Introduction

What is supervisors’ humility at work . . . why might it be notable . . . how might it bear on tolerance or intolerance of labor unions in the work environment? These are the pre-review questions we brought to our reading of the literature on humility as a psychological construct applied to the experience of work. Taking specific aim at studies on supervisors’ humility at work, we wondered whether nonunion supervisors who experienced more humility at work might show less intolerance of unions in the work environment. We also wondered whether such a relationship might relate to supervisors’ experience as indicated by their demographics—that is, whether the strength of the relationship between their humility and intolerance might vary in relation to their experience.

The foregoing might be considered as part of the inductive phase of our study, in which after a thorough reading of the said literature, we present our deductive phase, showing in detail how our questions were transformed into testable propositions. In doing so, we show our post-inductive reasoning, in which forged is a central hypothesis about the relationship between supervisors’ humility at work and their union intolerance, along with a research question about stated demographics as moderators. Once set, we show our study results for both the hypothesis and the research question and venture forward with a discussion of why we think our results might be viewed as important and how they might be extended in future studies. First, however, to bring all into focus, we present a brief on what we read about the humility at work construct specific to supervisors (often generalized as leaders in reference to followers), followed by an articulation of our study construct, a note on published measures of humility, and a research update on the union intolerance construct.

Supervisors’ Humility at Work

The research literature on humility at work took inspiration from the seminal work of Tangney (2000). Citing the theological and philosophical sources of the term as a virtue, she suggested that humility could be defined in psychological terms in reference to the conscious experience of individuals. Taking a componential approach, she proposed that, once articulated, such components could bring humility into view as a personal characteristic with potential links to specific and notable individual, situational and interactive outcomes. Taken to heart by researchers who study leadership in the context of work (see, for example, Morris et al., 2005; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004), proposed components have varied across studies by number (three to nine) and emphasis (e.g., behavioral, perceptual, emotional, motivational; see Tangney, 2009 for an overview) but all share core elements that indicate a willingness to place less importance on one’s self—a willingness that is marked by admitting mistakes to others and acknowledging limitations, demonstrating an openness to learn from others, and displaying an appreciation of the contributions of others in relation to one’s own contributions (see Davis et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2005; Ou et al., 2014; Swigart & Jacobs, 2022 for integrative readings on components).

Although the components are inherently interpersonal (i.e., they indicate how one relates one’s self to others), they are equally intrapersonal (i.e., they relate to how one views one’s self). As such, in our view—a view that sits comfortably within Baumeister’s (1998) self-experience framework—humility as a construct cannot be disentangled from awareness of self, an awareness both present during contact with others and reflexive after contact. That is, in reference to core elements of humility, we consider self-awareness as an ontological given, one that is reflected in our study definition of supervisors’ humility at work. To wit, humility in reference to supervisors is defined as one’s low to modest estimate of one’s self-importance in both the act of supervision and in the reflection of one’s role as supervisor—an estimate that is known and knowable in relation to one’s willingness to acknowledge the support, guidance, and knowledge received from others, to admit one’s mistakes and share limitations with others, and, whenever possible, to enact one’s felt aversion for being singled out for one’s work accomplishments that include the accomplishments of others—in short, an experiential definition applied to supervisors, in which reflected is one’s conscious state of mind about self-importance in relation to one’s experience at work (see Davis et al., 2017; Ou et al., 2014, 2018; Peterson & Seligman, 2004 for humility studies and discussion points compatible with this definition).

Why researchers who focus on leadership at work have an interest in humility is a question in itself. Although not a question directly germane to our study, the answer lies with a keen interest in what has become known as “leadership effectiveness,” in which, with rare exception, effectiveness is operationalized in reference to individual subordinate outcomes or aggregated subordinate team outcomes. For informational purposes, streams of undergraduate simulation studies and leader–follower field studies have shown that positioned followers’ job/task performance, job satisfaction, attrition, turnover intention, creativity, innovation, motivation to learn, information sharing, perspective-taking, team psychological capital, trust worthiness, work engagement, relational energy, team voice climate, psychological safety, prosocial behavior, ethical behavior (a very long and growing list) are positively associated with humility as indicated by or attributed to positioned leaders, associations that have garnered much discussion about whether selection and promotion criteria for leaders might be adjusted to include humility as a personal characteristic (Chiu et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Maldonado et al., 2022; Ou et al., 2017; Owens & Hekman, 2012; Owens, et al., 2019; Rego et al., 2019; Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2017; Wang et al., 2017).

Psychological Measurement of Humility

The psychological measurement of humility as a personal characteristic is another story in its own right. The last count in the humility literature of general and applied survey measures is up to 22, not counting subscales for separable components (see Davis et al., 2010; McElroy-Heltzel et al., 2019 for reviews and tables). Why the plethora of measures? An answer begins with the known fact that the field of psychology is far from a unified field, embodying different groups of research psychologists who wield different theories about what is essential to capture in a study (e.g., Is it behavior? Is it consciousness?) and what methodology and measure might be best suited to do so. For example, when humility is conceived in dispositional terms (which is often), there are trait measures (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2008); when conceived in situational terms, there are state measures (e.g., Kruse et al., 2017); when conceived in behavioral terms, there are observational measures (e.g., Owens et al., 2013); when conceived in self-evaluation terms, there are self-report measures (e.g., Davis et al., 2011), when conceived in competency terms, there are talent measures (e.g., Hogan, 2020), each of which has spurred a line of research accompanied by apparent conundrums about what is “really being measured” (e.g., Do subordinate behavioral ratings of supervisors really measure supervisors’ humility or simply perceived humility? Do leaders’ self-ratings of humility reveal their true humility or do they simply reveal wishful self-regard or non-disclosure?). That is, in the measurement of humility, consensus about a best measure resides within groups of researchers who share the same view about what is best. Our view is that any best measure of humility is study-specific, in which required is a clear and detailed articulation of the construct to be measured—an articulation that not only specifies what but also who, when, and where the defined characteristic is expected to be in play. As a follow-through to our construct work on humility, we show in the Method section the development of a measure of supervisors’ humility at work—a study measure best suited for our work in reference to researchers who focus on self-awareness.Footnote 1

Union Intolerance

As stated, our focus is on the humility of nonunion supervisors, and our central study question is on the relationship between their humility at work and their tolerance or intolerance of unions in the work environment. The construct and measure for union intolerance is established in the psychological literature on unions and union joining (see Mellor, 2022a, 2023a for origin study readings). As a construct developed to predict willingness to join, union intolerance is defined as an emotional state of sustained hatred directed at unions as experienced by nonunion employees, in which—in the broadest sense—unions are perceived to encourage intolerable vices in the lives of employees at work such as anger, apathy, greed, and pride, encouragement that is especially noted in regard to union employees who are seen as first-line recipients.

Studies based on the union intolerance scale developed for the intolerance construct have shown expected associations with other measured variables using data from multiple samples of nonunion employees and supervisors (e.g., Mellor, 2022a, 2023a, 2023b). For example, union intolerance is shown to be negatively associated with willingness to join a union, and positively associated with negative social emotions (e.g., anger) and general intolerance of stigmatized social groups (e.g., immigrants). Also, union intolerance is shown to be negatively associated with collective reliance (e.g., reliance on a collective for pay and benefits) as opposed to self-reliance, and negatively associated with support for the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (the PRO Act), a proposed labor law passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2021.

Collective Link

Despite the intuitiveness of a suggestive relationship between humility as a personal characteristic, in which one’s self-view is informed by an appreciation of others, and tolerance or intolerance of others, in which others share a common purpose, a proposed link between supervisors’ humility at work and their union intolerance requires reasoned articulation. First, consider unions as an employee organization embedded within an employer organization, in which offered is the opportunity for employees to legally join together—to form a collective—in pursuit of best possible outcomes for all employees in the work environment, such as guaranteeing safe working conditions and raising the prospect of self-determination (i.e., having a recognized voice in relation to how work is structured, inclusive of when, where, and by whom work is assigned; how work is evaluated, inclusive of contractual procedures to settle disputed performance ratings; and how work is rewarded and compensated, inclusive of pay and benefits adjusted for overtime, certification, and tenure; see Greenhouse, 2019; McAlevey, 2020; Mellor, 2019; Unger, 2020 for fresh updates and perspectives on unions and union employees).

Next, consider our focus on the humility of nonunion supervisors at work in relation to the presence of a union or unions in the work environment—usually supervisors are excluded from union joining—and their regard for unions in reference to tolerance or intolerance. We think that it is unlikely that supervisors who experience more humility at work would fail to appreciate the collective efforts of those who have banded together to form a union, seeing in themselves how union employees have publicly committed themselves to give and receive and seek support from others at work. In awareness terms, we think it is reasonable to suppose that supervisors who experience more humility at work would show less intolerance of unions, inasmuch as unions are seen to represent employees who consciously assume equal importance at work—in effect, a view of unions as a collective in which employees have positioned themselves to enact their own humility at work.

Fortunately, from a presentational point of view, we are not lone researchers in suggesting a link between supervision-level humility and collective outcomes, albeit in the humility literature such outcomes are framed in reference to questions about team effectiveness and firm performance (e.g., “Are You Unlocking the Competitive Advantage of Humble Leadership?” is a blog question asked by Swigart & Jacobs, 2022; see Ou et al., 2018; Owens & Hekman, 2016; Rego et al., 2017; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004 for answers and illustrative studies). For example, in the Ou et al. study (2018; see the online supplemental material), chief executive officers’ (CEOs’) self-attributed humility—striving to evoke a greater good, conveying an appreciation of others, admitting mistakes and limitations—was linked with top management team members (TMTs) who evidenced more collective interests as indicated by their greater willingness to collaborate and share information, make decisions jointly, and formulate shared visions, results that were also linked to smaller vertical pay disparity between CEOs and TMTs and higher firm-level average quarterly return on assets (net income divided by total assets).

Hypothesis and Research Question

Having shown the transformation of our central question about whether supervisors’ humility at work relates to their tolerance or intolerance of unions in the work environment into a proposed relationship, a central hypothesis is suggested as follows:

  • Hypothesis: Nonunion supervisors who experience more humility at work are more likely to indicate less intolerance of unions in the work environment.

Given our experiential view of supervisors’ humility at work, we also ask whether supervisors’ experience as indicated by their demographics might bear on the strength of the relationship between their humility and union intolerance, a research question (with implied moderation) suggested as follows:

  • Research Question: Is the negative relationship as stated in the Hypothesis moderated by supervisors’ experience, such that the strength of the relationship between their humility at work and intolerance of unions is related to their demographics?

As an illustration, the study Hypothesis and Research Question are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Central Hypothesis, with Research Question shown in grayscale

Full size image

Method

Procedure

Anonymous survey data were collected from U.S. employees beginning in the first week of September 2022 and ending in the last week of April 2023. Survey sites were community gatherings and public transportation areas (e.g., seasonal farmers’ markets, church-sponsored bazaars, municipal airport wait areas, commuter rail and bus stations).Footnote 2

With permission obtained at each site, the researchers circulated flyers with the following information:

“Can you volunteer to take this survey? You can if you are employed in the United States and not a full-time student. The survey is anonymous—no names. The survey takes less than 10 minutes to complete. The survey cannot be mailed. $5 is given for taking the survey. Please ask the researcher for a survey.”

Employees who responded to the flyer were given a pencil, a no-name informed consent form, a survey, and an unmarked envelope. The researchers collected surveys in sealed envelopes, paid participants, and conducted onsite debriefing.

Sampling

To ensure that sampling resulted in data appropriate to test the Hypothesis, the survey was embedded with eligibility items. We excluded surveys in which responses suggested: (a) current union member and (b) not currently in a supervisory position. An additional check for careless responses resulted in excluded surveys if responses indicated the same scale anchor for long strings of consecutive items (e.g., a page of items).

One-hundred and one surveys with no missing data were counted as eligible. Eligible surveys included supervisors from 12 U.S. States (California, Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia) and the District of Columbia.

Measures

Demographics

Assessed demographics included age (indicated in years), gender (coded as either 0 (man; write-in responses: male, man) or 1 (woman; write-in responses: female, woman)); minority status (coded as either 0 (nonminority; write-in responses: Caucasian, European, White) or 1 (minority; write-in responses: African, Asian, Black, El Salvadorian, Filipino, Haitian, Hispanic, Indian, Latino, Puerto Rican, Spanish); socioeconomic status, in reference to “education level (highest degree), contribution to family income, and occupational job status” (numeric response options: 1 (lower class), 2 (lower middle class), 3 (middle class), 4 (upper middle class), 5 (upper class)); mother’s socioeconomic status (same response options as socioeconomic status); socioeconomic mobility (computed as socioeconomic status minus mother’s socioeconomic status).

Ninety-three percent of supervisors were age 25 years or older (the median age was 48; the range was 18 to 76). Fifty-eight percent were women supervisors. Nineteen percent identified themselves as a minority supervisor. Seventy-five percent identified themselves as middle class or lower (the median class was middle class). Forty-nine percent indicated upward mobility, 44% percent indicated no mobility, and 8% indicated downward mobility (the raw score range was -3.00 to 4.00).

Assessed demographics specific to supervision included supervision tenure (in reference to “your current position”; indicated in years); supervision level (in reference to “your current position”; numeric response options: 1 (team leader), 2 (lower-level (front-line) manager), 3 (middle-level (executive) manager), 4 (top-level (administrative) manager (coded as either 0 (lower-level; response options 1 or 2) or 1 (upper-level; response options 3 or 4)); number of supervisory promotions (in reference to “your current position”); number of direct subordinates (in reference to “number of subordinates you supervise directly”).

Sixty-six percent of supervisors indicated 10 years or more of supervision (the median was 7 years; the range was 1 to 40). Fifty-nine percent indicated lower-level supervision. Forty-six percent indicated 2 or more supervisory promotions (the median number of promotions was 1; the range was 0 to 5). Sixty-one percent indicated they directly supervised 5 or more subordinates (the median number of subordinates was 5; the range was from 1 to 100).

Assessed demographics specific to unions included union subordinates (in reference to “Are any of the subordinates who you supervisor directly union members?” (coded as either as 0 (no) or 1 (yes)); prior union membership (in reference to “Have you ever been a union member?” (coded as either 0 (no) or 1 (yes)); parents’ union membership (in reference to “At any point in your childhood was your mother or father a union member?”; response options: mother, father, neither mother or father (coded as 0 (neither parent) or 1 (at least one parent)); perceived union discrimination, in reference to “As a nonunion employee, were you ever... “let go” from a job because you were not a union member?... “blocked” from getting a job (not hired) because you were not a union member?... denied access to job training in a “craft school” run by a union?... denied admission to a job apprentice program run by a union?... skipped over for a “preferred” work assignment because you were not a union member?... passed over for a promotion because you were not a union member? (coded as either 0 (no discrimination; no yes responses) or 1 (discrimination; at least one yes response).

Sixteen percent of supervisors indicated that they directly supervised union members. Twenty-three percent indicated that they had been a union member. Thirty-one percent indicated that at least one parent had been a union member. Ten percent indicated perceived union discrimination.

Supervisors’ Humility at Work

To assess humility at work, we developed a 10-item self-attribute measure based on the stated construct (see the Appendix for a list of items). In doing so, we first generated a list of 64 items drawn from published measures of humility found in journal articles, book appendices, manuals, and online websites (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2008; Davis et al., 2011; Farh et al., 1991; Hogan, 2020; Hu et al., 2018; Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016; Kruse et al., 2017; Ou et al., 2014; Owens et al., 2013), selecting 18 items that were true to the construct. We also endeavored to reword items to offset the prospect of overclaiming and underclaiming, a concern raised by humility researchers reporting weak or mixed results (see Tangney, 2009 for representative thoughts related to the concern).

In line with our self-awareness perspective on humility, we would argue that a self-attribute measure is the best possible measure for the construct. Moreover, in agreement with Sutton (2016), we assume that individuals are motivated to represent their true self when given a neutral opportunity to do so in reference to item responses (see Footnote 2; see also Colbert et al., 2012, self-evaluation researchers who argue for the inclusion of self-attribute measures to assess leader characteristics and leadership effects). Nevertheless, guided by criteria recommended for item-wording (McKenzie et al., 1999; Rubio et al., 2003), and the possibility of over/underclaiming, we further revised items based on the following criteria:

  1. 1.

    heightened specificity; we inserted a referent to “my job” or “my work” into every item to remove over-generalized content that might be mistaken as a stated truism or, in reference to humility, a moral imperative.

  2. 2.

    omitted qualifiers; we omitted qualifiers such as “all in all” or “the average person” in favor of content that might be viewed by possible overclaimers as too extreme, even perhaps bordering on strange, inappropriate or, if enacted, risking criticism by workplace peers—and equally might be viewed by possible underclaimers as “just about right,” even perhaps, if not claimed, putting at risk a misrepresentation of self.

  3. 3.

    framed for yes–no responses; we used this scaling strategy, as have other researchers (see, for example, Hogan, 2020) to counteract response leniency (overly favorable responses; especially relevant to overclaiming), as well as errors of central tendency (noncommittal responses; especially relevant to underclaiming).

Moreover, to further arrest the prospect of over/underclaiming, we constructed an attentional set of instructions for item responses as recommended by Sutton (2016), wherein respondents are asked to focus their attention on their “present self” rather than on their “aspirational self”—a request for responses that reflect “the person who you are now” rather than “the person who you might strive to be in the future.”

Also, to represent the content domain implied by the construct with the fewest possible items (see Haynes et al., 1995; Hinkin, 1998 for selection criteria), we sought and received item-construct reviews from subject matter experts with journal or internet publications that discussed humility as a variable (two academics, two practitioners), along with item-soundness reviews from measurement experts with publications on item construction (two academics). The eventual reduction of items to 10 was further facilitated by asking 8 industrial-organizational psychology PhD students—with the construct, items, and criteria in hand—to independently rate items for redundancy, clarity (low ambiguity), plausibility, contextual fit, interdependence (across items), leading (suggesting a preferred view), and peripheral (in reference to the construct).

The final set of items were prefaced with the statement:

“We are interested in the person you are now—not the person you might strive to be in the future.

Please read each item carefully.”

The statement was followed with a response instruction:

“If this is the person you are now, check (√) the blank.

If this is not the person you are now, do not check (√) the blank.”

An example item is:

“When asked to discuss my accomplishments at work, I make it a point to name those who have contributed to my work.”

The responses were coded as: no check = 0, check = 1.

A principal components analysis was performed on the 10 humility at work items. Two items had near-zero extraction values (< 0.01; see the asterisked items in the Appendix). With the two items removed, the analysis was rerun. This analysis produced one eigenvalue greater than 1.00, λ = 3.110, % of variance explained = 54.528, item loadings ≥ 0.311.Footnote 3

The Cronbach’s α for the 8 remaining items was 0.76.

As a result of these analyses, responses were averaged, yielding continuous humility at work scale scores from 0 (less humility) to 1.00 (more humility).

Supervisors’ Union Intolerance

To assess union intolerance, we asked employees to respond to 12 items from the Union Intolerance Scale developed by Mellor (2022a, 2023a; see also Mellor, 2022b for a list of items).

The items were prefaced with the statement:

“We are interested in what you think about labor unions.

Below are statements taken from various Internet blogs, in which bloggers expressed their willingness or unwillingness to tolerate a union.

Please read each statement carefully and decide for yourself.”

The statements were followed with a response instruction:

“Check (√) one blank.”

And an item stem:

“I am willing to tolerate a union or I am not willing to tolerate a union . . .”

An example item is:

“... that tells members of the union that the idea of a strike is really a “strike back” against an employer that has dealt the first blow.”

The response options were:

“willing to tolerate” or “not willing to tolerate.”

The responses were coded as: willing to tolerate = 0, not willing to tolerate = 1.

A principal components analysis was performed on the 12 union intolerance items. The analysis produced one eigenvalue greater than 1.00, λ = 4.326, % of variance explained = 55.434, item loadings ≥ 0.493.

The α for the items was 0.84.

As a result of these analyses, responses were averaged, yielding continuous union intolerance scale scores from 0 (less intolerance) to 1.00 (more intolerance).

Centered

To reduce the possibility of collinearity in statistical analyses involving main effects and interaction terms containing the main effects, study variables exempting union intolerance were mean-centered.

Results

Raw score zero-order correlations, means (Ms), and standard deviations (SDs) for the study variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Zero-order correlations (rs), means, and standard deviations
Full size table

Descriptive Analyses

To discern significant mean differences in reference to demographics variables, we performed t-tests, using median splits for non-dichotomous variables to construct high-low subgroups.

In reference to supervisors’ humility at work, no mean differences were detected, ts(99) ≤|1.575|, ps > 0.05.

In reference to supervisors’ union intolerance, on average, supervisors with prior union membership (vs. supervisors with no prior membership) were less likely to report union intolerance, t(99) = -2.338, p < 0.05.

Also, supervisors who reported more humility at work (vs. supervisors who reported less humility), on average, were less likely to report union intolerance, t(99) = -4.144, p < 0.01.

Hypothesis Tests

The zero-order correlation between supervisors’ humility at work and supervisors’ union intolerance was negative and significant, r = 0.53, p < 0.01, a result that is consistent with the Hypothesis (see Table 1).Footnote 4

To test the robustness of the zero-order correlation, with supervisors’ union intolerance as an outcome variable, we performed a 2-step hierarchical regression analysis with the demographics as main effects at Step 1 and supervisors’ humility at work as a main effect at Step 2.

At Step 2, in addition to main effects for number of subordinates directly supervised and prior union membership, unstandardized B = 0.003, standardized β = 0.229, t = 2.182, p < 0.05; B = -0.138, β = -0.204, t = -2.203, p < 0.05, respectively, the main effect for supervisors’ humility at work was significant, B = -0.531, β = -0.552, t = -6.085, p < 0.01.

Also, at Step 2, supervisors’ humility at work explained 27% of the variance in supervisors’ union intolerance above and beyond the demographics as main effects (i.e., variance independent of the demographics), ∆R2 = 0.270; ∆F(1, 86) = 37.029, p < 0.01.

Exploratory Analyses

To explore interactive effects of supervisors’ humility at work on supervisors’ union intolerance in relation to demographics as moderators, we performed 2-step hierarchical regression analyses with union intolerance as an outcome variable. In each analysis, at Step 1, a demographic variable was entered as a main effect along with humility at work as a main effect. At Step 2, a Demographic X Humility at Work term was entered as an interaction effect.

Two of the analyses indicated significant interactive effects, one for supervision level and one for parents’ union membership. In reference to supervision level as moderator, the Supervision Level X Humility at Work term was significantly different than zero, B = -0.406, β = -0.201, t = -2.378, p < 0.05, in which the interaction explained 4% of the variance in supervisors’ union intolerance above and beyond supervisors’ humility at work as a main effect, ∆R2 = 0.040; ∆F(1, 97) = 5.656, p < 0.05 (see Table 2).

Table 2 Regression results for supervisors’ union intolerance with supervision level as moderator
Full size table

Simple slopes for the interaction effect with supervision level as moderator are presented in Fig. 2.Footnote 5 For supervisors who indicated lower-level supervision, the effect of humility at work on union intolerance is negative and significantly different from zero, B = -0.7664, Boot SE = 0.1380, Boot 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-1.0404, -0.4924]. For supervisors who indicated higher-level supervision, the effect of humility at work on union intolerance is also negative and significantly different from zero, B = -0.3605, Boot SE = 0.1004, Boot CI [-0.5598, -0.1611]; however, in reference to the significant interaction effect, the effect for higher-level supervisors is less significantly different from zero than the effect for lower-level supervisors (i.e., the simple slopes are significantly different from each other).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Simple slopes for supervisors’ humility at work and union intolerance in relation to supervision level

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Simple slopes for supervisors’ humility at work and union intolerance in relation to parents’ union membership

Full size image

In reference to parents’ union membership as moderator, the Parents’ Union Membership X Humility at Work term was significantly different than zero, B = 0.369, β = 0.180, t = 2.130, p < 0.05, in which the interaction explained 3% of the variance in supervisors’ union intolerance above and beyond supervisors’ humility at work as a main effect (see Table 3), ∆R2 = 0.032; ∆F(1, 97) = 4.538, p < 0.05 (see Table 3).

Table 3 Regression results for supervisors’ union intolerance with parents’ union membership as moderator
Full size table

Simple slopes for the interaction effect with parents’ union membership as moderator are presented in Fig. 3. For supervisors for whom at least one parent was a member of a union, the effect of humility at work on union intolerance is negative and significantly different from zero, B = -0.6277, Boot SE = 0.0992, Boot CI [-0.8246, -0.4307]. For supervisors for whom neither parent was a member of a union, the effect of humility at work on union intolerance is also negative but not significantly different from zero, B = -0.2588, Boot SE = 0.1419, Boot CI [-0.5404, 0.0229].

Summary of Results

The results provide support for the Hypothesis. As expected, nonunion supervisors who experience more humility at work are more likely to indicate less intolerance of unions in the work environment.

Moreover, in reference to results for the Research Question, the strength of the negative relationship between supervisors’ humility at work and their union intolerance is moderated by two demographics, such that the relationship is stronger for supervisors who indicate lower-level supervision and for supervisors who indicate that at least one parent was a union member.

Discussion

What Then?

Our study mix of hypothesis testing and research exploration was intended to suggest answers to two heretofore questions about nonunion supervisors’ humility at work and whether their humility relates to their tolerance or intolerance of unions in the work environment—and if so—whether such a relationship might vary in strength in relation to their experience. Fortunately, our study provides answers. As a central hypothesis, in which more humility experienced at work was expected to be associated with less intolerance, our data are supportive. As a research question, in which a humility-intolerance association was expected to be moderated by experience, our data are informative. The association was stronger for supervisors at lower levels of supervision than supervisors at higher levels, and separately, the association was stronger for supervisors with at least one parent who was a union member than for supervisors with no parent who was a member (actually, for the latter supervisors, the association was statistically absent). As might be expected, interpretation of a hypothesized association supported by data differs from the interpretation of explored associations informed by data, in which rather than tested against a hypothesized null association, the moderated associations are best regarded as suggestive. As such, our two answers are a deductive-inductive mix—deductive in regard to the prospect of a humility-intolerance association and inductive in regard to the prospect of strength of association as related to experience.

What’s New?

Our study results represent a new expansion of the literature on humility as a personal characteristic applied to supervisors/leaders at work, in which transported from studies on humility as linked to nonunion outcomes of import is a prospective link to a union outcome of import. In fact, we would argue that against the backdrop of a documented 40 + year decline in union joining among U.S. employees (see Kollmeyer, 2018 for a charted update on joining) and a documented rise in union intolerance over the same span of time (see Mellor, 2023a for an updated account of intolerance) that having shown that nonunion supervisors who experience more humility at work indicate less union intolerance is more than noteworthy. Why more than? Why risk hyperbole? Our answer starts with being well-versed in the psychological literature on government-, court-, and industry-aided employer suppression of union joining after a successful union certification election—an election in which a majority of eligible employees have voted to be represented by a union (see Fletcher & La Luz, 2020; Hogler, 2020; Logan, 2020; Mellor, 2023c; Mishel et al., 2020 for suppression details). The point being that we can imagine from an awareness perspective what our results might mean to subordinate employees who are deciding whether to join or not join after an election, in which exposed to our results, we would expect their attention would be further drawn to their supervisors’ humility, recognition of which might be considered as an important factor in their decision.

Although we are not the first researchers to take a self-view in developing a study-specific construct for humility at work, we are the first researchers to view humility—in the broadest sense—as a non-dispositional personal characteristic, in which we neither define nor conceive of humility as a personality trait (even Davis et al., 2011, 2017 position humility as “a trait-level personality judgment”). We see no inherent reason to do so and would further suggest that doing so begs the question of whether interventions suggested by trait researchers to alter humility in a positive direction are even feasible. Moreover, feasibility aside, we would question from a mental health point of view whether it is ethical to direct targeted individuals toward a state of perpetual conflict with elements viewed as part of their makeup—who, in trait terms, cannot help but be who they are. Better, we think, is to take a non-dispositional view of humility, in which reflected is one’s view of self in relation to one’s experience with others and one’s reflexive interpretation of said experience, and in which, in regard to intervention, conceived in full is that experience and interpretation are alterable.

What’s Next?

In our view, our study sets an agenda for follow-up research to verify results and address limitations. Foremost, further measurement work is needed on the introduced humility at work measure. In particular, further sampling of nonunion supervisors is needed to verify the factor structure seen in our data, including model-fit confirmatory factor analysis. Too, assessment is needed to establish the convergent and discriminant validity of the measure in reference to known humility measures and other measures of constructs conceived to share variance with humility (e.g., modesty), as well as measures of different constructs conceived as distinct (e.g., self-esteem). Although we have immediate plans to continue sampling supervisors to conduct (and present) this work, we invite other researchers with like humility and/or union research interests to contact us to forge collaborative research and/or inform us of their research using the humility measure. We are particularly interested in the dimensional inclusion/exclusion of the two items excluded in our study based on, at present, the two-sample factor results (see Footnote 3).

Also, intrigued by the moderated associations that suggest experience-related interactions, we think that such associations help tell the story about how supervisors’ humility at work relates to their union intolerance. To wit, in relation to supervision level, it is hardly a stretch to imagine that supervisors at higher levels of supervision might have been vetted for prounion sentiment before promotion or perhaps socialized to suppress such sentiment after, in which their humility at work—such as it is—appears to be less related to their tolerance or intolerance of unions as compared to supervisors at lower levels. As for parents’ union membership, our data suggest that experience with at least one parent who was a member compared to no parent who was a member appears to play a role in how supervisors’ humility relates to their tolerance/intolerance of unions. Why this difference seems to make a difference is an open question, but it is possible that supervisors’ vicarious exposure to unions through at least one parent’s experience as a member might facilitate recognition of unions as a means by which employees enact their own humility at work. Given these starter associations with implied moderation, we encourage other researchers to further conceive and explore these and other demographic interactions in subsequent studies.

Also, encouraged by our results, we suggest studies that extend the supported humility-intolerance association further by testing sequential relationships in which intervening variables are positioned to address questions about work and work-related outcomes. For example, we can imagine a hypothesized sequence in which union employees who are subordinates of nonunion supervisors who experience more humility at work might feel more respected at work by their supervisors, respect that in turn might relate to outcomes such as trust worthiness, work engagement, and work quality to name but a few outcomes that might suffer the most under conditions of intolerance.

Final Note

Offered for consideration is a first-of-its-kind study, in which humility at work as a personal characteristic is folded into research on unions and union employees. Intended to initiate more research is a supported hypothesis that links nonunion supervisors’ humility with their tolerance or intolerance of unions in the work environment. With humility conceived in experiential terms from a self-awareness perspective, studies are invited to verify and extend our results, to validate a newly developed humility at work measure, and to fill in the story of how supervisors’ experience interacts with their humility in relation to their intolerance.