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.  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).

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

Leadership humility also foster creativity and innovation in organisations.  To illustrate, 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 reflects 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.

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 uncovered at Kanagawa University 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. 

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.

dings, 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.       

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.     

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.     

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. 

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, 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.

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. 

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.    

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.       

Student motivation

During their classes or conversations with students, some teachers or lectures express humility.  They acknowledge limitations in their knowledge, express uncertainty about their beliefs, and demonstrate respect towards the opinions of students and other people. As research demonstrates, teachers who express this humility tend to enhance the motivation of their students—especially the motivation of these students to learn and to extend their knowledge and skills. 

Specifically, when teachers are humble and recognise their limitations, they are likely to respect the opinions and suggestions of their students.  Their students, therefore, are not as likely to behave as passive receptors, amassing the snippets of knowledge their teacher expresses, but as active participants, contributing their knowledge and opinions to classroom discussions.  Because of this role, students feel more empowered to co-create knowledge, enhancing their confidence, and hence their motivation, to learn.      

Nevertheless, if students do not trust or respect the capabilities of their teacher, students are not as likely to benefit from the humility of their teachers.  That is, they may feel vulnerable rather than confident in their capacity to learn the materials.   

To illustrate, in a study that explores this association between teacher humility and student motivation, published by Zou and Chen (2025), 808 psychology students at four universities in China completed a survey that assesses

• the degree to which these students perceive their teachers as humble, epitomised by questions like “My teacher admits to me when he or she doesn’t know how to do something”,
• the extent to which these students feel motivated to learn, assessed with questions like “I come to most classes with questions in mind that I want answered” (Biggs et al., 2001),
• the degree to which students feel confident they can succeed at university, called academic self-efficacy (Pintrich et al., 1993), and
• the extent to which the students believe the teacher had developed the capacity to improve the performance of their pupils, such as “My teacher has specialised abilities that can increase our performance”.

As hypothesised, when teachers demonstrated humility, students were especially motivated to learn.  Academic self-efficacy mediated this association.  However, when students did not trusted the capacity of the teacher to improve the performance of their pupils, the degree to which the humility of teachers enhanced academic self-efficacy subsided.

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. 

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.