Leadership fashions rarely move in straight lines. Our discussion with Sami Itani, professor of practice at Aalto University School of Business, suggests they may once again be shifting away from three decades of soft, empathetic management and toward a harder style built on clarity, accountability, and performance.

Drawing on the cyclical patterns identified by Barley and Kunda, this article explores why the change is happening, what it asks of today’s leaders, and how to operate in a moment when empathy alone no longer suffices, yet coldness won’t work either.

In 1992, Stephen Barley and Gideon Kunda published a now-classic study, Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse, a work that Sami Itani counts among his personal favorites.

Their finding was simple but profound: leadership and management thinking don’t evolve in a straight line from authoritarian to humane, from rational to emotional. Instead, they move in cycles. Periods of rational (“hard”) and normative (“soft”) ideologies alternate, reflecting the broader economic and cultural tides of their times.

Today, as the world grapples with geopolitical instability, cost pressures, AI-driven transformation, and rising societal polarization, the pendulum is swinging again. After three decades of “human-centric leadership,” we are seeing the signs that we are entering what could be called the hard leadership era.

From empathy to accountability

“When we talk about hard leadership, it is often about clarity, measurability, and performance,” says Itani. “It’s result-driven, consistent, and built on individual accountability. Reward systems are personal and logical.”

Soft leadership, by contrast, views employees as holistic individuals. “It’s about understanding the person behind the role, influencing through values and emotions, and supporting personal growth,” he says.

Itani cautions against moralizing these styles. “Hard isn’t bad, and soft isn’t good. Each has its benefits and flaws. Nothing fits all.”

He traces the current shift back to the early 1990s, when the “soft era” began. Hierarchies flattened, purpose became a mantra, and emotional intelligence entered the leadership discussion. “Now, after more than 30 years, it looks like the wave is turning,” Itani notes. “We are seeing a return to structure, performance, and results.”

Culture and the corporate mirror

Tommi Lehtinen, organizational psychologist and founding partner at SCCG, argues that leadership cultures mirror their societies. “Organizational leadership is always, at least in part, a reflection of the surrounding value culture,” he says. “When societies lean toward liberalism and softness, a counterforce emerges — hardness and conservatism. The same pattern appears inside companies and is often triggered by shifts in performance. After years of strong margins and purpose-driven leadership, a downturn swings the pendulum back to clarity, control, and efficiency.”

Lehtinen calls the dynamic cyclical, since societies and organizations always search for balance. “Good leaders do not get lost in the swing; they navigate it,” he explains. “Experienced leaders read these cycles, see the system and their financial context, and align with the business context and strategy.”

The generational challenge

For many leaders, the transition is disorienting. “We have a whole generation of 40- and 50-year-olds who built their careers in an era of empowerment, empathy, and coaching,” Itani says. “Now the world around them, if moving to the hard leadership era, values decisiveness, speed, and measurable outcomes.”

He believes historical awareness helps. “When you understand that these cycles always come and go, it’s easier not to panic. The key is contextual leadership, knowing your organization, your industry, and your people.”

Clarity as the new kindness

So what does effective leadership look like in this harder era?

“Honesty and consistency,” Itani says. “People still value fairness and trust. Hard leadership doesn’t mean cold leadership; it means clarity.”

He sees courage as timeless. “The ability to have difficult conversations is the most consistent trait of good leaders across eras. You can’t outsource it to HR or consultants.”

The new cycle

If the 1990s to 2020s were defined by empathy, flexibility, and purpose, the coming decade may be remembered for discipline, decisiveness, and performance. Yet the human dimension isn’t disappearing, it’s being reframed.

The pendulum is shifting, and leaders must adapt to it. Hard leadership isn’t the end of empathy; it’s a shift toward clarity, direction, and accountability. The real challenge is not choosing soft or hard, but reading the moment and adapting.