Leadership Under Pressure: What Strengths Reveal

A few years ago, when we introduced a strengths-based framework to managers overseeing frontline maintenance, shop, and fleet administration and operations teams, the most useful conversations did not center on people at their best. They centered on what happens when leaders are operating outside their strengths zone.

Managers were candid about how that shows up in real time. Indecision creeps in. Self-doubt replaces confidence. Communication becomes inconsistent or reactive. Several described feeling uncomfortable in their role, unsure of their judgment, or constantly criticized for their work. Others named frustration, poor attitudes, and the sense that leading suddenly feels harder than it should. Decisions get delayed or made hastily. The work still gets done, but it requires more effort, more friction, and more emotional energy than it should.

What became clear is how quickly this strain gets mislabeled as a performance issue. When someone is not operating in their strengths zone, the problem is rarely a lack of effort. It is a misalignment. Without a shared language to name that, teams default to familiar explanations: stubbornness, ignorance, lack of knowledge, or lack of confidence. Praise and feedback drop off. People stop feeling needed, even when their work is critical to keeping vehicles on the road and operations moving.

This is the cost of not taking a strengths-based approach. When leaders are unaware of their own strengths or how others naturally contribute, teams compensate with workarounds instead of clarity. Communication breaks down. Confidence erodes. Over time, the system leans on personal grit rather than intentional design.

With this particular group we utilized Gallup’s CliftonStrengths tool and the collective strengths profile of the group offers important insight into both their effectiveness and where pressure builds. 

In this case, we discovered Learner and Achiever were the most prevalent strengths. In practice, this shows up as leaders who are driven to improve, absorb new information quickly, and maintain momentum in demanding environments. These are managers who want to understand the problem and get things done, often simultaneously.

Harmony, Relator, and Responsibility followed closely. These strengths reflect a strong commitment to fairness, trust, and follow-through. Leaders high in Harmony work to reduce unnecessary conflict and keep teams aligned. Relator points to valuing close working relationships and mutual respect. Responsibility reflects a deep sense of ownership and accountability, particularly around safety, reliability, and commitments made to others. In frontline operations, these strengths are often what hold teams together under pressure.

Consistency reinforces this pattern. Leaders with this strength care about clear expectations, equitable treatment, and predictable standards. That matters deeply in environments where rules, schedules, and safety protocols cannot be optional.

At the same time, strengths like Analytical, Strategic, Context, and Deliberative indicate a leadership group that prefers to think before acting. Analytical leaders want data and logic. Strategic leaders look for patterns and paths forward. Context brings an awareness of history and past decisions, while Deliberative adds caution and risk awareness. Together, these strengths support sound decision-making, but they can also feel strained in fast-moving situations where immediate action is expected and time to think is limited.

What this work made visible is not just how these managers lead, but where friction emerges when the environment pulls them away from their natural patterns. A strengths-based approach does not remove the pressure of frontline operations. What it does is give leaders a way to understand themselves and each other before frustration turns into judgment.

The shift happens when managers stop asking, “What’s wrong with this person?” and start asking, “What strength is being stretched, overused, or ignored here?” In an environment where safety, reliability, and public accountability matter every day, that reframing is not soft. It is practical, grounding, and ultimately more effective.