A recent Harvard article poses a provocative question: Is your leadership style too nice? In a global climate where “strongman” narratives are resurfacing in politics and organisational life, the question lands with more weight than usual.
For years, I’ve encouraged leaders not to emulate the Bad Man, Bad Men or Mad Man archetypes that still linger in some executive cultures. The evidence simply doesn’t support them. Decades of research show that successful organisations draw from a range of leadership styles, including:
- Servant Leadership (Greenleaf, 1975)
- Relational Leadership (Uhl‑Bien, 2006; Crevani, 2015)
- Ethical and values‑based leadership
- Inclusive, psychologically safe leadership, which is essential for diverse, high‑performing teams
A Brief History of Leadership Thinking
When I work with senior leaders, I often provide a short tour through the evolution of leadership theory.
We revisit Fayol’s 1908 command‑and‑control model, the autocratic “tell” style that dominated much of the twentieth century. It later became cultural shorthand through characters like:
- Basil in Fawlty Towers
- JR in Dallas
- The 80s/90s “Wolf of Wall Street” archetype
The tell style has its place, particularly in crisis, compliance, or safety‑critical contexts. But its overuse creates organisational cultures marked by fear, disengagement, and stagnation.
The Return of the “Tougher Is Better” Narrative
What concerns me now is how easily this narrative is resurfacing.
There’s a growing chorus urging leaders to be tougher, harder, less accommodating. When that message takes hold, leadership cools. It drifts from relational warmth toward something far more icy and far less effective for modern, diverse organisations, where knowledge workers from a range of global spheres exist, and leaders realise the importance of deferring to their subordinates’ expertise.
The Harvard authors make a fair point: executive teams do need a unified voice around leadership expectations. Consistency matters. Culture coherence matters. Behavioural clarity matters.
But coherence does not require coldness.
⚠️ When “Not Too Nice” Becomes “Not Very Human”
The article echoes a wider narrative emerging in global politics and media commentary: that leaders must be harsher, more dominant, even less empathetic, to be effective.
We’re seeing this rhetoric amplified in news cycles and across YouTube commentary about certain world leaders who are… not known for their relational warmth, leading with ice ❄️ rather than being nice.
When organisations absorb these narratives, we risk normalising leadership that is:
- performatively tough rather than genuinely accountable
- directive rather than developmental
- fear‑based rather than trust‑based
- exclusionary rather than inclusive
For progressive organisations committed to DEI, psychological safety, and equitable progression, this tough talk is a step backwards.
💡 The Real Question Isn’t “Are You Too Nice?”
The real question is this:
Are you leading in a way that strengthens trust, clarity, accountability, and human connection or erodes them?
Kindness without boundaries isn’t leadership. But toughness without humanity isn’t leadership either.
The most effective leaders I work with are those who can:
- hold people to high standards while holding space for their humanity
- make decisive calls by inviting and analysing diverse perspectives
- set direction while cultivating belonging
- use the tell style purposefully and with intention
This is not softness. This is a skill.
✨ A Call to Leaders
As the world becomes noisier, more polarised, and more performative, leaders have a choice:
- Lean into outdated archetypes of dominance, or
- Model leadership that is relational, ethical, inclusive, and grounded in evidence.
If you’re committed to the latter, to leading with clarity, courage, and humanity, your organisation will feel the difference.
And so will the people you serve.
gleniswade.com 
Please Leave Your Reply Here!