Humble Leadership – empirical research and practical implications

Humble Leadership – suspended between arrogance and lack of self-esteem

In the two articles preceding this conclusion we have discussed humility as a concept and we delved into egoic entitlement which encompasses an individual’s notion to be owed special treatment, veneration as a person and admiration outside the domains where gifted individuals shine. In this section of our triad on humility and humble leadership we shall provide you with a brief overview of the research on humble leadership, the hypotheses it has generated and recommendations given. If you want to discuss further, do reach out and contact Goll Consulting.

Let us briefly ponder an insightful paradox: Morris et al. (2005) found in their research on humbleness that it actually is a virtue, which questions itself as a virtue. Interestingly and perhaps ironically, taking pride in your humility can be regarded as proof that you actually lack this inner concept or do not embrace it fully. Whilst a virtue, humility is “not merely a stance to be adopted but a concept to be lived” (Molyneaux, 2003). Humility as an inner state has been referred to as “the mid-point between the two negative extremes of arrogance and lack of self-esteem” (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004).

Humbleness can be deemed a mature state of mind and imperative leadership mindset. It can be considered a complementary characteristic to boldness to take decisions, go forward and be courageous (Kallasvuo, 2007). It seems to be a reliable marker of a leader’s steadfast creed to serve (Collins, 2005). Encapsulating the concept, Peterson and Seligman (2004) developed six defining elements of humility:

1. A clear sense of your abilities, accomplishments and achievements
2. The ability to own and acknowledge mistakes made and display of teachability
3. Openness to new ideas and paradoxical information
4. Keeping your abilities and accomplishments in perspective as in being realistic about yourself
5. Ability to ground the self and not put it on a pedestal – in a way, dethroning the self
6. Appreciation of the value of all things (reminiscent of Albert Schweitzer’s “Reverance of Life”, a philosophy for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952

?All the above is echoed by Winston (2002), who observed that humble leaders place the needs of those who follow above the organization. Hence follows, humbleness allows an organization to thrive, be successful and develop resilience (a traditional concept rediscovered in the leadership discussion during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic).

To put humble leadership to the test, several studies have been conducted in which research participants were queried to identify their most important personal achievements along with their perceived personal traits. Participants were asked to rate those achievements and characteristics, specify how they believe they should be treated as a consequence, and complete measures of humility.

As expected, participants who scored higher in humility were considerably less probable to expect they ought to be treated special based on their exemplary accomplishments and characteristics than less humble participants would. Interestingly, however, humility was not related at all to participants’ personal ratings of the positivity of their respective accomplishments and perceived personal traits.

Hence follows, humble people do not belittle or downplay their accomplishments and perceived personal traits. They simply do not think they are entitled to special treatment because of them.

?To conclude our article series, we should like to share with you some fascinating hypotheses on the subject matter of humble leadership. That is why we compiled some empirically backed inferences to pinpoint some interesting correlates of integrated humble leadership as the inner guiding principle. So these are possible realities humility might manifest when reflected, reassessed and eventually embraced fully:

1.)???Leaders or persons in powerful positions who seek feedback and advice from their employees and involving them in the decision-making process are an appreciation of the individuals’ knowledge and expertise. Such demeanor truthfully appreciates and confirms the employees’ competence of their work. Furthermore, such external validation and support was found to be related to increasing intrinsic motivation and creative performance (Rego et al., 2012).

2.)???Further research on the subject matter found that such forms of consulting in terms of involving employees before “initiating changes that may affect them, incorporating their ideas and suggestions in decisions” (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007) definitively promotes idea generation and measurable innovative output (Amabile et al., 2004; George, 2007; Tierney, 2008).

3.)???When, in the context of creativity, gaps in knowledge or experiences (on the part of the leader) are openly communicated this promotes psychological safety (on the part of the followers). In particular in technology-oriented organization that have to manage and develop complex technology, leaders do rely on the expertise of their employees. The lack of knowledge is candidly and non-defensively communicated despite the position of the leader. Employees are asked to bring their technical expertise to the table or explain things to their supervisor. Showing vulnerability, weakness, personal limits and mistakes is one of three major behavioral pillars of humble leadership. Leaders who have developed the personal maturity to display such behavior in a creativity context will most probably be regarded as a signal towards the employee that it is safe to engage in creative behavior. (Stella-Oriana Strüfing, 2014)

4.)???Spotlighting the competencies and personal prowess of employees in a creativity context is a behavior which rather enhances others than oneself. It is therefore in line with the findings of Falk and Blaylock (2012) and Owens and Hekman (2012) who used the data from 607 subjects organized into 161 teams (84 laboratory teams, 77 organizational field teams) and examined how leader humility influences team interaction patterns, emergent states, and team performance. The latter described this behavior as elevating employees and pushing them into the spotlight and thereby actively engaging “in behaviors to make these strengths known and salient to others“. Stella-Oriana Strüfing (2014) ?found that spotlighting the expertise of employees to be beneficial for the employees’ motivation and creativity.

5.)???Over and above of this, research has found several leadership styles that propel creativity and innovation of employees. These findings suggest that humble leadership might play a role for the innovative behavior of employees because it leads to psychological freedom and signals the employee’s support for innovation due to a reduced fear of evaluation (Stella-Oriana Strüfing, 2014). In order to create and implement innovations, organizations need to provide a fertile substrate, facilitate and utilize the creativity of their employees (Rego, Sousa, Marques, & Pina e Cunha, 2012). Innovation is bound to boost the likelihood for organizations to gain competitive edge (Ahuja & Morris Lampert, 2001), increase growth potential (Mumford et al., 2002) and positively influence the probability an organization will survive (Gnyawali & Srivastava, 2013). Therefore, innovations are of strategic importance and humble leadership most likely plays a significant role in this context.

To sum things up, take a look at this brief overview, encapsulating the gist of the above and some additional thought:

So, there it is, folks! Humble leadership is a vast and intriguing field of research and behavioral application in the realm of leadership approaches. It necessitates high levels of self-reflection, maturity, self-control and indeed some research into what has been said about the subject matter. The true beauty, however, evolves when you embrace the concept and make it your own. The benefits and joys you are to reap most probably will be lush and astonishing indeed.