Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leader-Expressed Humility: Development and Validation of Scales Based on a Comprehensive Conceptualization

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We introduce new leader humility scales capturing a theoretically rich conceptualization of leader-expressed humility aligned with traditional and ethically-grounded philosophies. These scales draw from recent inductive research (Oc et al., 2015) identifying nine dimensions of leader-expressed humility: (1) having an accurate view of self, (2) recognizing follower strengths and achievements, (3) modeling teachability and being correctable, (4) leading by example, (5) showing modesty, (6) working together for the collective good, (7) empathy and approachability, (8) showing mutual respect and fairness, and (9) mentoring and coaching. The first three dimensions overlap with the most prominent conceptualization of leader-expressed humility in the literature (i.e., Owens et al., 2013). However, the latter six dimensions are unique and represent an expanded understanding of the humble behaviors of leaders, which have implications for leaders and their ethical behavior in organizations. We conducted three studies resulting in two versions of the leader-expressed humility measure: 1) a 27-item scale with the nine dimensions (i.e., the “Leader-Expressed Humility” [LEH] scale) and 2) a 9-item brief scale (i.e., the “Brief LEH” scale) comprised of one item from each of the nine dimensions. As an initial step, we generated a pool of items that reflected each dimension. Next, we validated the LEH and Brief LEH scales in Study 1 and cross-validated the Brief LEH scale in Study 2 with two samples of subordinates in Singapore. As a final step, in Study 3, we cross-validated the Brief LEH scale with a sample of subordinates in the United States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Here we focus on several philosophical and religious traditions that are historically and culturally influential. Of course, this is not an exhaustive list. It rather offers a sample of how different philosophies and religions practiced today discuss and relate to humility.

  2. The percentages of respondents failing an attention check question in our studies ranged from 8.46% to 25.00%, which is not uncommon for heterogeneous samples of respondents completing an online, voluntary survey (Shamon & Berning, 2020).

  3. Analyses indicated that the final sample of respondents (N = 370) did not differ from respondents dropped from the analysis (N = 103) in term of their demographics (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, organizational tenure, position level, and work experience; ps > .05), except for tenure with their supervisor (p < .01).

  4. A chi-square difference test (Mplus DIFFTEST option) showed that the first-order 9-factor model fit significantly better than the second-order factor model: Δχ2 (27) = 63.54, p < .001). Thus, the results suggest that leader humility is a multidimensional construct.

  5. See Tables 9 (Study 1), 11 (Study 2), and 13 (Study 3) in the Online Supplement for results of CFAs and chi-square difference tests comparing the 3-factor models and nested models.

  6. The final sample (N = 240) did not differ from respondents dropped from the analysis (N = 124) in terms of their demographics reported in Table 4 in the Online Supplement (ps > .05).

  7. While CFI, TLI, and SRMR indicated good fit, RMSEA was marginally above the cut-off point of .10. Nevertheless, past research using computer simulations (Chen et al., 2008) showed that RMSEA values tend to be inflated for less complex models. Given the 1-factor model, it may not be surprising to see the RMSEA value of .11.

  8. The final sample of respondents (N = 292) did not differ from respondents dropped from the analysis (N = 158) in term of their demographics (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, tenure with their supervisor, organizational tenure, and position level; ps > .05), except for work experience (p < .05).

References

  • Argandoña, A. (2015). Humility in management. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bashshur, M. R., Daniels, M., & Mathur, S. (2016). Olam international: Sowing the seeds of humility throughout the organisation. SMU-16-0008. https://Ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cases_coll_all/151

  • Bashshur, M. R., & Oc, B. (2015). When voice matters: A multilevel review of the impact of voice in organizations. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1530–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharanitharan, K., Chen, Z., Bahmannia, S., & Lowe, K. (2019). Is leader humility a friend or foe, or both? An attachment theory lens on leader humility and its contradictory outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(3), 729–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M., Treviño, L., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G., & Klesh, J. (1983). Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, J., Huang, L., & Paterson, T. (2019). LMX-differentiation strengthens the prosocial consequences of leader humility: An identification and social exchange perspective. Journal of Business Research, 96, 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F., Curran, P., Bollen, K., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, C., Owens, B., & Tesluk, P. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1705–1720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, J., Schilpzand, P., Huang, L., & Paterson, T. (2021). How and when humble leadership facilitates employee job performance: The roles of feeling trusted and job autonomy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(2), 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, T. R., & Morse, L. (2014). Moral character: What it is and what it does. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., Turan, N., Morse, L., & Kim, Y. (2014). Moral character in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 943–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dineen, B., Lewicki, R., & Tomlinson, E. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 622–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinh, J., Lord, R., Gardner, W., Meuser, J., Liden, R., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finney, S., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frostenson, M. (2016). Humility in business: A contextual approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(1), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (2005). Kant and the ethics of humility: A story of dependence, corruption, and virtue. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Jiang, K., Bauer, T., & Liu, S. (2018). Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., Silverman, S., Shyamsunder, A., Swee, H., Rodopman, O., Cho, E., & Bauer, J. (2010). Acting superior but actually inferior?: Correlates and consequences of workplace arrogance. Human Performance, 23(5), 403–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Li, J. (2016). Humility in learning: A Confucian perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 45(2), 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, J., Farh, C., & Farh, J. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R., & Maslyn, J. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R., Wayne, S., Meuser, J., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R., Browne, M., & Sugawara, H. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., & Gavin, M. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, R., Darnold, T., & Priesemuth, M. (2013). Perceived leader integrity: Supporting the construct validity and utility of a multi-dimensional measure in two samples. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(3), 427–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J., Brotheridge, C., & Urbanski, J. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo, S., & Van Scotter, J. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mount, M., Witt, L., & Barrick, M. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically keyed biodata scales over GMA and the five factor personality constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 299–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Naseer, S., Syed, F., Nauman, S., Fatima, T., Jameel, I., & Riaz, N. (2020). Understanding how leaders’ humility promotes followers’ emotions and ethical behaviors: Workplace spirituality as a mediator. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15, 407–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011) The authentic leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6) 1146–1164

  • Nielsen, R., & Marrone, J. A. (2018). Humility: Our current understanding of the construct and its role in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(4), 805–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oc, B., Bashshur, M., Daniels, M., Greguras, G., & Diefendorff, J. (2015). Leader humility in Singapore. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oc, B., Daniels, M., Diefendorff, J., Bashshur, M., & Greguras, G. (2020). Humility breeds authenticity: How authentic leader humility shapes follower vulnerability and felt authenticity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 112–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ou, A., Tsui, A., Kinicki, A., Waldman, D., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. (2014). Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, B., & Hekman, D. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 787–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, B., Johnson, M., & Mitchell, T. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, N. (1988). Is humility a virtue? American Philosophical Quarterly, 25(3), 253–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, S. (1973). Towards a definition of humility. Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, 13, 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamon, H., & Berning, C. C. (2020). Attention check items and instructions in online surveys with incentivized and non-incentivized samples: Boon or bane for data Quality? Survey Research Methods, 14(1), 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., & Sully de Luque, M. (2014). Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: A research synthesis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, L. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: A grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 70–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P. (2002). Humility. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 411–419). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tye-Williams, S. (2018). Manipulation check. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 901–903). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzu, L. (1988). Tao Te Ching. HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uggerslev, K., Fassina, N., & Kraichy, D. (2012). Recruiting through the stages: A meta-analytic test of predictors of applicant attraction at different stages of the recruiting process. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 597–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tongeren, D., Davis, D., Hook, J., & Witvliet, C. (2019). Humility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 463–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tongeren, D., Ng, V., Hickman, L., & Tay, L. (2023). Behavioral measures of humility: Part 2. Conceptual mapping and charting ways forward. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(5), 722–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S., & Ferris, G. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J., Nadelhoffer, T., Perini, T., Langville, A., Echols, M., & Venezia, K. (2017). The psychological significance of humility. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 1 grant (Project Fund No: C207/MSS15B018) and the Human Capital Leadership Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau, China

    Kraivin Chintakananda

  2. Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, Akron, OH, 44325, USA

    James M. Diefendorff

  3. Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University, 50 Stamford Road 178899, Singapore, Singapore

    Burak Oc, Gary J. Greguras & Michael R. Bashshur

  4. Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, 679-2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, B.C, V6T 1Z2, Canada

    Michael A. Daniels

Authors
  1. Kraivin Chintakananda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James M. Diefendorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Burak Oc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael A. Daniels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gary J. Greguras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael R. Bashshur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kraivin Chintakananda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 92 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chintakananda, K., Diefendorff, J.M., Oc, B. et al. Leader-Expressed Humility: Development and Validation of Scales Based on a Comprehensive Conceptualization. J Bus Ethics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05523-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05523-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation