Humility is more than a favorable self-description

The review's leadership question

Luo and colleagues synthesized research on humble leadership and associated outcomes. The review concerns relationships reported across studied settings. It does not establish that a leader who describes themselves as humble is experienced that way by colleagues, or that an original self-report score predicts team success.

A correction from a junior colleague

Imagine a fictional leader who makes an incorrect technical claim in a meeting. A junior colleague corrects it. The leader can acknowledge the correction, ask for clarification, and revise the decision, or can verbally accept it while later excluding the colleague. The useful evidence includes the immediate response and the subsequent treatment. A statement about valuing others' expertise is insufficient on its own.

Humility should also not be confused with indecision or refusal to take responsibility. A leader can acknowledge uncertainty and still make a necessary choice. They can recognize a colleague's contribution while explaining why another option was selected. The practical question is whether limits and expertise are handled honestly and constructively, not whether the leader uses modest language or avoids visible authority.

Interpreting Leadership Friction

Machiavelli Leadership Friction can prompt discussion of defensiveness, control, and responses to challenge. It should not turn a low-friction profile into proof of virtue or a high-friction profile into a character judgment. A participant may become more aware of a difficult pattern and therefore endorse it more readily. The report should seek a specific episode, a contrasting episode, and evidence about what happened to the relationship afterward.

A study with more than one perspective

A proposed study could observe responses to corrections in a clearly defined, consensual task and collect separate accounts of recent workplace episodes. Reviewers should distinguish acknowledgement, learning, decision ownership, and treatment of the person offering input. Confidentiality matters because colleagues may face consequences for describing a leader's conduct. The questionnaire's relationship to these observations should remain an open question. Report research could test whether leaders use the profile to seek disconfirming evidence or simply to reinforce a favorable self-image. The intended development action might be a clearer response to correction, not an instruction to perform humility. Useful change is visible in conduct and its consequences rather than in a more flattering label.

A useful review also checks whether the colleague who offered the correction remained able to contribute to later decisions.

Continue the reading

When useful leadership practices become poorly calibrated →

Fairness across roles, cultures, and work arrangements →