step 3: Ask the opposite question
Picture the behavior that moment actually needed, and ask what you believe would have happened if you had done that instead. Write your answer exactly as it comes, and notice where the feared consequence lands: in you, in the room's response, or in the broader rules of the environment. Don't diagnose yourself from one answer; use it to decide what to examine next.
Step 4: Ask what the pattern might protect
A signature way of leading may be doing something for you beyond producing results. It may keep you from being overlooked, from conflict, from appearing unprepared, from feeling weak, from losing control, or from losing a relationship you depend on. Ask what this way of leading might make safer for you, and whether you can locate when it became useful. Don't manufacture an origin story because you think there should be one; if you can't support the story, leave it open. The point is examination, not narrative completion.
Step 5: Build one other option
Range doesn't mean abandoning who you are, and it doesn't mean performing every leadership behavior equally well. It means holding your default as one instrument among several. Choose one alternative response and practice it somewhere lower stakes. If you're decisive, practice staying with the question longer. If you're collaborative, make one clear call without building consensus first. If you're highly relational, deliver one piece of feedback without cushioning the point until it disappears. If you're highly analytical, name what you know and let the team move before you answer every question.
Some range can also be supported structurally; a complementary teammate can help you access what you don't yet access easily yourself. That can be useful, as long as you know whether you are developing range, borrowing it, or intentionally designing around it, because those are not the same thing.
Step 6: Give someone explicit permission to interrupt the pattern
This is the one I rely on most. Composed is hard for me, and under pressure I can run people over; I have people around me who know what my overused discernment looks like, who know what happens when I start asking questions the work doesn't need, and who know they can interrupt me. Choose one person you trust and name the pattern. Tell them what it looks like when it's helping and what it looks like when it starts becoming limiting, and then tell them exactly what you want them to say when they see it. Other people often see the autopilot before we do.
A guardrail before you go: this is not permission to decide your strength is the problem. Your strength is probably a large part of why you're good at what you do. I want you to be more strategic than that, and to ask what the moment requires, what you're actually bringing to it, and whether you still have access to another response when the moment asks for one.
Keep the Strength, Lose the Autopilot
I still bring discernment into almost every room I walk into, and I don't want to lose it. What changed is that I'm much more willing to ask whether the work needs it before I unleash it, and when I miss that, someone I trust can tell me.
Your strength was never the thing to get rid of. The work is noticing when the strength has stopped being a choice, testing whether the constraint is coming from you, the room, the broader conditions, or some combination, and then choosing deliberately. The question was never whether this is who you are. The question is whether this is what the moment requires, and whether you are still choosing it.
Continue exploring: If you're not sure whether the pattern is yours, the room's, or part of the broader conditions, start with Is It You or the Room? How to Tell What's Actually Making Leadership Hard.
Read the Research: The research behind this lives at naylirusso.com/research.
Bring this conversation into your room: If your audience is full of capable leaders whose strengths got them here, that's the conversation behind my keynote What It Costs to Lead. Invite Nayli