Antecedents to leadership humility
Incremental self-theory and relational identity
Wang et al. (2018) proposed and tested a model that delineates the antecedents to leadership humility. Specifically, this model proposes that leadership humility emanates from two key characteristics of leaders.
First, as Owens (2009), a pioneer of the research on leadership humility, first proposed at the Academy of Management annual conference, leaders are likely to demonstrate the signs of humility if they believe that human capabilities and character, such as intelligence or empathy, can be modified and improved over time—called an incremental theory of malleability (Dweck, 1986) or growth mindset (Dweck, 2006). Leaders who adopt this mindset strive to improve, rather than prove, themselves. To achieve this goal, these leaders attempt to accurately uncover, and then to address, their limitations. To address these limitations, these individuals also strive to learn from other people and experiences. This tendency of these leaders to recognise their limitations and learn from other people epitomises humility.
Nevertheless, even leaders who perceive human capabilities and character as modifiable may not necessarily demonstrate humility. For example, to develop these qualities, leaders may instead read books rather than respect the knowledge and perspectives of other people—a cardinal feature of humility. Therefore, according to Wang et al. (2018), leaders will be humble only if, besides a growth mindset, they adopt a perspective of themselves called a relational identity.
This notion of a relational identity emanated from comparisons between Western nations and Eastern nations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Specifically, in 1991, Markus and Kitayama recognised that people who live in Westernised cultures often construe themselves as separate from their social environment. The primary motivations of these individuals are to seek autonomy and independence from this environment, called an independent self-construal. In contrast, people who live in Eastern cultures often construe themselves as one constituent of their social environment. The primary motivations of these individuals are to maintain a sense of belonging and compatibility with this environment, called an interdependent self-construal. Over time, researchers began to recognise that such differences vary across individuals and times rather than merely cultures (for measures, Singelis, 1994).
Since this original proposal, researchers have differentiated two variants of this interdependent self. The first variant is called a relational self-construal or relational identity. When individuals adopt this perspective, they primarily define themselves by their roles in interpersonal relationships (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Cross & Morris, 2003). Their primary motivation is to establish meaningful relationships with other people, nurture these dyadic relationships, and fulfill their roles in these relationships. The second variant is called the collective self-construal or collective identity, in which individuals primarily define themselves as members of a broader, abstract collective (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)—such as their nation, religion, or sporting club.
When individuals adopt a relational identity, their perception of themselves—their self-concept—tends to entail both their own characteristics as well as the attributes, qualities, and inclinations of their close friends or relatives (Gabriel et al., 2007). Furthermore, after they consider these friends or relatives, their confidence is augmented (Gabriel et al., 2007).
As Wang et al. (2018) proposed, when individuals adopt a relational identity and strive to nurture their relationships, they attempt to recognise, and then accommodate, the needs and perspectives of other people. They are, therefore, more inclined to respect and listen to other individuals. They do not perceive their own needs as supreme, epitomising a state called self-transcendence. And this self-transcendence is a defining feature of humility.
Wang et al. (2018) published some results that verify this account. In one study, 85 supervisors answered questions about
- the degree to which they espouse a growth mindset, or incremental theory of malleability, such as “Everyone, no matter who they are, can significantly change their basic characteristics” (Levy et al., 1998),
- the extent to which they adopt a relational identity, such as “Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend or coworker is important to me”,
- their level of narcissism, as gauged by the Narcissism Personality Inventory (Ames et al., 2006), and their personality traits.
In addition, 210 subordinates of these supervisors also completed a questionnaire. This questionnaire assessed the degree to which these subordinates perceived these supervisors as humble, epitomised by questions like “My leader acknowledges when others have more knowledge and skills than him- or herself”. As hypothesised, when leaders espoused a growth mindset and adopted a relational identity, they were more likely to be perceived as humble by their staff. After controlling the age, gender, education level, personality, and narcissism of these individuals, a growth mindset and relational identity explained 8% of the variance in humility. This percentage is impressive because the regression analysis controlled narcissism—and hence the remaining variance in humility would have been limited.
