Determinants of leadership humility

Workplace environments that foster leadership humility

Illustration

Some features of the work environment can affect the likelihood that leaders demonstrate and experience humility. For example, as Deng et al. (2019) argued,

in some organisations, the demands of customers, regulators, or other stakeholders shift rapidly, technologies are updated often, competition is fierce, and finances are unstable,
in these dynamic work environments, leaders are exposed to regular and unpredictable change, eliciting an unpleasant sense of uncertainty,
to override this uncertainty, leaders often seek feedback about themselves and their performance from a range of people,
because of this feedback, these leaders acquire more accurate knowledge about themselves and learn to respect diverse perspectives, manifesting as humility,
in addition, in response to these unpredictable and frequent change, leaders recognise the limitations in their power and realise they are a minor part of the corporate landscape, also instilling a sense of humility,
finally, in these unpredictable conditions, leaders strive to learn—a motivation that fosters humility.

Deng et al. (2019) conducted a study that corroborates this account. The participants were 194 entrepreneurs and their subordinates, recruited from two business incubators in China. First, the entrepreneurs completed an online survey that included

three questions that assess the degree to which the work environment is dynamic, changing unpredictably and frequently (De Hoogh et al., 2005),
twelve questions that gauge the extent to which these entrepreneurs tolerate uncertainty (Carleton et al., 2007), such as “Uncertainty makes me uneasy, anxious, or stressed” [reverse-scored].

One to two weeks later, these entrepreneurs answered seven question that gauge the extent to which they seek feedback, such as “I will seek feedback about my performance” (Ashford, 1986). Finally, one to two weeks later, their subordinates completed a scale that measures the degree to which these entrepreneurs demonstrate humility (Owens et al., 2013), epitomised by items like “My leader is willing to learn from others”. As hypothesised

when entrepreneurs perceived their work environment as dynamic, they were more inclined to exhibit humility,
the propensity to seek feedback partly mediated this association (Deng et al., 2019),
if entrepreneurs could tolerate uncertainty, dynamic work environments were not as likely to be positively associated with feedback seeking—suggesting this inclination to seek feedback was partly motivated by a need to diminish uncertainty (cf., Ashford et al., 2003; Ashford & Cummings, 1983).

In this study, the participants were entrepreneurs. Whether these findings apply to other leaders warrants further investigation.

How perceptions of their staff affect the humility of leaders

The perceptions of leaders towards their staff, such as whether they perceive these staff as competent, can also shape the humility of leaders. Yang et al. (2019) illustrated this possibility in a compelling study. In this study, 278 staff members and their leaders completed online surveys. Specifically, during one week

64 leaders evaluated the capability of these staff, comparing the knowledge, skills, social recognition, and flexibility of these individuals with their peers as well as indicating whether they perceived each of these staff as outstanding,
the 278 staff members specified the degree to which their leader demonstrates humility, answering questions like “This person actively seeks feedback, even if it is critical” (Owens et al., 2013),
these staff members also indicated whether they felt these leaders behaved with humility merely to form a favourable impression or to fulfill their responsibilities (cf., Allen & Rush, 1998).

Finally, about seven weeks later, followers indicated the degree to which they trust the leader, responding to items like “I could rely on my leader” (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). As the findings revealed, when leaders perceived their staff as capable, they were also more likely to exhibit the hallmarks of humility. Staff were also more likely to trust humble leaders, unless they felt this humility was feigned to impress other people. Presumably, when leaders perceive their subordinates as capable, or even outstanding,

they feel motivated to retain these individuals and, thus, may respect the opinions and perspectives of these staff, manifesting as humility,
or they may perceive these staff as a source of insight, activating any dormant motivations to learn, fostering humility.

Motivations, emotions, and states that foster leadership humility

Sense of power: Introduction

Although research has revealed that humble leaders are often more effective, only a circumscribed set of studies have explored the determinants of leadership humility. To address this shortfall, Liborius et al. (2025) examined whether a sense of power fosters or inhibits leadership humility. This topic is contentious, because feelings of power can both increase and decrease the sensitivity of people to the needs or perspectives of other individuals.

Some research implies that a sense of power should increase the degree to which leaders may be sensitive to the needs of other people, potentially fostering respect and humility. To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Overbeck and Park (2001), some participants assumed a role of authority, intended to induce a sense of power. Other participants assumed a subordinate role, intended to inhibit this sense of power. Next, the participants completed a task that assesses whether they remember the comments expressed by a person with whom they were interacting. In this study, participants who were assigned a position of power were more likely to remember the remarks of the person with whom they were interacting. Power, therefore, seemed to foster respect.

This finding could be ascribed to the approach-inhibition theory of power (Keltner et al., 2003; see also Mast et al., 2009). According to this theory, when people assume a position of power, they are not as concerned about specific problems and thus do not orient their attention to details—such as the frowns of another person. Instead, they orient their attention to more intangible concepts, such as future strategies. Because of this shift in attention, when these individuals appraise the needs or feelings of other people, specific details, such as feigned smiles, are not as likely to disrupt or mislead their interpretations. Instead, these individuals consider a holistic configuration of cues to appraise other people, potentially enhancing sensitivity to the needs and feelings of other people.

Nevertheless, other studies indicate that a sense of power can impair this sensitivity to other people. When leaders express a sense of power, they are not as vulnerable to the evaluations of other people. So, these leaders do not feel the need to accommodate the needs, concerns, and preferences of anyone. They may thus seem more dismissive.

Galinsky et al. (2006) verified this possibility in a compelling set of studies. To illustrate these studies, suppose you and a colleague visit a restaurant. This restaurant had been recommended by a friend of your colleague. During your meal, both of you complain bitterly about the food. The next day your colleague writes this text message to the friend: the restaurant was marvellous—really marvellous.

In a study that Galinsky et al. (2006) published in Psychological Science, if individuals had recently recalled an instance in which they had experienced a sense of power and authority, they tended to assume the friend will interpret this message sarcastically. They overlooked the observation that obviously this friend was unaware of the complaint about the food.

To reconcile these two strands of research, Mast et al. (2009) argued that power can coincide with empathic or egoistic goals. To illustrate, some individuals, when assigned a position of power, perceive this role as an opportunity to foster and support their subordinates—called empathic leadership. In contrast, other individuals utilise this power to facilitate their own personal goals, called egoistic leadership. Conceivably, empathic leadership might facilitate interpersonal sensitivity, whereas egoistic leadership might stifle interpersonal sensitivity.

Mast et al. (2009) published some research that assesses these arguments. Participants imagined they had been assigned a leadership position at a large organisation. Next, to induce an empathic orientation, some of the participants were instructed to imagine they were interested in both the personality and contributions of collaborators. To induce an egoistic orientation, some of the participants were instructed to imagine they were interested in the contribution, and not the personality, of collaborators.

Finally, participants completed the profile of nonverbal sensitivity (Rosenthal et al., 1979). Specifically, these participants watched 40 brief video excerpts, each depicting a woman who is portraying a range of emotions or intentions. Participants were told to decipher these emotions and intentions, selecting one of two alternative statements after each excerpt. Consistent with the hypotheses, the empathic leader was more likely to decipher these emotions and intentions correctly than was the egoistic leader.

Sense of power and leadership humility

Liborius et al. (2025) invoked this literature to hypothesise that whether a sense of power in leaders fosters or inhibits humility may depend on the extent to which these leaders feel a sense of closeness with their team. Specifically

if leaders feel a sense of closeness to the team, and thus should experience an empathic orientation, a sense of power should be positively associated with humility; these leaders should be more sensitive to the perspective of staff,
if leaders do not feel a sense of closeness to the team, and thus may experience an egoistic orientation, a sense of power should be inversely associated with humility.

To assess this possibility, Liborius et al. (2025) collected data from supervisors and their staff in various German organisations. The supervisors completed a survey that assessed

their sense of power, including items such as “I can get people to listen to what I say” (Körner et al., 2021),
the degree to which they feel a sense of psychological closeness to their staff.

Their staff completed another questionnaire to assess the degree to which these supervisors exhibit humility as well as the degree to which these staff feel engaged at work and trust towards their supervisors. As hypothesised, if supervisors felt close to staff, a sense of power was positively associated with humility. If supervisors did not feel close to staff, a sense of power was inversely related to humility. This humility tended to enhance the job engagement of staff and their trust towards the supervisor.

Relationships that foster leadership humility

Thoughts about significant people in their lives

Wang et al. (2024) designed and validated an intervention, called significant-other activation, modelled on a procedure that Kraus and Chen (2009) developed, that may foster humility in leaders. In this study, leaders completed a daily survey over ten days. On five of these days, leaders were instructed to contemplate and write about a person they like who is significant in their life, often a parent, spouse, sibling, or close friend. These leaders wrote at least six sentences about this person, such as

the personality or characteristics of this person
the impact of this person on the participant, and so forth.

On the other days, in the control condition, leaders instead wrote about an acquaintance or about various objects. Next, these leaders completed a range of measures including

a scale that gauges the degree to which these leaders experience psychological safety at work, comprising items like “I feel it is okay to express my true feelings in this job” (Brown & Leigh, 1996),
some items that measure the degree to which these leaders feel warmth towards other people.

In addition, a staff member of each leader completed another survey each day. This survey the gauged degree to which the leaders exhibited humility during the day (Owens et al., 2013), typified by items like “Today, my supervisor admits it when he or she doesn’t know how to do something”. As hypothesised, after leaders contemplated a significant person in their lives, they reported elevated levels of psychological safety and interpersonal warmth. This psychological safety and interpersonal warmth were positively associated with the degree to which they appeared humble to their staff (Wang et al., 2024). Hence, reflections about a significant, trusted person may promote humility.

Arguably, after individuals contemplate a significant person in their lives, they are more inclined to recall times when they felt accepted unconditionally. These memories and feelings promote trust, or a willingness to become close to other people, manifesting as warmth. In addition, these memories and feelings instil a sense of safety—a sense their limitations and mistakes will be accepted. Consequently, these leaders are more willing to acknowledge their limitations, exemplifying humility (Wang et al., 2024).

Activities that foster leadership humility

Krumrei-Mancuso and Begin (2022) suggested a series of exercises that leaders could attempt to develop their intellectual humility. These exercises were primarily derived from past studies on the antecedents to intellectual humility as well as from theories about intellectual humility. Here is a summary of these exercises:

Consider how an impartial observer or a rival might perceive a challenging interpersonal situation, such as a conflict, you are experiencing. This sense of distance enables leaders to consider and to integrate diverse perspectives more effectively (Grossmann et al., 2021).
Read articles how to foster a growth mindset: the belief that people can gradually improve their intelligence, resilience and character over time—a key determinant of humility (e.g., Porter & Schumann, 2018). Encourage each team member to gradually develop a skill over time and to share these insights with their colleagues.
Occasionally, consider your beliefs about a topic, such as how to motivate staff. Then, ask yourself questions like what are some alternatives to this belief, what is some evidence of these alternatives, and could I adjust these beliefs if I received additional evidence or information (Hoyle et al., 2016)?
Record times in which people, including team members, were kind, considerate, accepting, and accommodating of your needs. After these reflections, people are more likely to consider diverse perspectives and demonstrate intellectual humility (Reis et al., 2018).
Identify occasions in which you acknowledged a misconception or fault—or revised a belief—and experienced some benefit as a consequence.
Learn about cognitive biases, such as the work of Daniel Kahneman.
Subject yourself to a 360-feedback procedure, in which other people rate you on your intellectual humility.