Consequences of leadership humility

Many leaders exhibit some of the hallmarks of humility.  They may acknowledge when they feel uncertain about a matter, concede their personal limitations, shortcomings, or mistakes, and respect divergent opinions.  Research has uncovered many benefits of this leadership style (for a comprehensive review of the benefits and consequences of leadership humility, see Kelemen et al., 2023; for a review that explores CEO humility in particular, see Brunzel & Ebsen, 2023).  To illustrate

• Humble leaders are more likely to be promoted (Chan et al., 2024).
• When leaders are humble, staff experience psychological safety–in which they feel they can embrace risks and express themselves honestly–enhancing their sense of engagement at work (Walters & Diab, 2016).
• When leaders are humble, staff tend to feel more satisfied at work and engaged with their tasks, improving performance and diminishing staff turnover (Owens et al., 2013).
• When leaders are humble, their staff tend to be more knowledgeable about their customers and can thus accommodate their customers better (Luu, 2020).
• When leaders are humble, their staff are more inclined to consider the perspective of other people, such as their customers, enhancing their capacity to solve problems creatively (Wang, et al., 2017).
• When leaders are humble, teams feel more inclined to share information and knowledge with colleagues (Siachou et al., 2024)—but only if the workplace is not especially hierarchical (Hu et al., 2018).

Overview

Many studies have explored and substantiated the benefits of leadership humility—a leadership style in which leaders acknowledge their limitations and seek feedback from their staff.  First, as many studies have revealed, leadership humility enhances the performance of staff (Wang et al., 2018; Diao et al., 2019).  To illustrate, Chandler et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis of 212 studies to examine the effects of leadership humility on a range of measures.  Seventeen of these studies investigated the association between the humility of leaders and the performance of their staff.  The study revealed a positive correlation that approached 0.27. 

Circumstances that moderate the association between leadership humility and performance

Nevertheless, as some research indicates, when the degree to which leaders exhibit humility exceeds a specific level, further expression of humility can be detrimental. Bin et al. (2021), for example, assessed whether the association between leadership humility and the performance of staff who work in hospitality depends on the psychological capital of these staff, defined as a blend of self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience.  As this study revealed,

• if staff reported elevated levels of psychological capital—and were thus confident—leadership humility was positively associated with the performance of these staff, as rated by the staff themselves,
• however, if staff reported limited or modest levels of psychological capital, the relationship between leadership humility and staff performance was curvilinear.

That is, when psychological capital was limited, leadership humility was positively related to performance until humility exceeded a specific level.  After this level, leadership humility was inversely related to performance.

Presumably, when humility exceeds a specific level, the leaders may express undue doubts about their capabilities or achievements.  If staff have developed psychological capital, such as confidence, they are not too dependent on the support of leaders and, therefore, can withstand these doubts.  In contrast, if staff have not developed psychological capital, and are thus unconfident, they may be more dependent on the support of leaders.  These individuals might, therefore, feel vulnerable whenever these leaders—leaders upon whom they depend—express many doubts about their qualities. 

Other conditions or characteristics magnify the benefits of leadership humility on performance.  To illustrate, in a study of 120 teams, Peng et al (2020) confirmed that humility in senior managers was positively associated with performance in teams.  This relationship, however, was especially pronounced in a specific cluster of organisations: organisations in which staff are seldom granted opportunities to challenge the decisions of senior managers.  In these organisations, the humility of senior managers is more likely to shape the humility of team leaders—a quality that improves performance. 

Explanation: The role of trust and confidence

Some research has explored the reasons that leadership humility improves the capacity of staff to complete their tasks effectively.  Wu et al. (2024), for example, conducted meta-analytic structural equation modelling to unearth these reasons.  This study uncovered several pathways that explain the association between leadership humility and staff performance.  Specifically,

• staff develop more trusting and valued relationships with humble leaders,
• these trusting and valued relationships increase the degree to which staff believe they can excel—perhaps because they feel valued and recognise they will receive the support they need in response to challenges,
• this belief they can thrive enhances the performance of these staff.

To illustrate a study that examines this role of trust, Cho et al. (2021) explored whether the degree to which staff feel trusted mediates the association between leadership humility and various outcomes, such as job performance and defending the organisation against criticism.  Specifically, in one experimental study, 128 undergraduate students read a vignette about a workplace and imagined themselves as a staff member at this organisation.  Depending on the condition in which they were assigned,

• the leader was depicted as either humble, such as a person who appreciates the strengths of staff, or not humble, and
• the leader either granted staff autonomy to reach decisions or did not grant this autonomy.

Next, participants indicated the extent to which they would feel trusted by this leader, answering questions like “(To what extent would) my supervisor feel comfortable giving me a critical task or problem to handle” (Mayer & Davis, 1999).  As hypothesised, if the leaders were depicted as humble, participants were more likely to feel trusted—especially if these individuals were also granted autonomy to reach decisions. 

A second study explored the impact of this trust (Cho et al., 2021). In this study 233 staff of a Chinese company and 45 of their supervisors completed online questionnaires. The staff answered questions that assess

• the extent to which they perceive their leaders as humble (Owens et al., 2013), such as “My manager shows appreciation for the unique contributions of others”,
• the degree to which they feel trusted by this leader,
• the level of autonomy they are granted at work (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), such as “The job allows me to decide on my own how to go about doing my work”. 

At the same time, supervisors assessed the job performance of these staff, such as the quality and efficiency of their work as well as their capacity to accomplish work goals.  Finally, supervisors also evaluated the degree to which staff assist coworkers (Williams & Anderson, 1991) and defend the organisation against criticisms (Masterson et al., 2000).   Consistent with the hypotheses

• leadership humility was positively associated with the extent to which staff felt trusted, especially if these staff were also granted autonomy,
• when staff felt trusted, they tended to perform better as well as defend the organisation against criticisms.

Explanation: The role of goal clarity

When leaders are humble, staff may not only feel more trusted but may also feel more certain about the goals and objectives they need to reach, enhancing performance.  That is,

• in contrast to other leaders, humble leaders will seek feedback about the goals, objectives, and targets the team should pursue,
• consequently, the team discuss these goals collaboratively, enabling individuals to develop a shared understanding of their objectives,
• because the goals of staff are certain, individuals are not as likely to distribute their efforts across multiple objectives,
• instead, these staff dedicate their efforts to important goals, enhancing performance.

Ali, Li, Durrani, et al. (2021) conducted a study that was designed to validate this argument.  A sample of 329 Pakistani employees, all working on construction projects, completed a survey over two times.  During the first time, participants answered questions that assess

• the degree to which their supervisor or leader was humble (Owens et al., 2013), such as “My manager shows appreciation for the unique contributions of others”,
• the extent to which the organisational culture is supportive (Zheng, Wu, et al., 2019), including items like “My organization promotes feelings or sharing among employees” and “My organization emphasizes economics as well as social profits”.

About two months later, these participants completed two additional instruments: a measure of goal clarity (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2003), comprising items like “There were clear and comprehensible goals for this project”, and a measure that assesses the success of this project on 10 facets such as implementation, client consultation, and client acceptance (Turner & Müller, 2005).  As the results showed,

• goal clarity did indeed mediate the association between leadership humility and project success,
• the positive association between humble leadership and goal clarity was especially pronounced when the culture of this organisation was supportive—presumably because supportive cultures enable humble leaders to share and discuss their opinions about the goals.

Explanation: The role of a positive work environment

Similarly, humble leaders may also cultivate a more invigorating work environment, in which staff feel they are granted opportunities to improve their skills and pursue their values.  These opportunities enhance the capabilities, productivity, and motivation of staff, improving the performance of organisations.  To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Niu and Gao (2024), managers of small or medium enterprises in China completed an online questionnaire that assessed their intellectual humility, comprising items like “I question my own views, positions, and opinions because they may be wrong” (Leary et al., 2017).  In addition, the subordinates of these managers completed another online instrument that included

• a measure of task, relational, learning, and innovative performance, comprising items like “Even when supervisors are not present, I follow instructions” and I find new work methods, skills or tools through learning”,
• a measure of positive attitudes to the workplace, comprising items like “I share many of the values of my organisation” or “How satisfied are you with the opportunity to develop your skills?”,
• a measure of core self-evaluations, corresponding to the degree to which individuals experience confidence, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and a sense of control rather than neuroticism, typified by items like “I am confident I get the success I deserve in life” and “I am capable of coping with most of my problems” (Judge, Erez, et al., 2003).

When managers were humble, staff tended to perform more productively. As hypothesises, positive attitudes to the workplace partly mediated this relationship.   These relationships were more pronounced in staff who did not experience positive core self-evaluations but instead exhibited neuroticism rather than confidence.  Presumably, these staff are especially susceptible to the work environment because they cannot manage challenges as effectively as their peers.

Explanations: The tendency to prioritise progress over mistakes

Other explanations can explain the association between leadership humility and team performance.  For example, as Owens et al. (2016) revealed, when leaders demonstrate humility, the teams they lead also tend to express and exhibit this humility.  Because their colleagues are humble, members of the team are not as concerned about errors or mistakes.  Instead, they are more willing to pursue ambitious goals and aspirations, called a promotion focus rather than prevention focus.  This promotion focus tends to inspire staff, often enhancing the performance of teams.   A series of three studies, conducted in multiple sectors and across 161 teams, confirm these premises. 

Environmental and social performance

Leadership humility might not only improve work performance in general but might also enhance environmental and social performance in particular.  To illustrate, Anjum and Syed (2025) explored whether intellectual humility in leaders may enhance the capacity of organisations to improve sustainability innovatively, called frugal innovation (Dost et al., 2019; Lei et al., 2021).  In this study, 275 executives of small and medium pharmaceutical firms in Pakistan completed a survey.  The survey included

• the general intellectual humility scale (Leary, 2017), to measure the intellectual humility of these leaders, comprising items like “I question my own opinions, positions, and viewpoints because they could be wrong”,
• a measure of frugal innovation, comprising nine items that Rossetto and Borini (2017) constructed, such as “We always search for efficient and effective solutions to customers’ social and environmental needs”,
• an instrument that assesses the degree to which the strategy of this organisation recognises the importance of environmental, social, and financial imperatives (Pagell & Wu, 2009), such as “Our company’s mission fully considers the importance of environmental performance” and “Our company assesses social results of our operational decisions”.

As hypothesised, if leaders reported intellectual humility, their firms were more likely to exhibit the hallmarks of frugal innovation, such as uncover and implement novel solutions to improve environmental sustainability.  The extent to which these organisations valued environmental, social, and financial imperatives partly mediated this relationship (Anjum & Syed, 2025).  Presumably,

• when leaders are humble, they are not as obsessed with their immediate personal needs and are thus more sensitive to environmental and social goals,
• these leaders are also more willing to question existing practices,
• therefore, these leaders are more likely to encourage innovations that enhance both environmental and social performance.

Illustration

In many workplaces, staff are expected not only to fulfill their prescribed duties and responsibilities but also to undertake other activities that benefit the organisation.  Staff may, for example, assist colleagues, attend optional meetings, defend the organisation to other stakeholders, and maintain an optimistic attitude during challenging times (Ocampo et al., 2018).  These optional activities are sometimes called discretionary effort (Lloyd, 2008), extra-role performance (Van Dyne et al., 1995), or organisational citizenship behaviour (Organ, 1988)—although these terms represent distinct, but overlapping, acts (Lloyd, 2008).  As research indicates, when leaders display humility, staff are more inclined to undertake these discretionary acts.   

Jufri et al. (2026), for example, distributed a survey to 258 staff members of rural banks in West Java.  The survey included questions that assess

• the degree to which their leaders are humble (Owens et al., 2013), comprising items like “This leader is willing to learn from others”,
• the extent to which these staff engage in organisational citizenship behaviour, such as assist busy colleagues,
• the degree to which team members also tend to be humble—such as acknowledge their mistakes and respect novel solutions (Ye et al., 2020), comprising items like “Team members admits when they do not know how to do something”.

As structural equation modelling confirmed, when leaders demonstrated humility, staff members were inclined to engage in organisational citizenship behaviour.  Interestingly, when the team was humble in general, this association between leadership humility and organisational citizenship behaviour was especially pronounced (Jufri et al., 2026).  Arguably

• when leaders demonstrate humility, but are also respected and admired, staff are also more inclined to embrace a humble mindset,
• humble staff are more likely to respect diverse perspectives—and thus become more attuned to the needs and concerns of their colleagues,
• consequently, staff are more inclined to assist and to accommodate one another, manifesting as organisational citizenship behaviour,
• if humble leaders are not respected or admired, staff may not embrace this humble mindset; thus, when team humility is limited, leadership humility might not encourage organisational citizenship behaviour.    

Taking charge

Leadership humility may foster one discretionary act in particular—the tendency of staff to improve work practices and policies in an attempt to solve workplace challenges, called taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999).  That is

• humble leaders encourage their staff to challenge existing work practices and to suggest improvements, conceding they are not always sure of how to proceed,
• in addition, humble leaders respect diverse perspectives—including perspectives that diverge from their beliefs,
• thus, the staff of humble leaders often feel their suggestions and opinions are respected, increasing the extent to which they feel valuable and useful to the organisation, called organisation-based self-esteem (Pierce et al., 1989),
• individuals who experience this organisation-based self-esteem tend to feel confident they can enhance the workplace and also motivated to improve the workplace, manifesting as taking charge.

As this argument implies, organisation-based self-esteem should, at least partly, mediate the association between leadership humility and taking charge. Zhang and Liu (2019) undertook a study that was designed to test this hypothesis.  This study comprised two phases.  First, about 260 staff of a Chinese manufacturing company answered some questions that assess

• the humility of their leader or supervisor, such as “My leader is open to the advice of others” (Owens et al., 2013),
• the degree to which these staff experience organisation-based self-esteem, such as “I am helpful around here” (Pierce et al., 1989), and
• the extent to which these staff feel this leader embodies the values and qualities of the team, called leader prototypicality (Steffens et al., 2014), such as “My supervisor embodies what this team stands for”.

Second, about two weeks later, 200 supervisors of these staff answered some additional questions to gauge the degree to which these individuals take charge, illustrated by items like “This person often tries to adopt improved procedures for doing his or her job” (Morrison & Phelps, 1999).  As the data showed, when leaders were humble, their staff were more likely to take charge, at least partly because these staff experienced organisation-based self-esteem, feeling valuable and useful to the organisation.  Interestingly,

• when leaders embodied the values and qualities of their team, the positive association between leadership humility and organisation-based self-esteem was especially pronounced,
• presumably, leaders who embody the values and qualities of their team are more likely to be trusted as well as respected and, therefore, their respect of staff is perceived as more valuable. 

How does leadership humility promote helpful discretionary acts? The role of job crafting

Several studies have explored the reasons that leadership humility promote helpful discretionary acts, such as organizational citizenship behaviours.  To illustrate, according to Ding et al. (2020),

• when a leader is humble and thus respects diverse perspectives, staff feel their attempts to modify their job to accommodate their skills and limitations—such as change how they will complete a task, or with whom they will collaborate—will be understood, accepted, and welcomed,
• that is, leadership humility should promote a behaviour in staff called job crafting,
• in addition, when a leader is humble and appreciates the strengths and talents of other people, staff feel encouraged to utilise their strengths when completing their work,
• when staff can modify their jobs and utilise their strengths, they appreciate the workplace and feel obliged to reciprocate, promoting organisational citizenship behaviour.

To verify these arguments, Ding et al. (2020) conducted a study in which 260 medical staff of a Chinese hospital completed online questionnaires, distributed by WeChat.  Specifically, the first online questionnaire included several measures such as

• questions that determine the degree to which their leader or supervisor exhibits humility, such as “My leader acknowledges when others have more knowledge and skills than him-or-herself”, derived from the work of Owens et al. (2013),
• the job crafting questionnaire (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), designed to assess the degree to which these staff modify their jobs to accommodate their skills and limitations, comprising items like “(I often) introduce new tasks I think suit my skills or interests”,
• the Strengths Use and Deficit Correction questionnaire (Van Woerkom et al., 2016), intended to ascertain the extent to which these staff utilise their strengths, talents, and capabilities in their job, comprising items like “In my job, I make the most of my strong points”.

Two weeks later, these staff completed a scale that assesses the degree to which they initiate two organizational citizenship behaviours.  These behaviours included helping colleagues, illustrated by items like “I help other employees out if someone falls behind in his or her work”, and civic virtue, or the extent to which these individuals complete voluntary activities that benefit the organisation, such as participate in corporate social activities.  The findings partly supported the hypotheses.  In particular

• when leaders were humble, staff were more inclined to craft their jobs, utilise their strengths, and initiate organizational citizenship behaviour,
• job crafting partly mediated the association between leadership humility and organizational citizenship behaviour,
• the use of strengths promoted job crafting but not organisational citizenship behaviour.

Does staff humility affect the impact of leadership humility?

The degree to which leadership humility fosters helpful discretionary acts in staff, such as organisational citizenship behaviour, may depend on the humility of these staff (Qin et al., 2021).  That is, consistent with a range of theories—such as person–supervisor fit theory (Kristof 1996; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005) and balance theory (Heider 1958),

• if staff members and their leaders experience similar levels of humility, they will tend to adopt similar beliefs and attitudes, diminishing the likelihood of conflict or tension,
• in contrast, if staff members and their leaders experience disparate levels of humility, they may adopt conflicting beliefs and attitudes, often provoking conflict, tension, or other unpleasant interactions,
• for example, they might disagree on whether people should acknowledge their faults publicly, evoking some disagreement,
• these conflicts, tensions, and other unpleasant interactions should diminish the inclination of staff to initiate organisational citizenship behaviour.

Qin et al. (2021) conducted a study that was designed to explore this possibility. Data were collected from 433 staff and their 54 supervisors at two distinct times from a large bank in China.  Specifically,

• during the first time, both the staff and their supervisors answered questions that assess their personal humility, such as “I admit it when I don’t know how to do something”,
• a month later, supervisors rated the degree to which each staff member initiated organisational citizenship behaviour, such as “This employee helps others who have heavy workloads” (Williams & Anderson, 1991), and counterproductive work behaviour, such as “(This employee) purposely wasted your employer’s materials or supplies” (Spector et al., 2010),
• at the same time, the staff also indicated the degree to which they felt negative emotions towards this supervisor, such as nervous, jittery, irritable, or distressed.

A series of polynomial regressions uncovered some useful patterns in the data.  Specifically

• when staff and their supervisors exhibited similar, rather than different, levels of humility, these staff were not as likely to feel negative emotions towards their supervisor—especially if both individuals reported high levels, rather than low levels, or humility (Qin et al., 2021),
• in addition, staff were especially inclined to feel negative emotions towards their supervisor if these staff reported less humility than supervisors rather than vice versa; arguably, staff who report less humility than supervisors tend to resist feedback and thus often offended by leaders,
• staff who felt negative emotions towards their supervisor were more inclined to initiate counterproductive work behaviour and less inclined to initiate organisational citizenship behaviour.

One complication is that, when leaders exhibit humility, staff are more likely to embrace humility as well.  Therefore, an incongruence between the humility of leaders and the humility of staff may imply that staff do not respect these leaders for other reasons. This incongruence, hence, might be a consequence rather than cause of negative emotions. To address this limitation, future researchers should manipulate this incongruence experimentally. 

Introduction to self-expansion

To improve performance in their organisation, leaders need to inspire staff to extend their knowledge, skills, capabilities, and attributes.  Fortunately, as research shows, when leaders demonstrate humility, their staff are indeed more likely to extend these qualities. 

For example, Mao et al. (2019), in a paper that was published in the Journal of Management Studies, argued that humble leaders might promote a tendency in staff called self-expansion.  This notion of self-expansion emanates from a theory, called the self-expansion model, that assumes that individuals establish relationships with other people—such as romantic partners, friends, or even supervisors—to facilitate growth and development.  Specifically, according to this theory (Aron & Aron, 1986, 1996; Aron & Fraley, 1999; Aron et al., 1991, 2000, 2006)

• people experience a profound motivation to grow and to expand their attributes and resources,
• to fulfill this motivation, individuals strive to establish close relationships,
• the reason is that, when individuals establish close relationships, they assimilate some of the attributes or characteristics of this person into their identity,
• for example, if individuals are shy, but their partner is confident, they feel this confidence is part of their identity too—as if the self has expanded.

Many studies have corroborated this model.  To illustrate, people usually can remember words that relate to themselves better than other terms.  However, consistent with the self-expansion model, individuals can also remember words that relate to their romantic partner or closest friends better than other terms (for a meta-analysis, see Symons & Johnson, 1997).

Similarly, as evidence of the self-expansion model, people often confuse their attributes with the traits of their partner (e.g., Aron et al., 1991). In a typical study, participants must decide whether various adjectives or traits describe themselves.  When these adjectives describe their partner but not themselves, their reaction time is often protracted.  They need longer to realise these traits are not their own.    

Leadership humility and self-expansion

As Mao et al. (2019) argued, when leaders demonstrate humility, their staff are more likely to experience self-expansion.  That is, staff will often assimilate some of the attributes or characteristics of this leader into their identity, promoting self-expansion and increasing confidence as well. 

Mao et al. (2019) proposed two reasons to explain why staff might assimilate the attributes of humble leaders into their identity.  First, humble leaders espouse beliefs that facilitate growth.  For example, humble leaders recognise the strengths and respect the perspectives of staff, fostering autonomy.  If staff embed these qualities into their identity, they may feel more attuned to their personal strengths as well as liberated to pursue their values—qualities that fulfil their basic needs.

Second, humble leaders are more inclined to acknowledge their limitations and thus seem more genuine and approachable rather than detached.  Staff thus feel they can establish a bond with these leaders.  This bond increases the likelihood that staff will assimilate the attributes of humble leaders into their identity.  Because of this self-expansion, staff feel they can utilise more attributes to complete their tasks, increasing their confidence or self-efficacy.

Evidence

Mao et al. (2019) collected evidence that substantiates these arguments.  The researchers collected data from 65 leaders and 308 of their followers, at two distinct times, recruited from 11 Chinese companies.  At the first time, the participants completed a survey that included

• the measure of leader humility that Owens et al. (2013) developed, to measure the humility of their supervisor, comprising items like “My leader acknowledges when others have more knowledge or skills than himself or herself”,
• an instrument that assesses self-expansion, comprising pairs of circles that overlap to varying extents, in which participants indicate which pair corresponds to the degree they feel their identity includes their leader.

Six weeks later, the participants completed a measure of self-efficacy, comprising items like “When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them” (Chen, Gully, et al., 2001).  Finally, in the same week, their supervisor evaluated their performance at work.   As hypothesised, when leaders exhibited humility

• staff were more inclined to assimilate this leader into their identity, epitomising self-expansion,
• staff were more likely to experience self-efficacy—and self-expansion partly mediated this relationship,
• staff were more likely to perform effectively—and both self-expansion and self-efficacy partly mediated these relationships. 

These relationships were observed even after controlling the age and gender of staff and supervisors as well as the degree to which these supervisors exhibited authentic leadership.

Overview

As many studies have revealed, when leaders are humble, their staff, teams, and organisations tend to be more creative and innovative (e.g., Abbas & Wu, 2019).  Specifically, leadership humility promotes many individual attributes, team dynamics, and workplace characteristics that foster this creativity and innovation—such as trusting and reciprocal relationships between managers and staff (Lei et al., 2021), the inclination of individuals to exchange knowledge and to learn from one another (Chen, Lie et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2019), and the confidence of staff to voice concerns and to propose creative solutions (Gonçalves & Brandao,2017; Liu et al., 2017; Wang, Li, et al., 2020).

Leadership humility may also magnify the benefits of other helpful work practices on creativity and innovation.  For example, as Abbas et al. (2021) showed, when nurses feel engaged at work, they are more likely to demonstrate creativity and innovation in the health setting.  Yet, when they perceived their leaders as humble, work engagement was especially likely to foster this creativity and innovation.  In contrast, when these nurses did not perceive their leaders as humble, work engagement was not as likely to promote creativity and innovation.

Illustration

To illustrate the research on this topic, in one study of technology enterprises in China Zhou and Wu (2018) showed that humble leaders tend to foster more creative, novel, and effective solutions to problems in their staff.  Specifically, this study explored a quality that could explain this association between leadership humility and employee innovation: core self-evaluations.  Core self-evaluations reflect the degree to which individuals tend to evaluate themselves positively and, roughly, combines self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional stability, and a sense of control.  Arguably, when leaders are humble and acknowledge their shortcomings, staff do not feel as ashamed of their limitations or errors.  They recognise these shortfalls as normal and inevitable.  Consequently, these individuals are not as preoccupied with these shortfalls, fostering positive evaluations of themselves.  Because of these positive evaluations, they are more inclined to trust their own solutions to problems rather than depend unduly on other people.  Consistent with this premise, core self-evaluations did indeed partly mediate the association between leadership humility and employee innovation.

The role of team voice climate

Scholars have proposed several accounts to explain how leadership humility may foster innovation in workplaces.  One possibility is that

• when leaders are humble and acknowledge their knowledge and beliefs are limited, they are more inclined to appreciate and to embrace diverse suggestions and beliefs—even suggestions and beliefs that diverge from their own opinions,
• consequently, staff feel they are licenced to raise concerns and propose suggestions on how to solve these concerns, called a team voice climate (Morrison et al., 2011),
• these climates inspire staff to consider, to propose, to integrate, and to apply novel practices that solve important problems, epitomising innovation.

This account predicts that team voice climate should mediate the association between leadership humility and team innovation.  To assess this prediction, Liu, Mao, and Chen (2017) conducted a study of 90 teams and 307 staff in China.  The study consisted of two phases.  First, the staff completed a questionnaire that comprised a few validated scales including

• the measure of leadership humility that Owens et al. (2013) had developed, comprising nine items like “My leader actively seeks feedback, even if it is critical”,
• the measure of team voice climate that Morrison et al. (2011) constructed, comprising 12 items like “To what extent to team members develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect the team”,
• an instrument that measures task interdependence, or the degree to which staff depend on team members to complete their work effectively (Van Der Vegt et al., 2000), illustrated by items like “I depend on my colleagues for the completion of my work”.

Finally, the leaders of these staff answered questions that assess the degree to which the team is innovative, such as “The team initiated new procedures and methods” (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001).  As hypothesised, when leaders were perceived as humble, the teams tended to be more innovative, as rated by these leaders.  Team voice climate partly mediated this relationship.  Furthermore,

• the association between leadership humility and team voice climate was amplified when teams were interdependent,
• presumably, when staff depend on each other to complete their tasks, they are more inclined to value improvements that could benefit this team—and hence the impact of leadership humility on suggestions to enhance the workplace may be magnified.

The moderating effects of perceived competence

Indeed, many studies have corroborated the premise that leadership humility tends to foster creativity and innovation.  Nevertheless, if leaders express this humility excessively, creativity may diminish, at least in specific circumstances.  For example, as Yuan et al. (2018) revealed, when leaders are not perceived as competent, staff are not as creative if these leaders acknowledge doubts about themselves very frequently rather than moderately. That is, these staff are not as inclined to generate creative solutions to problems. In contrast, when leaders are perceived as very competent, staff will continue to pursue creative solutions even if these leaders acknowledge doubts about themselves very frequently (see Fujii, 2025, for a similar pattern in Japan).

Presumably, if incompetent leaders acknowledge doubts about themselves too frequently, these expressions of humility may be perceived as manipulative—and perhaps even as attempts to trivialise their shortcomings.  Consequently, staff may not perceive these leaders as helpful and supportive.  These staff will not feel as empowered or equipped to solve problems and may not feel their leaders will translate their solutions into action. 

To accommodate the incessant flux and changes in organisations, staff do not only need to be creative but also must be agile.  That is, staff must recognise unanticipated changes swiftly and then utilise these changes to explore opportunities rapidly and efficiently (Alavi et al., 2014; Pitafi et al., 2018).  This agility comprises three key facets or capabilities: proactive response to changes, a capacity to adapt and modify behaviour, and resilience in response to challenges (Cai et al., 2018).  This agility improves the capacity of individuals to satisfy the needs of customers and improve the performance of their organisations (Braun et al., 2017; Das et al., 2023).

Leadership humility tends to foster this agility in employees.  Leaders who are humble tend to appreciate and recognise the talents of their staff, learn from their staff, and empower their staff to attempt unfamiliar activities, even if initially they fail.  Accordingly, leadership humility should promote the self-efficacy of staff—the belief they can thrive in challenging settings (Al Hawamdeh, 2023).   Because of this self-efficacy, these staff tend to perceive changes as challenges they can embrace rather than as threats they need to shun.  Consequently, these staff are more likely to persist and to thrive in response to change, manifesting as agility. 

To explore this possibility, Elhadidy and Gao (2024) conducted a study in which 320 people, all travel agents in Egypt, completed a survey.   The survey assessed

• the degree to which staff perceive their supervisor as humble, such as “My supervisor is willing to learn from others”,
• the extent to which staff demonstrate the three facets of agility, such as “At work, I can quickly switch from one project to another” (Sherehiy, 2008),
• the self-efficacy of staff, such as “I can effectively navigate and overcome numerous challenges” (Chen et al., 2001).

As hypothesised, when staff perceived their leaders as humble, they were more likely to demonstrate the hallmarks of agility.  This association was partly, but not fully, mediated by self-efficacy.     

The benefits of organisational ambidexterity

To thrive, organisations need to be both efficient and innovative, sometimes called organisational ambidexterity.  As some research indicates (Elfar, 2026), when leaders are humble, the organisation is more likely to resolve this paradox successfully.

Specifically, to enhance their performance, organisations tend to adopt one of two approaches: exploitation and exploration.  That is

• organisations that prioritise exploitation strive to complete their existing tasks as efficiently as possible; to achieve this goal, they continually optimise their operations and discard practices that are not vital to their key products and services,
• organisations that prioritise exploration attempt to continually adapt in response to changes in the market and industry, striving to uncover novel markets, products, and services.

During the 1970s and 1980s, scholars felt that organisations that embrace both exploitation and exploration may fail to reach either of these goals effectively (e.g., Hannan & Freeman, 1977; Miller & Friesen, 1986). Attempts to fulfill one strategy may divert time, energy, and attention away from attempts to fulfill another strategy. 

Since this time, however, scholars have argued that some firms, called ambidextrous organisations, can undertake exploitation and exploration simultaneously, without compromising each goal.  As evidence suggests, ambidextrous organisations are indeed often more effective than other organisations, partly because they can be both profitable and adaptable (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Sarkees et al., 2010; for a review, see Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; see also He & Wong, 2004).  Presumably, ambidextrous organisations are flexible enough to accommodate unforeseen opportunities or challenges (Leonard-Barton, 1992) but efficient enough to be profitable (Levinthal & March, 1993).  In addition, the financial returns that emanate from exploitation can be invested to explore novel products and solutions.  Specifically, ambidextrous organisations tend to thrive when

• these organisations invest heavily in research and development (e.g., Rothaermel & Alexandre, 2009),
• these organisations are large; when firms are small, performance improves if the organisation prioritises exploitation or exploration but not both (Ebben & Johnson, 2005).

In a pioneering study to demonstrate the benefits of ambidextrous organisations, Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) examined 41 business units across 10 firms.  To measure ambidextrous approaches,

• participants first answered questions that assess the degree to which work practices fulfil the extant goals of the organisation, comparable to exploitation, such as “The management systems in this organisation cause us to waste resources on unproductive activities” [reversed-scored],
• participants also answered questions that assess adaptability, comparable to exploration, such as “The management systems in this organization evolve rapidly in response to shifts in our business priorities”.

To assess the performance of their firm, participants completed questions that relate to whether managers and customers are satisfied with the progress and performance of this organisation, coupled with financial measures such as return on equity.  An ambidextrous approach was positively associated with performance.  And performance was positively associated with both exploitation and exploration.      

How to implement organisational ambidexterity

Many scholars and commentators have discussed how organisations can implement an ambidextrous approach effectively.  These discussions, however, have uncovered several controversies.  For example

• some researchers argue that, in these organisations, some teams should be dedicated to exploitation and other teams should be dedicated to exploration, sometimes called spatial separation (Gupta et al., 2006; Puranam et al., 2006),
• other researchers, in contrast, argue that all staff should embrace both exploitation and exploration, called a contextual approach (e.g., Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997),
• as a compromise, Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) recommend that staff should be assigned a diversity of tasks, some of which demand incremental refinements, epitomising exploitation, and some of which demand radical innovations, epitomising exploration. 

Klarner and Raisch (2013) validated an approach that could benefit ambidextrous organisations, in which organisations should introduce changes at a moderate but regular pace.  The regularity of changes may enable certainty, stability, and efficiency, whereas the moderate pace of change enables innovation and growth.  This study examined 120 insurance companies in Europe.  In particular,

• to characterize the regularity and pace of change, the researchers scrutinised the annual reports of these companies,
• that is, the researchers identified all strategic changes, in which the scope of operations changed—such as diversification, in which the company entered another nation or segment, and refocusing, in which the company withdrew from a nation or segment (cf., Wischnevsky, 2004),
• the researchers then calculated a measure of change frequency, equal to the number of years in which a strategic change was implemented, and change regularity, equal to the extent to which periods of stability tended to be equal in length.  

After controlling previous performance, firm size, firm age, and environmental dynamism, change regularity was positively associated with firm performance, as gauged by return on equity.    

The role of executives

Some research has explored the characteristics of executives and executive teams that tend to foster an ambidextrous approach.  For example, as this research has shown

• when the executive team is committed to an inspiring vision, these individuals can integrate exploitation and exploration into a unified strategy, promoting an ambidextrous approach (Jansen et al., 2008),
• when the executive team is cohesive and collaborative, these leaders can resolve the conflicting tendencies that exploitation and exploration can provoke—and thus embrace an ambidextrous approach (Jansen et al., 2008),
• when these leaders participate in many cross-functional teams, coordinate work across many departments, or maintain strong connections outside the organisations, they can more readily demonstrate the hallmarks of both exploitation and exploration (Mom et al., 2009).

The role of leadership humility

As Elfar (2026) revealed, when leaders are humble, the organisation can more readily adopt an ambidextrous approach, partly because these leaders embrace generative AI. In this study, 240 staff of Egyptian telecommunications companies completed a survey.  The survey included

• the measure of humble leadership that Owens et al. (2013) constructed and utilised, comprising items like “My manager actively seeks feedback even if it is critical”,
• the measure that Jansen et al. (2006) developed to gauge organisational ambidexterity, comprising items like “We regularly implement small adaptations to existing products and services” to measure exploitation and “We regularly search for and approach new clients in new markets” to measure exploration,
• five items to gauge the degree to which the organisation adopts generative AI, such as “Our organization uses artificial intelligence technology in its decision-making support, marketing and customer management systems”.

As the findings revealed, humble leadership was positively associated with both exploitation and exploration, suggested that such humility enables an ambidextrous approach.  AI adoption partly mediated these relationship.  Arguably, when leaders demonstrate humility,

• staff also tend to be humble and thus listen to diverse perspectives, enabling individuals to reconcile conflicting strategies, such as exploitation and exploration,
• staff are more willing to learn, because they are not afraid of mistakes, and thus embrace novel technologies such as AI—technologies that can facilitate both exploitation and exploration simultaneously. 

Service-sales ambidexterity

Leadership humility might also enhance the capacity of staff to interact effectively with customers.  Specifically, frontline staff, or staff who interact with customers, often need to reconcile two conflicting goals: service and sales (Jasmand et al., 2012; Rapp et al., 2017, 2020).  That is, frontline staff need to resolve the concerns of customers effectively, demonstrating excellent service.  Yet these staff also need to inspire these customers to purchase other goods and services too.  This need to provide excellent service but also to boost sales is called service-sales ambidexterity.

Sok et al. (2021) showed that frontline staff can more readily fulfill these two needs, service and sales, if they are resilient and their leaders are humble.  For example, in one study, 385 frontline staff, all of whom were assigned the duty to provide excellent service and boost sales, completed a survey.  The survey included questions that assess

• the capacity of these staff to provide excellent service, such as “I usually listen attentively to customers to take appropriate action to handle their concerns regarding the services they currently receive”,
• the ability of these staff to also boost sales, such as “I usually ask questions to assess whether the customers would be willing to buy an additional service”,
• the humility of their supervisor, such as “My supervisor shows a willingness to learn from others”,
• the resilience of these staff, such as “When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on [reverse-coded]”, and
• cognitive flexibility, such as “I can communicate an idea in many different ways” or “I have the self-confidence necessary to try different ways of behaving”.

To operationalise service-sales ambidexterity, the researchers multiplied the capacity of these staff to provide excellent service by the ability of these staff to boost sales. As hypothesised, when frontline staff were resilient, they were more like to exhibit cognitive flexibility. This flexibility, in turn, enhanced service-sales ambidexterity.  Importantly, leadership humility amplified the degree to which resilience was associated with cognitive flexibility and thus service-sales ambidexterity (Sok et al., 2021).  To explain these results, Sok et al. (2021) argued that

• resilient individuals are more willing to experiment with diverse strategies to achieve their goals, because they feel they can recover after possible failures,
• this experimentation with diverse strategies affords these individuals with the flexibility they need to adapt their behaviour appropriately and achieve dynamic and sometimes contradictory goals, facilitating service-sales ambidexterity,
• if their leaders are humble and thus value learning, these resilient individuals will also value learning—increasing their motivation to experiment with diverse strategies.  

Role of psychological capital

Other research has also explored why humble leadership may improve customer service.  For example, according to Wu, Chen, et al. (2024), when a leader demonstrates humility,

• this person acknowledges his or her imperfections and respects diverse perspectives,
• thus, the staff of this leader feel they will be accepted, despite their flaws and mistakes,
• and these staff will also feel the leader respects their opinions and perspectives,
• because of these experiences, staff experience a sense of self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience, called psychological capital,
• this psychological capital imbues in staff the confidence and capacity to resolve challenges and withstand setbacks.  For example, these staff can more readily resolve the concerns and complaints their customers raise.

To validate these possibilities, Wu, Chen, et al. (2024) conducted a study in which 197 hotel staff completed a questionnaire.  The questionnaire included

• the measure of humble leadership that Owens et al. (2013) constructed, comprising items like “My leader takes notice of others’ strengths”,
• the measure of psychological capital that Luthans and Youssef-Morgan (2007) developed, comprising items like “I usually find a way to handle difficulties at work”,
• a set of five items to gauge the capacity of staff to manage the concerns or complaints of customers (see Boshoff & Allen, 2000), such as “No customers I deal with leave with problems unsolved”.

Consistent with the arguments that Wu, Chen, et al. (2024) proposed, when leaders were humble, staff could manage the complaints and concerns of customers more effectively.  Psychological capital fully mediated this association. 

When senior leaders, such as CEOs, are humble—especially CEOs who were recruited from outside the organisation—strategic changes may be implemented more effectively.  That is, if CEOs, recruited from outside the organisation, are not humble, they may impose changes they had observed previously, including changes that are incompatible with the culture, needs, and priorities of the organisation.  In contrast, if these CEOs are intellectually humble, they may be more willing to perspectives and thus accommodate conflicting needs and preferences. 

Niu et al. (2025) conducted a study that tentatively corroborates this argument. In this study, during 2024, 391 CEOs, all of whom had joined the organisation during the last two years, completed a series of measures including

• the General Intellectual Humility Scale (Leary et al., 2017), comprising items like “I question my own views, positions, and opinions because they may be wrong”,
• a series of questions that gauge the degree to which strategic changes have been implemented, epitomised by questions like “The target market of the enterprise has changed”,
• a set of questions that assess strategic execution, gauging the extent to which these leaders divided goals into subgoals, formulated plans on how to implement these subgoals, and allocated resources to achieve this subgoals.

As hypothesised, intellectual humility was positively associated with the successful implementation of strategic change (Niu et al., 2025).  Strategic execution capabilities mediated this relationship.

Introduction

When leaders are humble, the dynamics of teams, such as the level of cooperation, tend to improve (Rego, Owens, et al., 2017).  First, team members tend to be more humble themselves—and thus colleagues feel safe to express their opinions. Teams tend to be more cohesive as well as understanding and thus feel more inclined to share knowledge and information with one another (e.g., Zhong, Zhang, et al., 2021), facilitating learning (Li, Zhang, et al., 2019). And teams strive to achieve shared hopes and aspirations.  These improvements tend to enhance the performance of these teams (e.g., Rego & Simpson, 2018) as well as the wellbeing of members. 

Arguably, staff perceive humble leaders—leaders who acknowledge their limitations and respect diverse perspectives—as trustworthy, considered, and fair.  Therefore, rather than seek unfair benefits and, for example, undermine colleagues, team members will tend to collaborate and behave cohesively.  In addition, team members feel that leaders, and even colleagues, will accept, rather than deride, their shortcomings and thus may be more willing to embrace risks.

Illustration

To illustrate these dynamics, Davis, Barneche, et al. (2023) first conducted a comprehensive study of Medair, a Christian, humanitarian organisation that operates across multiple continents.  In this study, 308 staff members and 167 of their leaders completed a questionnaire.  Specifically, the staff members answered questions that assess

• two facets of humility in their leaders: general humility (Owens et al., 2013), such as “This leader actively seeks feedback, even if it is critical” and relational humility (Davis et al., 2011), such as “Most people would consider him or her a humble person”,
• four characteristics of their teams: team cohesion (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), such as “The members of my team are cooperative with each other”, team collective promotion focus—or the extent to which the team strives to achieve shared hopes and aspirations (Owens & Hekman, 2016), team psychological safety, such as “It is safe to take a risk on this team” (Edmondson, 1999), and team humility, such as “Members of this team are willing to learn from one another” (Owens & Hekman, 2016),
• three workplace outcomes: work engagement, such as “My job inspires me” (Schaufeli et al., 2006), job satisfaction, such as “…how do you feel about your job as a whole?” (Warr et al., 1979), and team performance, such as “How would you judge the overall quality of the work performed by the team” (Walumbwa et al., 2008),
• various metrics of wellbeing, including depression (Kroenke et al., 2001), anxiety (Spitzer et al., 2006), PTSD symptoms over the last month (Price et al., 2016), burnout, compassion fatigue, secondary trauma, post-traumatic growth (Cann et al., 2010), and flourishing.

Leaders answered similar questions—except the measures of wellbeing—and also completed some additional measures.  For example, they completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, comprising questions like “I like having authority over people”, to measure grandiose narcissism.  Leaders also evaluated the performance of each staff member.  Finally, a large subset of participants completed the questionnaire a second time, about six months later. 

Davis, Barneche, et al. (2023) conducted a range of analyses to assess the hypotheses.  Overall, these analyses revealed that

• when leaders were humble—encompassing general humility, relational humility, and limited narcissism—team dynamics improved,
• for example, teams were more humble, cohesive, and inspired to pursue shared hopes and aspirations as well as psychologically safe,
• consequently, when staff perceived their leaders as humble, they were more satisfied with their job and, as a team, performed more effectively.

Nevertheless, partly because so many characteristics were measured at individual, leader, and collective levels, the pattern of results was not straightforward.  For instance, when leaders were perceived as humble, staff were more likely to experience compassion fatigue and secondary trauma, epitomised by items like “I cannot recall important parts of my work with trauma victims” (Stamm, 2010).  Arguably, when leaders model humility and thus respect diverse individuals, staff in humanitarian organisations feel even more compelled to assist the community, sometimes culminating in compassion fatigue and secondary trauma.

Leadership humility and assistance of team members

As Chiu, Balkundi, et al. (2022) argued and verified, when leaders are humble, team members are more inclined to help one another—such as assist a busy colleague or fulfill the duties of someone who has recently been absent.  In particular

• humble leaders tend to recognise the limitations of their beliefs and thus respect diverse perspectives—perspectives that diverge from their existing assumptions,
• therefore, staff who respect these leaders will also tend to embrace this humility and thus respect diverse people and perspectives,
• because of this respect, few staff will hinder, disrupt, or denigrate one another,
• as this tendency of individuals to hinder one another subsides, staff become more likely to assist and to help each other instead.

Chiu, Balkundi, et al. (2022) conducted a pair of studies to substantiate this account. In one study, 70 teams of staff in Taiwan and their supervisors completed a survey at two times, separated by about five months.  The survey that staff completed included

• the measure of leader humility that Owens et al. (2013) had validated, comprising items like “My supervisor acknowledges when others have more knowledge or skills than him or her”,
• a series of seven items that assess the extent to which the teams tend to assist one another, called team-helping norms (cf., Hu & Liden, 2011), such as “In general, the members in this team ‘help others who have been absent”,
• questions that assess the degree to which staff perceived each colleague in their team as a friend or as a hindrance, exemplified by items like “to what extent does this person make it difficult for you to carry out your job responsibilities” (Sparrowe et al., 2001),
• three items that assess the viability of this team (Marrone et al., 2007), such as “Members in this team would welcome the opportunity to work together in the long run”.

Finally, the supervisors evaluated the performance of each team—such as the capacity of these teams to fulfil goals on time, to confer value to the company, to offer exemplary services, and to operate efficiently (Keller, 1994).  As structural equation modelling revealed,

• when leaders were humble, team members were more inclined to assist one another, at least partly because they perceived fewer of their colleagues as hindrances (Chiu, Balkundi, et al., 2022),
• if teams members were more inclined to assist one another, team viability and team performance improved,
• in a second study, an analogous pattern of results was observed even after controlling transformational leadership—as gauged by the scale that Podsakoff et al (1996) had constructed.

Sharing of knowledge and information

Leadership humility might enhance another hallmark of effective teams: the inclination of members to share knowledge and information with one another.  Specifically, as Zhong, Zhang, et al. (2021) proposed,

• leaders who exhibit humility acknowledge their limitations as well as express their appreciation of other individuals rather than feign certainty or confidence,
• because of this honesty and appreciation, staff can more readily decipher the expectations, intentions, and desires of these supervisors—an ability called moqi (for a definition, see Zheng et al., 2019; see also Li, Zheng, et al., 2020), a term that blend two Chinese words that represent silence and rapport,
• when staff experience this moqi, they not only understand, but also attempt to accommodate, the expectations and desires of these supervisors,
• because humble leaders often believe that people should respect and learn from one another, these staff will thus attempt to fulfill this desire—and thus will share knowledge and information with colleagues. 

To examine this possibility, Zhong, Zhang, et al. (2021) conducted a study in which 315 staff members of a Chinese company and 90 of their supervisors completed a survey.  Specifically, the staff completed questions that assess

• the degree to which their supervisors demonstrate humility, such as “My immediate leader takes notice of others’ strengths” (Owens et al., 2013),
• the extent to which staff experience moqi—a tacit understanding of the expectations, intentions, and desires of their supervisor—exemplified by questions like “I can understand my immediate leader’s task requirements at work” (Zheng et al., 2019).

During the same week, their supervisors answered questions that assess the humility of these staff.  Finally, two weeks later, staff completed a measure that gauges their propensity to share or to hide knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012), comprising items like “I agreed to help other members of my team but never really intended to” [reverse-scored].  As hypothesised, when leaders were humble, staff were more inclined to share, rather than conceal, knowledge from colleagues.  The moqi of staff partly mediated this association.  Interestingly

• when staff were also humble, leadership humility was more strongly associated with the moqi of staff,
• presumably, if staff are not humble, they might not understand or appreciate humble leaders as readily.

Humble leaders may also foster a characteristic of teams, called psychological safety, that generates many other benefits to organisations.  Psychological safety refers to a mental state in which individuals in teams feel safe to express their private concerns, values, and perspectives, honesty and candidly.  Arguably, if leaders demonstrate humility—and, therefore, acknowledge personal limitations and flaws, their staff will feel they will be welcomed, rather than derided, if they too concede their problems—a hallmark of psychological safety.  This psychological safety will tend to enhance collaboration and performance in teams.     

Evidence in virtual teams

A range of studies have revealed that leadership humility may foster psychological safety.  One pioneering study on this topic was published by Jordan Swain in 2018, an academic at the U.S. Military Academy.  In the first study, 320 adults completed some tasks online.  First, these participants read a transcript of an online conversation between a leader and staff member.  In one condition, the leader was depicted as humble, acknowledging personal shortcomings, soliciting and embracing the advice of other people, and recognising the contributions of each person.  In the other condition, the leader did not demonstrate these behaviours, but instead rejected the advice of other people.

Next, participants indicated the degree to which they would feel psychologically safe if supervised by this leader.  Specifically, these individuals answered the seven questions that Edmondson (1999) constructed, such as “If you make a mistake on this team, it will be held against you” and “Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents will be valued and utilised”. As hypothesised, if the leader was depicted as humble, participants expressed greater levels of psychological safety.

In another study, also conducted by Swain (2018) and published in the Journal of Leadership Studies, participants collaborated with four other individuals online to complete a task.  All the participants received separate information about a traffic accident and needed to share information and collaborate to ascertain who was responsible. Purportedly, one member was randomly assigned to be a leader.  Actually, the leader was a confederate who had been trained to demonstrate either humility or no humility.  For example,

• to demonstrate humility, the leader expressed phrases like “I’m not an expert on this kind of thing—so sure, I’m open to that”,
• to demonstrate limited humility, the leader expressed phrases like “I was just about to say that”.

Participants later completed questions that assess their psychological safety.  Again, leadership humility did increase psychological safety—but did not significantly enhance overall performance on the task. 

Evidence in the workplace

In contrast to Swain (2018), who explored the relationship between leadership humility and psychological safety in hypothetical or temporary workgroups, Natria et al. (2023) examined this relationship in ongoing work teams—at an Indonesian company.  Specifically, 279 staff completed

• the measure of leadership humility that Owen et al. (2013) constructed, comprising items like “Your superior shows that they are open to other’s advice”,
• the measure of psychological safety that Edmondson (1999) designed,
• questions that assess the degree to which employees feel accountable for their performance, comprising items like “I am responsible for all my actions at work”.

As hypothesised, leadership humility was positively related to psychological safety.  Furthermore, leadership humility was positively associated with accountability—and psychological safety mediated this relationship (Natria et al., 2023).  Presumably, when staff experience psychological safety, they feel the work environment is supportive.  Consequently, they feel compelled to reciprocate this support and thus devote effort into their work. 

In contrast to this pattern of findings, Mrayyan and Al‐Rjoub (2024) did not uncover a significant association between leadership humility and psychological safety in nurses.  Hence, in the future, researchers could assess whether specific circumstances or work environments could moderate this relationship. 

Evidence of a bi-directional relationship

As some research implies, the association between leadership humility and psychological safety might be bi-directional.  That is,

• when leaders are humble, staff might experience psychological safety,
• because of this psychological safety—and hence their sense that mistakes or limitations will not be derided—these staff may be more inclined to seek feedback from leaders or peers,
• this inclination to seek feedback epitomises humility.

Qian et al. (2022) conducted a study that corroborates these premises.  In this study, a sample of 75 leaders and 241 of their staff completed online instruments.  Specifically, the staff completed

• the measure of leadership humility that Owen et al. (2013) constructed, including questions like “(This leader) actively seeks feedback, even if it is critical”,
• a measure of psychological safety that May et al. (2004) developed, comprising three questions including “I am not afraid to express my opinions at work” and “I am not afraid to be myself at work”.

Finally, the leaders evaluated the extent to which their staff seek feedback, answering questions like “How frequently does this person seek feedback from you regarding your role expectations of him or her” or “How frequently does this person seek feedback from you regarding his or her overall work performance”, adapted from VandeWalle et al. (2000).  As hypothesised,

• when staff perceived their leader as humble, they were more likely to experience psychological safety in their workplace,
• when staff experienced this psychological safety, they were more inclined to seek feedback, as rated by their leaders—behaviour that is indicative of humility.

Variability in leadership humility

To explore this association between leadership humility and psychological safety, most studies measure the average levels of this humility over time.  However, as Rego, Melo, et al. (2021) proposed, and later validated, variability of leadership humility might also affect psychological safety.  To illustrate

• if the degree to which a leaders expresses humility varies appreciably over time—or across diverse circumstances—people may doubt the authenticity of this humility,
• consequently, as this variability increases, the association between leadership humility and psychological safety might diminish.

To explore this possibility, in a study that Rego, Melo, et al. (2021) published in the Journal of Business Ethics, 85 team leaders from various organisations in Portugal and the staff in their teams answered various questions.  Specifically,

• the team leaders evaluated their own humility, typified by items like “I am willing to learn from others”,
• the staff also evaluated the humility of their team leader, typified by items like “This person is willing to learn from others”,
• the staff then answered the questions that Edmondson (1999) constructed to gauge psychological safety, such as “Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues”.

As hypothesised, when leaders were deemed as humble, team members experienced greater psychological safety.  However, this relationship was not as pronounced if the perceived humility of leaders varied across team members (Rego, Melo, et al., 2021).  

Implications of this boost in psychological safety

To reiterate, humble leaders tend to foster a sense of psychological safety in their staff.  Therefore, leadership humility should generate many of the benefits that tend to coincide with psychological safety.   

Indeed, as research indicates, psychological safety promotes many favourable consequences.  For example, to underscore some of these benefits, Newman et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review.  This review uncovered some key insights into the consequences of psychological safety.  First, the review demonstrated that psychological safety tends to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and information, including the expression of concerns.  For example, when members of a team experience psychological safety,

• they are more inclined to report errors to the relevant manager rather than conceal these mistakes (Leroy et al., 2012),
• they are more likely to raise concerns about potential complications or problems (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014), such as possible risks to safety
• they are more inclined to share knowledge and information with one another—especially if they are not entirely sure this information is correct (Siemsen et al., 2009).

Second, the review showed that psychological safety not only facilitates the exchange of knowledge but enhances the capacity of teams to learn and to adapt in response to workplace changes.  To illustrate, as the level of psychological safety increases in teams,

• individuals are more willing and likely to learn from failures, mistakes, and problems (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009), enabling the team to adapt effectively in response to these challenges.
• members of teams are more inclined to assemble and to discuss how they could improve work practices (Liu et al., 2014).

Third, as the review demonstrated, these benefits to communication and learning also manifest as improvements to performance and innovation.  For instance, when employees report elevated levels of psychological safety

• the performance of these firms improve—as measured, for example, by increases in the return on assets (Baer & Frese, 2003),
• they complete projects more effectively, at least partly because turnover of staff diminishes (Chandrasekaran & Mishra, 2012),
• the quality and efficiency of their work improves, partly because they are more willing to experiment with novel practices and methods (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011),
• they are more likely to uncover innovative products, services, or practices (Gu et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2011).

Besides improvements to the tangible performance of workplaces, psychological safety can also improve the attitudes of employees.  For example, when individuals experience psychological safety, commitment to the organisation (Rathbert et al., 2009) and engagement at work (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006) improve, potentially enhancing productivity.    

Safety citizenship behaviour

According to the Work Health and Safety Act, in every Australian state and territory, as well as in many other nations, managers and staff must undertake all practicable steps to protect the safety of anyone on their premises.  Therefore, in principle, organisations and individuals may be liable if they do not proactively attempt to prevent safety incidents. 

To prevent these safety incidents, organisations may thus need to encourage behaviours called safety citizenship.  Safety citizenship behaviours refer to the actions of staff that transcend their official role and improve the safety of colleagues and their organisation.  Hofmann et al. (2003) constructed a measure of safety citizenship behaviour that delineated 27 actions that staff could initiate that can be divided into 6 clusters including

• helping, such as helping colleagues perform their work safely or learn about safe work practices,
• voice, such as raising safety concerns during planning sessions,
• stewardship, such as initiating action to thwart safety violations,
• whistleblowing, such as reporting colleagues who violate safety procedures,
• civic virtue, such as attending safety meetings or reading safety policies and procedures,
• initiating change, such as proposing suggestions to improve safety.

Evidence

Some research indicates that leadership humility may foster these safety citizenship behaviours, diminishing the likelihood of safety incidents and legal complications.  In one study (Aghighi, 2021), the participants were over 600 employees, many of whom were staff at the Kermanshah Petrochemical Industries Company.  The participants completed a questionnaire that included

• the safety citizenship behaviour scale (Hofmann et al., 2003),
• the measure of leadership humility that Owen et al. (2013) constructed, comprising items like “Your superior shows that they are open to other’s advice”,
• instruments that assess obstacles to safety, such as ambiguous responsibilities around safety or conflicts between safety and productivity goals.

As the findings revealed, when leaders exhibited humility and, for example, acknowledged their limitations

• staff were more likely to demonstrate safety citizenship behaviour and, thus, improve the safety of their organisation,
• obstacles to safety were not as likely to impede these safety citizenship behaviours.

Explanation

Presumably, when leaders exhibit humility and acknowledge their limitation, staff are also more willing to recognise their shortfalls and thus embrace feedback.  Staff are thus receptive to information about how they can work more safely and productively. Their colleagues, therefore, are more willing to voice this feedback and to help their teammates.  

Leadership humility and compliance

When leaders are humble, staff are sometimes more inclined to comply with the requests and directives of these leaders.  However, leadership humility is especially likely to promote this compliance in specific circumstances, such as when these leaders are trusted or granted sufficient authority.

According to Chiu and Hung (2022), when leaders are humble, they recognise their limitations, respect divergent perspectives, and perceive themselves as only an insignificant contributor to this vast world.  Because of these perspectives, humble leaders consider the needs of diverse individuals as well as their overarching community or organisation rather than pursue courses of action that fulfill only their personal interests.  Therefore, staff tend to assume the requests or directives of humble leaders are intended to support the community or organisation.  Staff are thus more inclined to initiate actions that comply with these requests and directives.  Yet

• if leaders are not influential or trustworthy, their decisions or behaviours are not as likely to change the community or organisation,
• therefore, when leaders are granted negligible authority and are perceived as untrustworthy, staff may feel these actions will not benefit the community or organisation,
• therefore, staff may feel reluctant to comply with their requests.

Chiu and Hung (2022) conducted a study that verifies these possibilities.  In this study, 33 leaders, working in private or public organisation in Taiwan, together with 187 of their staff, completed a survey.  Specifically, the staff answered

• five questions, adapted from Cheng, Chou, et al. (2000), that were designed to assess compliance to leaders, such as “I am sincerely compliant to my leader”,
• five questions, derived from the Power Perceived Scale (Hersey et al., 1979), to assess the perceived authority of leaders, including “My leader has enough influence on decision making in the organisation”,
• 16 questions to measure three facets of trustworthiness (see Mayer et al., 1995): ability, such as “I have confidence in my leader”, benevolence, such as “When my leader makes an important decision, he or she can consider our interests”, and integrity, such as “My leader’s behaviour is consistent all the time”.

In addition, the leaders answered 16 questions that were designed to assess five facets of leadership humility. These facets included recognition of limitations, such as “I clearly understand what I am good at and not good at”, consulting below, such as “Whenever I consult others, I fear that they look down on me” [reverse-scored], openness, such as “I usually can accept notions and methods different from mine”, and transcendence.

As hypothesised, when leaders exhibited humility, staff were more inclined to comply with their requests and directives.  However, if leaders were not granted authority and not perceived as trustworthy, this benefit of leadership humility dissipated (Chiu & Hung, 2022).  

Leadership humility may not only improve the performance, innovation, and agility of staff but also enhance the job attitudes of these staff.  That is, when leaders are humble

• staff are generally more satisfied with their job and life  (Ou et al., 2017; Zhong et al., 2020),
• staff are not as likely to depart from the organisation (Owens et al., 2013; Ou et al., 2017),
• staff tend to feel more engaged and absorbed in their work (Li et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2020),
• staff are more inclined to assist and to support one another (Carnevale et al., 2019; Owens et al., 2019). 

Work engagement

To illustrate, Li et al. (2021) conducted a study that explored the association between leadership humility, work engagement, and the creative performance of staff.  Specifically, 237 staff members, recruited from 15 technology companies in South China, completed a survey that included questions that measure

• the degree to which these staff perceive their leaders as humble, such as “My supervisor shows appreciation for the unique contributions of others” (Owens et al., 2013),
• the extent to which these staff feel engaged at work, such as “At my job, I feel strong and vigorous” and “My job inspires me” (Schaufeli et al., 2006).

Furthermore, 47 supervisors answered four questions to assess the creative performance of these staff, such as “This employee generates groundbreaking ideas related to the field” (Farmer et al., 2003).   As structural equation modelling revealed, leadership humility was positively associated with the creativity of staff—and work engagement partly mediated this association.  These results indicate that, when leaders were perceived as humble, staff felt more engaged and absorbed in their work. 

Presumably, when leaders are humble, staff feel their limitations or mistakes will not be derided.  Therefore, these staff are not as concerned about appeasing these leaders, diminishing a sense of vigilance and enabling these individuals to absorb themselves in their work and propose creative ideas.  

Job satisfaction and turnover

Similarly, research has explored whether leadership humility affects the job satisfaction and turnover of staff.  Ou et al. (2017), for example, examined how the humility of senior executives shape the job satisfaction and turnover of middle managers—and the dynamics or circumstances that could moderate these associations.  In this study, 313 senior executives and 502 of their middle managers, recruited from 43 executive teams in Chinese companies, completed surveys.   For instance, the middle managers answered questions that assess

• the humility of senior executives, such as “My leader acknowledges when others have more knowledge and skills than himself or herself” (Ou et al., 2014)
• the degree to which they feel satisfied with their job, such as “I feel satisfied with my present job” (Bono & Judge, 2003).

Furthermore, the researchers assessed fault-lines, or fragmented subunits, within the senior management teams.  Specifically, these researchers deployed an algorithm, proposed by Thatcher et al. (2003), to identify these fault-lines.  This measure utilises data about the age, gender, level of education, field of education, and tenure to uncover clusters of individuals that differ considerably from one another.  For example, if half the senior managers are old, male, and uneducated and the other half are young, female, and education in accounting, these two segments are likely to be distinct, generating fault-lines.  Finally, one year later, HR managers indicated whether these middle managers had departed.

The results were telling: When the executive team did not contain distinct sub-units or fault-lines, the humility of executives was positively associated with the job satisfaction of middle managers as well as negatively associated with the turnover of these managers.  However, when the executive team did contain distinct sub-units or fault-lines, these benefits of executive humility diminished.

Presumably, when leaders are humble, staff tend to feel more competent, experience greater autonomy, and establish better relationships—three basic core needs that if met will foster wellbeing, according to self-determination theory (for evidence from an experimental study, see Sheldon & Filak, 2008).  To illustrate

• humble leaders seek advice from staff, and hence these staff feel competent,
• humble leaders seek the opinions of staff—and hence accommodate the values and preference of these individuals, fostering a sense of autonomy,
• humble leaders respect their staff and thus foster trusting relationships.

Nevertheless, when the senior executive team entails fragmented sub-units, middle managers often receive conflicting and inconsistent advice.  They are also not too sure which senior executives to trust. Therefore, even when these senior executives demonstrate humility, middle managers may not feel their needs to feel competent, to be granted autonomy, and to develop trusting relationships will be fulfilled.     

The effects of leadership humility on staff wellbeing, resilience, and grit

Introduction

When leaders are humble, staff are not only more likely to feel satisfied and engaged at work—but are also more likely to feel satisfied with life.  That is, their wellbeing and capacity to withstand challenges and demonstrate resilience also improve. Specifically, leadership humility may foster several beliefs and perceptions that may enhance the wellbeing of staff—such as the degree to which these individuals believe their concerns and errors will be accepted rather than derided (e.g., Zhang & Song, 2020) as well as the extent to which they feel a sense of belonging or affiliation with the organisation (Zu, Zhang, et al., 2019).    

Response to shocks, transitions, and disruptions

Staff experience many disruptive events at work that often compel these individuals to leave the organisation or impair their performance.  For example, individuals often experience this sense of disruption or shock when

• they return to work after a significant bereavement (Pitimson, 2021),
• they return to the workplace after an injury or severe illness (Parsons et al., 2008),
• they return to their home country after working abroad for a few months or years (Kraimer et al., 2012),
• they resume working from the office after working from home during a pandemic or other event (Akkermans et al., 2020), or
• they resume working after a significant period of maternity leave (Little & Masterson, 2023).

Fortunately, when their leaders or managers are humble, these transitions are not as likely to be disruptive.  Specifically, humble leaders perceive challenges as opportunities to learn.  Rather than impose requirements and demands, these leaders respect the perspectives of these staff.  Staff feel empowered to utilise the insights and lessons they gained from their experience to facilitate the transition—and the leaders collaborate with staff to achieve this goal. These staff, therefore, tend to perform effectively and remain committed to their job after these disruptive transitions.

Mele-Cormier et al. (2025) conducted two studies that substantiate this argument.  In the first study, the participants were 658 workers who had experienced a transition—in which they had returned from working at home during COVID-19 to working in the office.  The survey panel company Dynata had recruited these individuals.  The participants completed a series of instruments, such as

• the scale that Owens et al. (2013) constructed to gauge the extent to which these individuals perceive their supervisor as humble, illustrated by items like “My leader takes notice of others’ strengths”,
• the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, designed to measure other leadership styles, such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003),
• a set of items that gauge how their supervisors adjusted to their transition and, in particular, demonstrated affirming behaviours—such as “My leader wants to learn from my experiences working from home to make the workplace better” and “My leader is empowering me to apply what I learned from my experiences working from home to how I work in the office”—rather than imposed requirements and demands, such as “My leader is dictating the norms and expectations around how I can work when they return to the office”.

Finally, a week later, these individuals answered questions that assess their intentions to leave the job and organisation, such as “I do not expect to remain in this job for much longer”.  Consistent with the hypotheses

• supervisors who were perceived as humble were more likely to demonstrate affirming behaviours—in which they learned from these staff and empowered these individuals to reach decisions on how to adjust effectively rather than imposed demands (Mele-Cormier et al., 2025),
• consequently, when supervisors were humble, employees were not as inclined to leave the job or organisation—and these relationships were largely observed after controlling other leadership styles (Mele-Cormier et al., 2025),
• as a subsequent study revealed, when supervisors were humble, staff were actually less likely to leave the organisation and also tended to perform better, as rated by the supervisor.  

The role of belonging    

Zhu, Zhang, and Shen (2019) explored some possible reasons how leadership humility could foster resilience in staff.  One possibility is that humble leaders cultivate a workplace environment in which staff feel a sense of belonging to the organisation.  To illustrate

• humble leaders acknowledge their own limitations, implying that imperfections and flaws are common and acceptable,
• staff are thus more inclined to express their shortcomings and concerns to one another,
• hence, these staff feel like they have disclosed and received private information, instilling the sense that each person is an insider rather than outsider,
• when staff feel like an insider—and thus feel like they belong—they are confident their colleagues will offer support or understanding in response to challenges or problems, fostering resilience.

To verify these arguments, Zhu, Zhang, and Shen (2019) conducted two studies.  In one study, 434 Chinese staff, recruited from a range of organisations, completed an online survey.  The survey included measures of

• humble leadership, comprising items like “My leader actively seeks feedback, even if it is critical” (Owens et al., 2013),
• employee resilience, comprising items like “I use change at work as an opportunity for growth” (Näswall et al., 2015),
• perceived insider identity, or the extent to which staff feel they belong to the organisation, exemplified by items like “I feel very much a part of my work organisation” (Stamper & Masterson, 2002), and
• a promotion focus at work, or the degree to which staff feel inspired to pursue their aspirations and to seek gains rather than strive only to fulfill their duties and prevent problems, corresponding to items like “I take chances at work to maximize my goals for advancement” (Wallace & Chen, 2006).

As the findings revealed, humble leadership was positively associated with the resilience of staff, defined as their capacity to persist in response to challenges.  Perceived insider identity, of a sense of belonging to the organisation, partly mediated this association, consistent with the hypotheses.  A subsequent experimental study, in which participants read scenarios about a leader who was humble or not humble, replicated these findings. 

The role of regulatory focus

In this study, Zhu, Zhang, and Shen (2019) also discovered that, besides a sense of belonging, another mental state or trait also partly mediates the relationship between leadership humility and the resilience of staff: a promotion focus.  That is, at any time, a variety of goals or motives shape the behaviour of individuals.  These goals or motives can typically be divided into two classes:

• a prevention focus, in which individuals feel compelled to fulfill their duties and to prevent errors, shortfalls, or losses, and
• a promotion focus, in which individuals are primarily inspired to pursue their aspirations and to seek gains.

Several arguments could explain why humble leadership may cultivate a promotion focus in staff.  To illustrate

• if staff commit errors, some leaders respond punitively or harshly,
• the main goal of these staff, therefore, is to prevent errors, manifesting as a prevention focus (for a similar argument, but with reference to parents, see Keller, 2008),
• in contrast, if leaders are humble, they acknowledge their shortcomings and are thus more understanding and accepting when staff commit errors, curtailing this prevention focus and thus enabling a promotion focus.

When staff experience a promotion focus, and thus orient their attention to the pursuit of gains instead of the prevention of losses, they exhibit tendencies that coincide with resilience. For example, a promotion focus tends to diminish the extent to which staff are sensitive to criticism (e.g., Forster, Grant, et al., 2001).  A promotion focus also increases the extent to which individuals feel they can shape outcomes (Langens, 2007), instilling a sense of agency or confidence.

Grit

As Othman et al. (2025) revealed, when leaders demonstrate humility, their staff are more likely to experience grit—defined as a tenacity and passion of individuals to achieve future goals (Duckworth et al., 2007; for a meta-analysis, see Credé et al., 2017), often manifesting as resilience and the dedication of effort at work.  Grit comprises two distinct facets: perseverance of effort and consistency of interest (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).  Arguably, leadership humility may foster grit in staff.  To demonstrate

• when leaders are humble and thus respect diverse perspectives, they tend to understand and to accommodate staff more effectively,
• consequently, staff feel their efforts are respected and rewarded and believe they are granted the opportunity to develop their capabilities—collectively called decent work,
• in these circumstances, staff feel more inspired to pursue their aspirations, because they believe these efforts will be rewarded fairly and feel they can develop the capabilities they need to achieve these goals,
• this inspiration to pursue aspirations manifests as grit.

Othman et al. (2025) conducted a study that verifies this account.  In this study, over 400 nurses affiliated with the hospital at Sohag University in Egypt completed a series of instruments.  These instruments included

• a measure of leadership humility, developed by Owens et al. (2013), in which the nurses indicated the degree to which their leader or supervisor exhibited humility, comprising items like “This leader actively seeks feedback even if it is critical”,
• the grit scale that Duckworth and Quinn (2009) constructed, designed to assess the extent to which these nurses experience persistent effort and consistent interest, comprising items like “Setbacks don’t discourage me” and “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one” [reverse-coded], respectively,
• the Decent Work Perceptions Scale (Mao, Liu, et al., 2014), designed to measure the degree to which nurses appreciate the work rewards, their position, opportunities for career development, work recognition, and the work atmosphere.  

As hypothesised, when leaders were perceived as humble, staff were more likely to report elevated levels of grit.  Decent work, or the extent to which staff felt their efforts were respected and rewarded and believed they were granted the opportunity to develop their capabilities, mediated this association.

In general, staff are more likely to express favourable attitudes towards humble leaders than other leaders (Carnevale et al., 2019).  For example, humble leaders are generally perceived as more competent (Cojuharenco & Karelaia, 2020) and effective (Owens et al., 2013; Rego et al., 2018).  According to Rego et al. (2018), humble leaders are effective partly because they consider multiple and conflicting sources of information fairly and comprehensively, diminishing the likelihood of biased or misguided decisions. 

Circumstances that moderate these benefits

Nevertheless, a range of circumstances can amplify or limit these benefits of leadership humility. To illustrate, Cojuharenco and Karelaia (2020) uncovered a positive association between the degree to which leaders were perceived as humble and the degree to which these leaders were perceived as competent, with correlations approaching about .26 in one study.  Nevertheless, as the researchers demonstrated, some of the actions that leaders undertake to demonstrate their humility—such as ask many questions—can also diminish the extent to which they are perceived as competent in specific circumstances. 

Specifically, the authors proposed a model that clarifies when the inclination to ask many questions may elicit perceptions of humility and competence.  According to this model

• when leaders ask many questions—such as after a presentation or over email—they tend to be perceived as humble, and this humility increases the degree to which they are trusted.
• yet, when leaders ask many questions, they are sometimes perceived as less competent, but only if their credibility or credentials are limited or ambiguous. 

To illustrate, in one study, about 400 American participants read about an executive, employed at an aerospace company, who had been set the task to diminish expenses.  The executive was depicted either as someone who had accrued strong credentials, such as a degree from MIT, or as someone who has not accrued strong credentials, such as a degree from a less reputable institution. To diminish expenses, the executive sent all staff an email that either included many questions, such as “Can (this company) lower costs by reducing the number of suppliers?”, or many statements, such as “(This company) can lower costs by reducing the number of suppliers”.  Afterwards, participants indicated the degree to which they perceived the executive as competent. 

If the executive had not accrued strong credentials, the email with questions, compared to the email with statements, diminished the extent to which this individual was perceived as competent.  In contrast, if the executive had accrued strong credentials, this individual was perceived as competent regardless of the email that was sent. 

The next study was similar except participants indicated the degree to which they perceived the executive as humble.  Furthermore, this executive was depicted as a person who either listens to the feedback and opinions of other individuals, epitomising humility, or does not listen to the feedback and opinions of other individuals. 

If the executive was portrayed as someone who does not listen to the feedback and opinions of other individuals, the email with questions, compared to the email with statements, increased the degree to which this individual was perceived as humble. However, if the executive was portrayed as someone who does listen to feedback and opinions, the contents of this email did not affect perceived humility.  Thus, after leaders asked questions, they seemed more humble, but only if their humility had not been established previously.

These findings suggest that leaders should ask questions to demonstrate humility and foster trust if

• they have established some credibility or accrued strong credentials first,
• they believe they will garner useful information from the answers to these questions—and will thus ultimately develop their competence and credibility over time, or
• other people have questioned whether these leaders are humble and trustworthy.

Humble leaders tend to be perceived as trustworthy.  Because of this perception, these leaders are more able to attract donations, sponsorship, and other financial contributions. 

To illustrate, in a study that Van Tongeren et al. (2024) conducted, 943 American participants completed a series of online tasks.   First, these participants read about either a male leader or a female leader.  The leader was depicted as either humble, such as “aware of her strengths and weaknesses”, or not humble, such as “sometimes overlooks her own limitations”.  In addition, the leader was depicted as either competent, such as a person who “improved team cohesion and worker satisfaction”, or incompetent.  Next, the participants rated the extent to which they perceive this leader as humble, competent, warm, and trustworthy. Finally, these individuals answered questions about their willingness to donate to the organisation this person leads.  Specifically, they answered the following questions:

• “How likely would you be to donate to the organisation with this leader?” on a scale from 1 to 10,
• If granted $100 of disposable income, what percentage would they donate to this organisation.

Regardless of whether the leader was portrayed as competent or incompetent, participants tended to perceive the humble leader, compared to the other leader, as more trustworthy.  Because of this trust, participants were more willing to donate, and also donated a greater amount, to the organisation led by the humble leader compared to the organisation led by the other leader.  The gender of this leader did not affect the pattern of results. A further study indicated that humble leaders and likeable leaders were both regarded as trustworthy and attracted donations to similar degrees. 

To explain these findings, the researchers invoked the trust signalling hypothesis: the notion that humility is a signal that such leaders are likely to be trustworthy.  That is, humble people are more inclined to behave fairly and consistently rather than defensively and unpredictably to challenges and setbacks.  Hence, these leaders are likely to fulfil their promises and goals. 

As Peng (2020) revealed, humility in leaders may also promote humility in their subordinates, culminating in the range of benefits, such as improvements in performance.  In this study, 128 team leaders and 470 staff members in these teams participated in this study.  The team leaders

• first answered questions that assess the humility of their leaders, hereafter called senior leaders, such as “My supervisor actively seeks feedback even if it is critical”,
• also answered questions that measure the degree to which decisions are centralised in the organisation (Dorfman & Howell, 1988), including “In my organization, managers frequently use authority and power when dealing with subordinates”,
• then, a month later, evaluated the performance, and specifically the efficiency, quality, productivity, and overall achievement of their team.

Finally, the team members evaluated the humility of their team leaders.  This study uncovered two key findings.  First, when team leaders were humble, the teams performed more effectively, especially if the senior leaders were also humble. Presumably, when both the team leader and senior leader demonstrate humility, staff tend to assume this humble behaviour conforms to the norms or values of this organisation.  These staff, therefore, are more inclined to embrace this humility—facilitating learning, collaboration, and ultimately performance (Peng, 2020).

Second, when senior leaders were humble, their subordinates, the team leaders, were also more likely to be humble—especially when decisions tend to be centralised and hence the senior leaders are granted significant power.  Hence, the humility of one leader tended to foster humility in subordinate leaders. Peng (2020) ascribed this finding to a theory called the trickle-down, or cascading, effect of leadership.  That is, individuals often emulate the traits, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours of leaders, especially if these leaders are perceived as powerful and rewarded. 

Trickle-down effect of leadership: Competing theories

Other research has uncovered more insights into this trickle-down or cascading effect of leadership.  These insights might provide researchers and practitioners with helpful clues as to when humility in leaders may foster humility in subordinates. Wang and Xu (2015), for example, differentiate five theories or accounts that explain these cascading effects of humility or other traits or behaviours.

The first theory revolves around emotional contagion (Hatfield et al., 1992; 1993; 2014; 2018).  Specifically,

• when leaders experience specific emotional states, they tend to display bodily or vocal cues, such as facial expressions, that usually coincide with these states
• staff who observe these leaders naturally and unconsciously tend to mimic these cues
• these behaviours, such as a smile, then shape the emotions these staff experience (for a review, see Herrando & Constantinides, 2021)
• consequently, leaders and staff often experience analogous emotions. 

Humility, although not an emotion, generally coincides with specific feelings, such as curiosity, empathy, and gratitude.  Therefore, from the perspective of emotional contagion theory, if leaders are humble, staff are more likely to experience the corresponding emotions, such as curiosity.  And these emotions might prime or foster humility. 

The second theory, called affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), assumes that other dynamics, rather than unconscious mimicking, may explain how the emotions of leaders may shape the emotions, and ultimately the attitudes, behaviours, and tendencies, of staff.  This theory underscores the degree to which momentary events at work can significantly shape the attitudes or behaviours of staff.  Specifically,

• transient but unanticipated events, such as cursory praise or a trivial failure, can elicit a range of emotions, from joy or relief to anxiety or despair
• these emotions may linger minutes or even hours after the event has evaporated, shaping or biasing the attitudes and behaviours of individuals (see also Weiss & Beal, 2005),
• therefore, the attitudes and behaviours of staff, such as job satisfaction and commitment, might depend significantly on their exposure to affective events and not emanate from a considered or rational analysis of their circumstances. 

Affective events theory may explain how humility in leaders could foster humility in staff.  To illustrate, humble leaders will tend to respect the opinions and perspectives of their staff.  These staff, therefore, may often experience moments of gratitude but seldom feel defensive—affective states that have been shown to foster humility (Krumrei Mancuso et al., 2024).  The behaviour of humble leaders, therefore, will tend to elicit the emotions that may promote humility. 

The third theory, social exchange theory, centres on the notion of reciprocity.  According to social exchange theory,

• pairs of individuals who have developed an ongoing relationship experience the need to reciprocate the support and assistance of the other person, called the norm of reciprocity (see Blau, 1983; Gouldner, 1960)
• for example, if one person helps a friend, this friend will experience an obligation to reciprocate at some time in the future, offering a form of assistance that is roughly equal in magnitude
• if this norm of reciprocity is fulfilled, a trusting and loyal relationship evolves (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005)
• indeed, individuals typically feel more obliged and motivated to reciprocate a favour than most benefactors actually predict (see Flynn, 2003).

Sometimes, one or both partners may perceive these social exchanges as unjust. Benefactors, for example, might feel their assistance was not reciprocated adequately. These perceived inequities can elicit conflict (Sulthana, 1987), emotional distress (Bakker et al., 2000), or even physical illness (cf., Siegist, 2005).

Humble leaders, who often acknowledge their limitations and respect diverse opinions, generally show respect towards their staff.  In response, staff may reciprocate this respect, embracing advice from their leader and thus, at least implicitly, acknowledge their limitations and thus display humility.    

The fourth theory, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1985), is the account that is perhaps most often invoked to explain the trickle-down effect (for a discussion of this social learning effect, see Kelemen et al., 2023).  Rather than merely learn from the rewards or punishments they receive after initiating some behaviour, individuals also learn from observing the rewards or punishments that other people receive.  That is,

• people tend to direct their attention to salient role models, such as leaders
• they will then tend to imitate the actions of these role models, especially if these behaviours appear to be rewarded or reinforced (for a review of the evidence, see Pratt et al., 2010)
• this theory, hence, presupposes that imitation and reinforcement are the key determinants of the trickle-down effect. 

Accordingly, if leaders demonstrate humility, such as acknowledge their beliefs may be biased, staff are likely to observe these behaviours.  Furthermore, staff may assume these behaviours have been rewarded, because the leader has been granted a coveted position of power, and thus are likely to imitate these tendencies. 

The final theory, social information processing theory, assumes that people form beliefs and attitudes not only from objective information but also from the social cues of other individuals, such as leaders (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). For example

• if staff who work long hours receive praise, individuals may infer that, perhaps, this organisation values people who sacrifice their interests to enhance the firm,
• alternatively, in meetings, if leaders often seek the opinions of reserved individuals, staff may assume that diversity and inclusion is genuinely valued,
• finally, if leaders act calmly when projects fail, staff may develop the belief that risks are tolerated.

This theory, hence, assumes that people infer workplace norms from their leaders and that sensemaking underpins the trickle-down effect. Similarly, when humble leaders acknowledge their mistakes or limitations, seek feedback, and respect diverse opinions, staff might, over time, learn that leadership is not equated with certainty.  Indeed, they may even believe that people who recognise their shortcomings are respected, a belief that may foster humility in staff.   

These theories also offer some insight into circumstances in which leadership humility may not translate to staff humility.  For example

• if leaders are not especially credible or powerful, their humility may not always foster similar qualities in their staff,
• if staff are not especially dependent on leaders and thus do not closely monitor the behaviours of these individuals, the trickle-down effect may be blunted.

An illustration

As Remy and Sané (2024) revealed, when leaders are humble, the organisation, and not only the individuals, tend to acquire and to utilise greater knowledge, skills, and practices.  That is, in many organisations, even if staff have developed extensive capabilities, this knowledge and skills may not always be embedded or applied in the organisation.  Thus, individual learning does not always translate into organisational learning.  Fortunately, when leaders are humble, organisational learning, and thus performance, tends to improve. 

To illustrate, in a study that Remy and Sané (2024) published in the Learning Organization, 80 project managers in Senegal, dedicated to international development projects, completed a survey.  The survey measured

• leadership humility, assessed by items like “The team leader is willing to learn from others” (Owens et al., 2013),
• organisational learning, measured by items like “In general, our project team members have mastered the process of managing development projects” and “During the execution of our project, our team has adopted new operating rules shared and accepted by all members of the team” (Mbengue & Sané, 2013),
• success of the project, gauged by items like “the beneficiaries are satisfied with the products and services generated by the project” (Diallo & Thuillier, 2005).

As hypothesised, the degree to which the team leaders were humble was positively associated with success of the project.  Organisational learning mediated this association—suggesting that leadership humility promoted organisational learning, and this learning enhanced performance.  The researchers proposed several reasons to explain how leadership humility may foster this organisational learning:

• Because humble leaders seek the perspective of all staff and thus cultivate a culture of discussion, staff become more inclined to share their knowledge and skills—and thus individual capability is translated to organisational learning (cf. Lin et al., 2018),
• Because humble leaders accept errors and limitations, staff are more inclined to attempt novel practices, fostering organisational learning (e.g., Mallen et al. 2019)

The learning organisation

This study, therefore, suggests that humble leadership may be a determinant of what Senge (1990), in his seminal book, called a learning organisation—although the notion of a learning organisation appreciably predates this book (for a review, see Watkins & Marsick, 1992). According to Senge (1990), learning unfolds at the level of individuals, teams, organisations, and communities.  The learning organisation develops and institutes systems and practices that maintain, communicate, and apply this learning, efficiently and broadly (Watkins & Marsick, 1993).  These systems and practices are regarded as a facet of workplace strategy, separate from the core work activities, intended to facilitate innovation, productivity, and growth. 

Both individuals and organisations demonstrate two distinct forms of learning: incremental and transformational. Incremental learning represents a gradual improvement in understanding and behaviour—derived from refinements to existing practices—within the established structure and rules of the organisation.  In contrast, transformational learning represents a refinement to the underlying structures, rules, and norms that characterise the organisation.  Fundamental shifts in skills, thinking, insights, and heuristics all underpin this form of learning. 

A learning organisation engages in transformational, and not only incremental, forms of learning–continuously rather than sporadically (Kofman & Senge, 1993; Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995; Watkins & Marsick, 1993).  Such organisations institute and embrace initiatives that expedite and facilitate these transformational changes.  Senge (1990) enumerated five core facets, called disciplines, that facilitate transformational learning:

• systems thinking—in which individuals learn how all the various systems and practices of the organisation affect one another,
• personal mastery—in which individuals are encouraged to embrace risks and unfamiliar experiences to facilitate and to maintain their learning,
• a shared vision of the future,
• changing mental models—in which individuals how learn to challenge their entrenched and often implicit assumptions about workplaces, such as the assumption they need to maintain control, to suppress negative feelings, and to depend solely on rational arguments,
• team learning—in which individuals learn how to think and contemplate together as a team

To evaluate the benefits of organisational learning, researchers often utilise the Learning Organization Scale, developed by Jeong et al. (2003) and adapted by Jeong et al. (2007).  The scale comprises 23 or 24 items, depending on the version, that measures the five core disciplines: system thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning.  A sample item is “I think (the organization) should incorporate members’ opinion thoroughly when trial of a new change is attempted”. 

Studies have verified the benefits of learning organisations (for a review, see Rad & Bocoș, 2024).  In the nursing profession, for example, research has shown that a learning organisation enhances the performance of organisations.  Shared vision and team learning, in particular, have been shown to be associated with job satisfaction and organisational commitment (Jeong et al, 2007). Furthermore, over 20% of the variance in job satisfaction and organisational commitment were explained by the principles of learning organisations.

The learning organisation

This study, therefore, suggests that humble leadership may be a determinant of what Senge (1990), in his seminal book, called a learning organisation—although the notion of a learning organisation appreciably predates this book (for a review, see Watkins & Marsick, 1992). According to Senge (1990), learning unfolds at the level of individuals, teams, organisations, and communities.  The learning organisation develops and institutes systems and practices that maintain, communicate, and apply this learning, efficiently and broadly (Watkins & Marsick, 1993).  These systems and practices are regarded as a facet of workplace strategy, separate from the core work activities, intended to facilitate innovation, productivity, and growth. 

Both individuals and organisations demonstrate two distinct forms of learning: incremental and transformational. Incremental learning represents a gradual improvement in understanding and behaviour—derived from refinements to existing practices—within the established structure and rules of the organisation.  In contrast, transformational learning represents a refinement to the underlying structures, rules, and norms that characterise the organisation.  Fundamental shifts in skills, thinking, insights, and heuristics all underpin this form of learning. 

A learning organisation engages in transformational, and not only incremental, forms of learning–continuously rather than sporadically (Kofman & Senge, 1993; Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995; Watkins & Marsick, 1993).  Such organisations institute and embrace initiatives that expedite and facilitate these transformational changes.  Senge (1990) enumerated five core facets, called disciplines, that facilitate transformational learning:

• systems thinking—in which individuals learn how all the various systems and practices of the organisation affect one another,
• personal mastery—in which individuals are encouraged to embrace risks and unfamiliar experiences to facilitate and to maintain their learning,
• a shared vision of the future,
• changing mental models—in which individuals how learn to challenge their entrenched and often implicit assumptions about workplaces, such as the assumption they need to maintain control, to suppress negative feelings, and to depend solely on rational arguments,
• team learning—in which individuals learn how to think and contemplate together as a team

To evaluate the benefits of organisational learning, researchers often utilise the Learning Organization Scale, developed by Jeong et al. (2003) and adapted by Jeong et al. (2007).  The scale comprises 23 or 24 items, depending on the version, that measures the five core disciplines: system thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning.  A sample item is “I think (the organization) should incorporate members’ opinion thoroughly when trial of a new change is attempted”. 

Studies have verified the benefits of learning organisations (for a review, see Rad & Bocoș, 2024).  In the nursing profession, for example, research has shown that a learning organisation enhances the performance of organisations.  Shared vision and team learning, in particular, have been shown to be associated with job satisfaction

The role of shared mental models

To explain how leadership humility might facilitate team learning, Li, Zhang, et al. (2019) invoked the notion of a shared mental model.  Specifically, in some teams, colleagues develop a shared understanding of their tasks, goals, norms, roles, and patterns of communication.  They tend to agree on which tasks are prioritised, which individuals excel on various activities, how to deliver feedback to one another, and so forth.  This understanding is primarily tacit—rather than documented or verbalised explicitly—and is called a shared mental model (see Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993).

When teams have developed comprehensive and accurate shared mental models, coordination and performance tends to improve (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Mathieu et al., 2000).  That is, these models enable colleagues to accommodate one another, such as predict the activities that other members will undertake and respond accordingly, without explicit instructions or procedures. Consequently, these teams tend to coordinate effectively, adapt seamlessly to change, and thus work productively. Research has also clarified the conditions and practices that may foster these shared mental models. For instance,

• some interventions, such as job rotations, training in the roles of colleagues, reviews after projects, and similar exercises tend to cultivate these models (see Salas et al., 2008)
• some leadership practices, such as a compelling vision of the future coupled with unambiguous goals, can encourage team members to exchange information, collectively review performance, and develop a common understanding of their work environment (cf., Zaccaro et al., 2001), and
• these conditions and practices are especially likely to be effective if team members interact frequently and work together over an extended time (Mathieu et al., 2000).

Arguably, these shared mental model could explain how leadership humility could facilitate team learning.  Specifically,

• if leaders are humble and thus acknowledge their faults and flaws, staff are also more inclined to disclose their concerns and challenges with one another,
• consequently, these staff understand one another better, improving the shared mental model,
• because of this shared mental model, staff are more attuned to the information and skills their colleagues would like to learn,
• these staff thus help each other learn, manifesting as team learning.  

Li, Zhang, et al. (2019) conducted a study that verifies this proposal. In this study, 305 Chinese staff from 89 teams completed a series of measures, distributed over two months.  Specifically,

• at one time, these individuals answered questions that assess the humility of their leader, such as “My leader actively seeks feedback even if it is critical” (Owens et al., 2013),
• about a month later, these staff then completed a measure of shared mental models, answering questions like “My team consistently demonstrates effective listening skills” (Johnson et al., 2007),
• finally, another month later, these participants answered questions that gauge team learning, such as “We regularly take time to figure out ways to improve our team’s work process” (Edmondson, 1999).

Consistent with the proposed arguments, shared mental models partly mediated the association between leadership humility and team learning.  When the team reported an elevated promotion focus—and thus prioritised future aspirations over immediate duties—leadership humility was especially likely to cultivate these shared mental models.   

Team silence

To facilitate organisational learning, staff need to share information with one another. However, in many work teams, for various reasons, staff are unwilling to share this information. For instance, they may remain silent when concerned about an existing procedure or when uncertain about how to proceed on some task.  This silence tends to impede communication, impair decisions, and ultimately increase the likelihood of significant errors or misguided decisions (Bienefeld & Grote, 2012; Leonard et al., 2004).

Fortunately, as Zettna et al. (2025) demonstrated across five studies, when leaders are humble, this silence of teams generally dissipates and performance consequently improves.  In one study, 162 undergraduate students, enrolled at an Australian university, participated in one of 50 project teams, each comprising 3 to 6 members.  Participants were then instructed to imagine the leader of this team. To generate this image, they read one of two descriptions.  One description epitomised a humble leader: a person who perceive themselves accurately, who appreciates the contributions of other people, and who is motivated to learn (cf Rego et al., 2019). The other description did not refer to these hallmarks of humility but instead depicted transactional leadership.

Next, participants completed a measure of team silence, adapted from questions that Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) constructed.  Specifically, participants were prompted to estimate the frequency with which they assumed the team would demonstrate five behaviours that typify silence, such as “Members of this team would choose to remain silent when concerned about work-related matters”. As hypothesised, when the leader was depicted as humble, participants assumed that team silence would subside. 

In another study, the participants were interns, allocated to IT project teams that comprise at least three members.  Initially, these individuals answered questions that assessed the degree to which they perceive the team leader as humble. Two months later, they completed a measure that gauged the level of silence in the team, such as “Our project team keeps quiet in our team meetings about problems with the project” (Detert & Edmondson, 2011). Finally, three months later, researchers collated information about team performance—such as ratings from supervisors and clients. 

Again, leadership humility at one time predicted diminished team silence, and ultimately better performance, in the future.  A third study, in which the participants were paid employees, generated a similar pattern of results, even after controlling team voice.

Employee voice

Leadership humility may also encourage staff to express suggestions and information on how to improve the workplace (e.g., Li, Li, et al., 2019; Li, Liang, et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2019), called employee voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)–vital to the performance and innovation of organisations (for discussions, see Della Torre et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021).  Achmadi et al. (2022), for example, presented several reasons to explain why humble leaders might foster employee voice.  For example

• when leaders are humble, they acknowledge that both their practices as well as the operations of the workplace are imperfect and thus encourage staff to pose suggestions on how to address this status quo,
• when leaders are humble, they demonstrate respect towards the perspectives of their staff and, according to social exchange theory, thus encourage staff to reciprocate this respect and behave civilly towards their leader and peers.

To corroborate this argument, 379 employees, from a range of organisations in Indonesia, completed a survey.  The survey included questions that assess

• the degree to which they perceive their supervisor as humble, such as “My supervisor actively seeks feedback, even if it is critical”,
• employee voice, such as “I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group” (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998),
• the degree to which colleagues are civil and respectful in the workplace, such as “Rude behaviour is not accepted by my colleagues” (Walsh et al., 2012),
• the extent to which the climate is competitive, such as “My co-workers frequently compare their results with mine” (Brown et al., 1998).

As hypothesized, when supervisors were perceived as humble, staff were more inclined to voice recommendations, suggestions, and concerns.  The extent to which colleagues were respectful partly mediated this relationship.

Interestingly, when the climate was deemed as competitive and individuals strived to outperform their colleagues, this positive association between leadership humility and employee voice was especially pronounced.  Perhaps, in a competitive environment, the humility of leaders is especially salient.  Or, in competitive environments, individuals are especially motivated to voice their suggestions (Achmadi et al., 2022)—but only voice these suggestions if they perceive their leaders as humble and thus feel their recommendations will be respected.

Level 5 leadership

Humble leadership overlaps with the qualities that Jim Collins, in his renowned work on leadership, labelled as Level 5 leaders (Collins, 2001a; Collins, 2001b; Collins, 2006).  Specifically, over five years, commencing in 1996, Collins and his team of research associates explored the attributes of leaders that improved organisations.  That is, these researchers undertook analyses that compared the features of companies that shifted from adequate performance to sustained excellence with the features of companies that did not achieve this improved outcome. To select organisations that shifted from adequate performance to sustained excellence, the researchers identified companies in which the stock returns had not exceeded average over 15 years—but then, after a transition, generated returns three times above average for at least 15 years. 

Only 11 companies fulfilled this criterion. Collins then compared the attributes of these organisations with the attributes of companies that did not reach this criterion but were equivalent in size, age, and market.  After extensive analyses, Collins and his team discovered that only leaders who blend humility and fierce resolve, called Level 5 leadership, could transform organisations from mediocrity to excellence—excellence that persists over time.  Some of these leaders included

• Colman M Mockler who, as CEO, had transformed Gillette and was a gracious, shy person but persistent enough to contact thousands of investors to attract votes when challenged,
• George Cain who, as CEO of Abbott Industries, apologised to his family as he discontinued the nepotism that had plagued the company previously,
• Darwin C Smith who, as CEO, transformed Kimberly-Clark from a flailing paper company and was a person who shunned attention and was somewhat awkward, but remarkably determined, even returning to a work after losing a finger the day before.
• Alan Wurtzel, a previous CEO who converted Circuit City into a thriving electronics retailer and ascribed his success to luck.  

Besides their humility and fierce determination, Level 5 leaders demonstrate other qualities or initiate other practices that contribute towards their success.  For example, in general

• Level 5 leaders decide with whom they will collaborate before they finalise their strategy,
• Level 5 leaders are almost certain they will transcend the challenges they are experiencing now,
• Level 5 leaders gradually but consistently develop momentum, like pushing a heavy flywheel, in which the number of turns progressively increase with each push,
• Level 5 leaders tend to understand the changes that will ignite the passion of their staff,
• Level 5 leaders are pioneers in the use of a technology they carefully selected but shun unnecessary fads in technology.

Collins differentiated Level 5 leaders from four other levels of capability that can be useful in other circumstances.  These levels include   

• Level 4 Effective Leaders, who can inspire people to pursue a compelling vision of the future,
• Level 3 Competent Managers, who can organise people and resources effectively to achieve some predetermined goals,
• Level 2 Contributing Team Members, who can work effectively with other people to generate useful outcomes, and
• Level 1 Highly Capable Individuals, who can utilise their knowledge, skills, work practices, and talents to work productively.

The credibility of humble politicians

Some people may be concerned that individuals who demonstrate intellectual humility—and thus acknowledge their beliefs are uncertain and their knowledge is limited—may not be as credible.  Other people may assume that such humility could enhance credibility, because humble people seem honest, considered, and informed rather than biased or defensive.  In general, research suggest that intellectual humility does enhance credibility but only if authentic.

To illustrate, Koetke and Schumann (2025a) revealed that voters generally prefer humble politicians to other politicians.  In one study, almost 800 participants read about a politician. These politicians were depicted as people who demonstrate either significant humility, such as “He is not afraid to admit when he does not know something” or negligible intellectual humility.  The excerpt also referred to either a collaborative project, such as “Senator Davis has been focused on working with all parties to draft a bipartisan bill”, or a competitive situation, such as “Senator Davis has been focused on preventing a bill from passing that was endorsed by the other party”.

In general, if the politician was depicted as intellectually humble, participants evaluated these individuals as higher in competence.  Likewise, participants evaluated humble politicians as higher in warmth, especially if this politician was a not member of the party the participant endorses.  Finally, participants indicated they would be more inclined to vote for the humble politician.  Indeed, the effect of humility on voting intentions was comparable to the effect of whether the politician belonged to the same party as the participant.  This pattern of results was observed regardless of whether the circumstances were collaborative or competitive.        

The credibility of humble politicians: The moderating role of emotional expression

Yet, in some particular circumstances, humility may not enhance, and could even impair, credibility.  In one telling study, conducted by D’Errico (2019), participants read a message about immigration, purportedly delivered by Barack Obama, in 2014. Some participants read a humble version of this message.  For example, the message included phrases like

• I would like to address a delicate issue – that of our fellow immigrants
• But I would like to talk with you and try to find the best solution
• I would like to hear your opinions and propose to discuss together.

In the other version, the message depicted greater certainty, including phrases like

• I am certain that we will be able to approve measures
• I would like it to be clear that my nation will not tolerate the hypocrisy.

Accompanying the text was a picture of Obama, displaying either a calm, joyous, angry, or sad facial expression. Afterwards, participants answered questions in which they evaluated the Barack Obama and expressed their attitudes towards immigrants.  The analyses revealed a complicated series of findings.  For example

• if the expression was sad, Obama was perceived as more hypocritical—and immigrants were perceived more unfavourably—if the message was humble rather than not humble,
• if the expression was calm, Obama was perceived as less hypocritical if the message was humble rather than not humble,
• when the message was humble, participants reported more negative emotions, such as worry, anxiety, fear, contempt, and disgust as well as perceived the politician as less factual, enthusiastic, and charismatic,
• when the message was humble, participants reported more positive attitudes towards immigrants if the politician displayed calmness or joy rather than sadness.

Arguably, a humble message, if combined with a sad expression in particular, may imply the politician seems impotent and unable to solve the problem discussed.  However, when the politician displays emotions that epitomise hope, such as joy and calmness, humility is perceived more favourably.  

Interestingly, as D’Errico et al. (2022) subsequently revealed, these effects of humility and emotional displays may depend on the gender of these leaders.  For example, when the leader was female, in this instance Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the pattern of results changed.  To illustrate

• if the message was humble rather than certain, the female politician was perceived as more benevolent and competent.
• if the female politician displayed a sad or angry facial expression, the humble message, relative to the other message, was especially likely to enhance the degree to which she was regarded as benevolent

To reconcile these findings, D’Errico et al. (2022) argued that perhaps humble messages are more persuasive when perceived as authentic.  For example, a female, when discussing the plight of immigrants, may seem more authentic if she appears sad.  A male, who is also one of the most powerful individuals on the planet, such as Barack Obama during his reign, may seem unauthentic if he seems sad or anxious.  If people express humble language, they may be deemed as humble people if the message seems authentic but manipulative people if the message seems inauthentic.       

The credibility of humble politicians: The moderating role of affiliation

The degree to which citizens prefer a humble politician to a conceited politician may also depend on their political persuasion.  That is, whether individuals are affiliated with the same party as the politician may affect how they interpret and perceive intellectual humility.      

Specifically, in one study, conducted by Cooper and Okten (2024), over 900 American participants first indicated whether they regard themselves as pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or neither.  Next, they read one of four speeches.

• Half the speeches exhibited intellectual humility, epitomised by phrases like “While I can see the other side’s perspective on this issue…”.  
• The other speeches exhibited no intellectual humility, epitomised by phrases like “I cannot see the other side’s perspective on this issue…”. 
• The speeches either supported or opposed the position of participants on abortion.
• Participants then indicated the degree to which they felt the politician respected opposing perspectives as well as the extent to which they felt the politician acknowledged fallibility, such as admitted they could be wrong and seemed willing to revise their opinion.
• Participants also indicated the degree to which they like the politician and would be willing to vote for this politician.

Finally, participants completed a few measures that assess themselves, such as the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016), the Specific Intellectual Humility scale to measure humility around politics, and a measure of social desirability bias.  Although the results were nuanced, some informative patterns were uncovered:

• In general, participants were more inclined to like and support the politician who was intellectually humble—and this effect of intellectual humility was especially pronounced when the participants and the politician did not shame the same opinion about abortion.  
• One facet of intellectual humility was especially likely to affect these judgments.  Specifically, participants were more inclined to like and to support the politician who respected opposing perspectives—especially if these participants did not tend to agree with this politician on abortion (Cooper & Okten, 2024).
• In contrast, participants were not as inclined to like the politician who expressed fallibility or uncertainty, especially if they tended to agree with this politician on abortion

In short, if politicians exhibit respect towards diverse perspectives, one feature of intellectual humility, members of the audience are more likely to feel their opinions are understood and appreciated.  Hence, they trust the politician.  In contrast, if politicians exhibit fallibility or uncertainty, another feature of intellectual humility, the public may sometimes question the competence of this person—especially if this person does not exhibit other signs of intellectual humility.

Other fields

As Koetke and Schumann (2025) revealed, people do not prefer only humble politicians but also humble leaders in most fields.  Specifically, in this study, participants received a list of roles, such as teacher, doctor, and politician.  For each role, participants indicated the degree to which they prefer these individuals to demonstrate humility rather than certainty and arrogance.  Furthermore, participants indicated the extent to which they perceive individuals in these roles as demonstrating humility.  As this study revealed,

• in all these roles, participants indicated they prefer individuals who were humble,
• that is, humble individuals were perceived as more competent, warm, moral, and cooperative,
• furthermore, in all these roles, participants felt the typical individual in this role was not as humble as they would have preferred.      

Illustration

The degree to which leaders exhibit humility may vary across situations and circumstances.  To illustrate, according to Owens, Yam, et al. (2019), some leaders may be especially inclined to demonstrate humility while contemplating moral dilemmas—such as when they need to decide whether an act is right or ethical. During these settings, some leaders may contemplate their decisions carefully, recognise their decisions may not be correct, and respect diverse moral perspectives. 

Owens, Yam, et al. (2019) conducted a study that was designed to examine the impact of leader moral humility on the moral behaviour of staff.  In this study, 64 leaders in Chinese organisations as well as 295 of their staff completed a questionnaire at two times.  During the first time, the staff answered questions that assess

• the moral humility of their leaders, such as “My leader is …open to the ideas of others in solving ethical issues”,
• the general humility of their leaders, including “My leader actively seeks feedback, even if it is critical” (Owens et al., 2013),
• the degree to which their leaders exhibit ethical leadership (Brown et al.. 2005), such as “My leader sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics”, and
• the extent to which these individuals feel that moral character is modifiable or fixed (see Dweck, 2000), including “A person’s moral character is something basic about them and they can’t change it much” [reverse-scored].

During the second time, staff answered questions that assess their moral self-efficacy or confidence they can navigate moral and ethical challenges effectively, like “I have mastered the ethical rules, regulations, and skills necessary for my job”.  At this time, the leaders answered questions to assess the extent to which these followers

• perpetrate unethical behaviours, such as “takes property from work without permission” (Moore et al., 2012), and
• initiate supportive or prosocial acts, such as “help others who have heavy workloads” (Smith et al., 1983).

As hypothesised, when the leaders exhibited moral humility, their staff were more likely to experience moral-efficacy or confidence to navigate ethical matters, especially if they believed that moral character is modifiable.  Because of this moral-efficacy, these staff were more inclined to initiate supportive acts and refrain from unethical behaviour (Owens, Yam, et al., 2019).  These findings were replicated in both China and America as well as observed even after controlling leader general humility and ethical leadership.   

Presumably, leaders who exhibit moral humility will often seek the opinions of staff on moral dilemmas—enhancing the experience and confidence of these staff during ethical matters.  Specifically, these staff will feel they have developed the capacity to address moral problems better, especially if they belief this capacity is modifiable.  After they cultivate this moral efficacy, these staff believe they can respond appropriately in response to ethical problems.  Because of this belief, these staff will indeed feel compelled respond appropriately in these settings.  They will, for example, refrain from immoral acts but instead support their colleagues.   

Introduction

Leadership humility, although typically beneficial, can exacerbate some problems in the workplace, especially if the workplace is bureaucratic and centralised.  For example, as Hadmar et al. (2022) revealed, when leaders are humble, staff may be more inclined to perpetrate inappropriate or unwelcome behaviours towards colleagues. 

Specifically, if leaders exhibit the hallmarks of humility—such as acknowledge their limitations and display respect towards their staff—these staff often perceive their capabilities as valuable and scarce (Chiu et al., 2016). This perception can increase the extent to which these individuals feel powerful and significant.  Accordingly, leadership humility may instil a sense of power in staff.

This sense of power in staff can be beneficial.  For example, when staff experience this sense of power, they are more willing to diverge from the norms or conventions of their organisation and thus often propose creative solutions to solve problems (Galinsky, Magee, et al., 2008).  In addition, if staff feel a sense of power—and hence they are not as concerned about the expectations of other people—their executive functions or capacity to update their goals or plans, as well as to maintain their intentions, despite distractions, tends to improve (Smith et al., 2008).

Nevertheless, this sense of power can also amplify some workplace problems. That is, when staff experience this sense of power, they do not feel as compelled to observe the norms, conventions, and regulations of the organisation.  Consequently, if threatened or incensed, they are more willing to belittle or hurt other people rather than regulate or moderate these tendencies (Hussain & Sia, 2017; Qiuyun et al., 2020).  In short, if leaders express humility, staff may feel a sense of power and thus may express the frustrations they feel, sometimes culminating in unsuitable interpersonal behaviour. 

According to Hadmar et al. (2022), however, specific workplace cultures may exacerbate or diminish the extent to which this sense of power translates into unsuitable interpersonal behaviour.  Specifically, some workplace cultures are deemed to be bureaucratic, in which decisions tend to be  centralised, communication tends to be delivered from executives, and change is often resisted (e.g., Hendryadi et al., 2019).  Other workplaces are not as bureaucratic; specific departments are granted more autonomy to reach decisions, executives listen to the perspectives of staff, and change is welcomed.   

When organisations are not bureaucratic, a sense of power is not as likely to culminate in unsuitable interpersonal behaviour (e.g., Soral et al., 2020). That is, in these organisations, individuals who are granted positions of power or authority are more accountable to staff.  They cannot reach decisions without consultation or cannot act without impunity. Therefore, despite their position, they still feel compelled to observe the norms, conventions, and regulations of their organisation. They will, for example, regulate rather than express all their frustrations.   

Evidence

Hadmar et al. (2022) conducted a study to substantiate these arguments. In this study, 428 employees, primarily alumni of Indonesian universities, completed a survey at two times, separated by two months. The survey included questions that measure

• the degree to which they perceive their supervisor as humble,
• they extent to which they feel a sense of power at work, such as “If I want to, I get to make the decision” (Anderson et al., 2012),
• the degree to which they perpetrate unsuitable interpersonal behaviour, or interpersonal deviance, such as “(I have frequently) made fun of someone at work” (Bennett, 2000),
• the extent to which the culture is bureaucratic and centralised (Hendryadi et al., 2019).

Before conducting the analyses, the researchers introduced several measures to assess and to diminish the impact of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), such as the full collinearity test.  As hypothesised,

• when supervisors were perceived as humble, staff were subsequently more likely to experience a sense of power and more inclined to perpetrate inappropriate interpersonal behaviour,
• however, if the workplace culture was not bureaucratic, this sense of power did not significantly promote inappropriate interpersonal behaviour; thus, in these workplaces, leadership humility is especially beneficial.

The drawbacks of acknowledging uncertainty

Humble leaders tend to acknowledge limitations in their knowledge or skills.  Consequently, when speaking publicly, they may concede they are uncertain of how to solve a problem or achieve some goal.  However, as Alzahawi and Flynn (2025) demonstrated, in a revealing and persuasive series of studies, this practice, in which leaders acknowledge their uncertainty, may compromise the reputation of these leaders.  That is, at least in particular circumstances, leaders who concede their uncertainty may be perceived as less competent, less warm, and less effective than leaders who do not concede their uncertainty.

In all the studies that Alzahawi and Flynn (2025) conducted, participants complete an online game with another person over three rounds.  For example,

• in Study 1, the individuals attempted to decode an encrypted message,
• in Study 2, the individuals attempted to decipher the emotion a person, displayed in a photograph, was feeling,
• in Study 3, the individuals attempted to solve anagrams, and so forth

The other person was always designated as the leader and offered advice—advice that was accurate.  The advice this leader imparted expressed various levels of uncertainty, ranging from higgly certain to neutral to highly uncertain.  After the three rounds were completed, participants evaluated the degree to which the leader was competent, warm, and effective, indicated the degree to which they would like to reward the leader, and specified whether they would like to be matched with another leader on the next round.  These decisions affected the money that participants could earn and were thus deemed as significant rather than hypothetical.  

The findings were consistent across studies: The leaders who expressed uncertainty were perceived as less competent, less warm, and less effective.  Participants tend to switch from uncertain to certain leaders.  The relationship between uncertainty and these measures was linear rather than curvilinear.  Need for closure did not moderate these associations.  Nevertheless, these findings do not imply that leaders should express certainty when uncertain because

• leaders who express certainty, but then convey inaccurate advice, may be especially likely to be perceived as incompetent or ineffective over an extended period of time—a possibility this study, confined to three rounds, could not assess,
• individuals may be able to sense a discrepancy between the feelings and expression of leaders, promoting distrust. 

According to Alzahawi and Flynn (2025), if leaders want to express uncertainty, but maintain credibility, they could instead express why they are uncertain.  If people feel that leaders applied a suitable procedure to reach a decision, they are not as concerned about the outcome—in this instance, the uncertainty (cf Brockner, 2002; Tyler & Allan Lind, 2002).

Attributions or explanations of leadership humility

Leadership humility is beneficial in most, but not in all, circumstances. For example, as Xin Qin, from Sun Yat-sen University, and associates (2020) revealed, staff may sometimes misinterpret leadership humility.   To illustrate,

• when a leader acknowledges a personal limitation or flaw—or seeks feedback and advice from staff—these staff may interpret this behaviour as evidence of their superior capabilities,
• when a leader expresses appreciation towards the skills or insights of staff, some of these individuals may interpret this behaviour as evidence of their unique and special contributions.

Consequently, when leaders are humble, a proportion of staff may perceive themselves as superior and special.  Because of these feelings, these individuals may feel entitled and, for example, flout, rather than follow, workplace rules and regulations. 

Qin et al. (2020) did indeed conduct two studies that corroborate this possibility.  In the first study, almost 350 employees, all of whom were alumni from several Chinese universities, received a survey over WeChat.  The survey included questions that measure

• leader humility, such as “My supervisor is willing to learn from me” (Owens et al., 2013),
• the degree to which staff perceive the humility of their supervisor as a sign of their own superiority, such as “(Your supervisor may demonstrate humility)…because I have more knowledge and skills than my supervisor”,
• psychological entitlement, such as “I deserve special treatment” (Campbell et al., 2004),
• leader-member exchange—or trusting relationships between supervisors and staff—such as “I would characterize my working relationship with my supervisor as effective” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995),
• workplace deviance, such as “Purposely wasted the employer’s materials or supplies” (Spector et al., 2006).

As the findings revealed, if participants ascribed the humility of their supervisors to their own superiority, leadership humility was positively associated with a sense of entitlement and workplace deviance.  In contrast, if participants did not ascribe the humility of their supervisors to their own superiority, leadership humility was inversely associated with a sense of entitlement but positively associated with trusting relationships.

The second study was similar except both leadership humility and interpretations of this humility were manipulated experimentally.  That is, participants were invited to recall times in which their supervisor responded humbly to their suggestions (cf., Owens & Hekman, 2016).  To manipulate whether participants attribute this humility to their own superiority, these individuals read fictional research that indicated with that

• leaders demonstrate humility when their subordinates are more skilful and capable,
• leaders demonstrate humility regardless of the behaviour or skills of their subordinates.

Again, the findings revealed that leadership humility may boost entitlement, but only if participants attributed this humility to the skills and capabilities of subordinates.  Otherwise, leadership humility was negatively associated with entitlement and positively associated with trusting relationships.

In practice, leaders should thus indicate they like to treat all staff with humility (Qin et al., 2020).  For example, they could indicate they like to seek the advice of all staff, regardless of experience.  They could also indicate they like all staff to acknowledge personal flaws as well. These messages diminish the likelihood that leadership humility will promote a sense of entitlement in staff, because these staff will not necessarily feel superior to their leaders or to their colleagues.

Power and authority of leaders

According to Wang et al. (2018), some of the benefits of leadership humility, such as the degree to which these leaders invigorate staff and improve performance, depends on the power or authority that is afforded to these leaders.  Specifically, because of several reasons, humble leaders invigorate staff and diminish exhaustion.  For example, humble leaders

• demonstrate respect towards the perspective of staff, increasing the likelihood that staff feel capable and valued,
• imply that accept limitations and errors, inspiring staff to embrace risks and diminishing the concern they may commit mistakes. 

However, if humble leaders are not perceived as powerful, these benefits may subside.  That is, if their power is limited, humble leaders cannot as readily influence or shape the workplace (e.g., Cialdini, 2009).  Consequently,

• staff may feel the respect they receive from these leaders is not as likely to be valued by anyone else,
• staff may feel the tolerance of errors these humble leaders attempt to cultivate may be dismissed by other managers. 

In a pair of studies, Wang did indeed substantiate the hypothesis that humble leaders who are perceived as powerful, rather than powerless, are more likely to benefit staff.  In this study, 211 pairs of staff and their supervisors completed a series of instruments at two times, separated by three weeks.  At the first time, staff evaluated the humility of their leaders, answering questions like “My leader shows a willingness to learn from others”.  Three weeks later, staff answered questions that measure

• the degree to which these supervisors appear to be powerful in the organisation, such as “I think that my supervisor has a lot of control in the company” (Giessner & Schubert, 2007),
• the extent to which these staff feel invigorated when interacting with this leader, such as “I feel invigorated when I interact with my supervisor”, and
• the degree to which these staff experience a facet of burnout, called exhaustion, such as “I feel used up at the end of the work day” (Schaufeli et al., 1996).

Their supervisors answered questions that gauge the performance of staff, including “This employee adequately completes assigned duties” (Williams & Anderson, 1991).  As the analyses revealed,

• leadership humility was negatively associated with burnout positively associated with feelings of invigoration when interacting with the supervisor and task performance,
• as hypothesised, when these supervisors were deemed as powerful, these relationships were more pronounced.

The degree to which cultures accept deviations from norms

Some organisations and regions prioritise law and order over other rights, such as autonomy.  In these organisations or regions, individuals must always comply with the social norms, conventions, or rules of the culture.  Individuals who do not comply, but instead contravene these norms, are sanctioned and punished severely, such as demoted or derided.  These organisations or regions are often labelled as tight cultures (Gelfand et al., 2006; see also Aktas et al., 2016). 

Arguably, in these tight cultures, individuals may prefer domineering leaders—and domineering leaders are often narcissistic rather than humble (Bøggild & Laustsen, 2016).  Specifically,

• when cultures are tight, individuals know they may be punished if they violate the social norms, customs, or rules of their organisation or region,
• yet, individuals may receive conflicting information from defiant peers or other sources about which norms, customs, or rules to follow,
• accordingly, these individuals are concerned they may either need to defy these peers or violate the social norms, evoking anxiety and uncertainty,
• to override these feelings, these individuals may prefer a domineering, authoritarian leader—a leader who punishes and thus prevents this defiance or ambiguity.

In an extensive series of studies, Chen, Wang, et al. (2024) did indeed substantiate this premise.  That is, as these studies revealed, when the culture of an organisation or region is tight, individuals prefer domineering—and even muscular—leaders.  To illustrate, in one study,

• the researchers utilised an index, validated by Harrington and Gelfand (2014), to estimate the cultural tightness of each American state—an index that estimates the degree to which the state punishes social violations harshly and imposes social order,
• next 38 participants scanned photographs, depicting the body, but not the head, of the governor of each state—but only if the governor was male—and then rated the extent to which this person looked muscular,
• as hypothesised, in the states that punish social violations harshly, the governor tended to be especially muscular (Chen, Wang et al., 2024).

Similarly, in another study, participants read about a scenario in which, in the future, the Earth was devoid of natural resources and would need to live in another planet. Half these individuals were then informed that, to be successful, this society must be founded on law and order, in which deviant behaviours are punished harshly.  The other individuals were informed that, to be successful, this society must be founded on freedom and openness, in which deviant behaviours are tolerated.  Next, participants indicated, from an array of options, the optimal body shape of suitable leaders in this scenario.  As hypothesised

• if participants read that society should be founded on law and order, epitomising cultural tightness, they tended to prefer muscular leaders,
• as subsequent studies revealed, this association between cultural tightness and a preference towards muscular leaders was mediated by the degree to which these leaders seemed dominant,
• this pattern was observed regardless of whether the leaders were male or female (Chen et al., 2024).

Therefore, when the culture prioritises law and order over, for example, freedom and autonomy, individuals tend to prefer domineering leaders—leaders who are often narcissistic rather than humble.  Chen, Wang et al. (2024), however, did not administer a measure to gauge the attitudes of participants towards humble leaders.  Arguably, in tight cultures, individuals might value leaders who are both domineering and humble—a possibility that warrants further research.    

Authenticity of leaders

Some of the benefits of leadership humility depend on the extent to which these leaders are authentic.  That is, in principle, some leaders may express humility inauthentically.  For example, leaders may acknowledge their limitations merely to be perceived as likeable (Owens & Hekman, 2012), approachable (Owens & Hekman, 2012), or credible.

If staff feel this humility is feigned or contrived rather than genuine and authentic, the benefits of leadership humility seem to decline steeply.  For example, leaders who acknowledge their faults inauthentically may not be as likely to accept the shortcomings or limitations of their staff.  Their staff, therefore, may not be as willing to disclose their flaws, concerns, or perspectives candidly—concerned they may be criticised, excluded, or derided. 

Oc et al. (2020) generated some data that are compatible with this possibility.  In one study, 258 staff and their supervisors in India completed online surveys over two occasions.  On the first occasion,

• the supervisors evaluated their humility, rating the accuracy of statements like “I often compliment others on their strengths”,
• the supervisors also evaluated their authenticity—indicating the degree to which they perceive themselves as deceptive rather than straightforward, phony rather than authentic, hypocritical rather than genuine, and insincere rather than sincere (Randolph-Seng & Gardner, 2012); and
• the staff indicated the extent to which they feel vulnerable in their relationship with this supervisor, such as “I am sensitive to his or her opinions of me” (Lemay & Clark, 2008).

A month later, the staff indicated the degree to which they felt authentic at work, such as the frequency with which they “did not feel I could be myself at work” (Erickson & Ritter, 2001).  As the findings revealed,

• when the supervisors were humble, staff did not feel as vulnerable in their relationship with these supervisors—but only if these supervisors also perceived themselves as authentic,
• when staff did not feel as vulnerable, they tended to feel they could behave more authentically at work,
• accordingly, when supervisors are humble as well as authentic, staff also behave authentically.

This result is significant because past research has shown that staff who behave more authentically at work tend to experience a range of benefits, such as improvements in wellbeing (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014), meaning in life (Schlegel etl al., 2009), and performance (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014).

Oc et al. (2020) also published additional studies in the Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes to substantiate these relationships.  For example, in Study 2, participants recalled a leader that is high or low in humility.  Even when this procedure was used to manipulate leadership humility the same pattern of results was observed.

Commitment to the organisation

The degree to which staff are committed to the team or workplace may also affect the benefits of leadership humility.  That is, as Zettna et al. (2025) revealed across a series of studies, when leaders are humble—and thus encourage feedback as well as recognise that limitations and errors are inevitable—staff feel they can express themselves candidly.  They are not, for example, as likely to remain silent when uncertain about how to proceed or when concerned about an existing procedure.  However, as these researchers showed, when staff feel committed to the organisation, leadership humility is especially likely to diminish this inclination of staff to remain silent.

According to Zettna et al. (2025), when staff feel more committed to the organisation, they are more inclined to embrace the values, goals, and norms of this workplace (cf., Meyer et al., 2002).  This commitment increases the sensitivity of staff to the behaviours of their leaders and peers (e.g., Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). When leaders are humble, staff interpret this behaviour as a cue that feedback and information is valued.  Staff who are committed to this organisation will thus adopt this norm and share feedback or information, diminishing the inclination to remain silent.  In contrast, staff who are not committed to this organisation may not be as inclined to adopt this norm.

The core self-evaluations or confidence of staff

Core-self evaluations might moderate the degree to which leadership humility enhances the work attitudes, performance, and development of staff.  That is, some staff perceive themselves as

• high in self-esteem, in which they feel worthy and capable,
• high in self-efficacy, in which they feel they can complete tasks effectively, even in challenging settings,
• low in neuroticism—and thus feel composed and resilient rather than anxious or vulnerable,
• able to shape their life effectively—also called an internal locus of control.

Collectively, these qualities epitomise what is sometimes called positive core self-evaluations (Judge et al., 1997, 2003).  These core self-evaluations tend to coincide with many benefits, such as satisfaction with jobs, satisfaction with life, better performance at work, and so forth (Chang, Ferris, et al., 2012). 

If staff experience positive core self-evaluations, they tend to be especially receptive to humble leaders.  That is, humble leaders recognise their limitations and thus tend to respect the perspective of their staff.  They are, hence, more inclined to delegate responsibility to these staff.   Importantly

• if staff have developed positive core self-evaluations, and thus perceive themselves as capable rather than vulnerable, they feel confident they can fulfil these delegated responsibilities—and thus thrive from the autonomy they are granted,
• in contrast, if staff have not developed positive core self-evaluations, and thus perceive themselves as vulnerable and incapable, they do not feel confident they can fulfil these delegated responsibilities—diminishing their attitudes to work, motivation, and performance.

Gao et al. (2025) collated some evidence that corroborates this premise.  In this study, 869 Chinese managers and one of their staff completed a questionnaire.  The staff completed questions that measure

• their core self-evaluations (Judge et al., 2003), such as “I am confident in achieving the goals I set for myself”,
• positive attitudes towards the workplace (Arifin, 2020), such as “I am satisfied with opportunities to develop my skills”,
• perceived work performance, such as “Even when supervisors are not present, I follow instructions.,
• thriving at work (Porath et al., 2012), such as “Today, I feel I am very productive in my learning”.

Finally, the managers completed the general intellectual humility scale (Leary et al., 2017) to assess the degree to which they experience and exhibit intellectual humility, epitomised by items like “I question my own views, positions, and opinions because they may be wrong”.  As hypothesised, when the managers were humble, the staff were more likely to report positive attitudes towards the workplace, strong work performance, and a feeling of thriving at work.  However, if core self-evaluations were not strong, these associations were not as pronounced (Gao et al., 2025).  Leadership humility is thus especially beneficial when staff feel worthy, capable, and stable.