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, 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 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.
