Need help understanding the concept

Bad time to be humble! When and why leaders should not be humble

Jiang Xu Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing, China

Jih-Yu Mao School of Business Administration, Faculty of Business Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China, and

Ye Zhang Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing, China

Abstract

Purpose –Although leader humility is generally considered a positive leadership behavior, this study aims to examine when the positive influences of leader humility are likely weakened. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from a two-wave survey. Ordinary least squares regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. Findings – Although leader humility is positively related to perceived leader support, this relationship is weakened when the environment is uncertain, resulting in comparatively lower follower performance. Practical implications – Leaders should be aware that environmental constraints may weaken the desired outcomes of humility and therefore adapt leadership to situational needs. Originality/value – Contrasting to predominant research on leader humility, this study examines a critical boundary condition bywhich its positive influences are compromised. In light of the disruption caused by the ongoing COVID-19, this study suggests that what usually are considered positive characteristics of leader humility are likely perceived as little leader support when the environment is uncertain. Findings of this study echo contingency leadership theories, which suggest that effective leadership should be context- dependent.

Keywords Leader humility, Environmental uncertainty, Perceived leader support, Follower performance

Paper type Research paper

In the wake of several corporate scandals, managers and scholars have begun to reflect upon the dark side of leaders’ grandiose characteristics, such as narcissism, hubris, and sense of entitlement (Boje et al., 2004; Chang and Diddams, 2009; Li and Tang, 2010; Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006). By contrast, virtues such as humility are important managerial characteristics (Owens et al., 2013). In light of the appeal for “more humility and less hubris” (Weick, 2001, p. 93), leader humility has received increased attention across various organizational settings in recent years (e.g. Ou et al., 2018; Swain and Korenman, 2018; Wang et al., 2018; Wolfteich et al., 2021).

Leader humility is generally viewed as a positive virtue that leads to desirable outcomes for followers (Wang et al., 2018), teams (Owens and Hekman, 2016), and organizations (Ou et al., 2018). However, since organizations are embedded in a dynamic, uncertain, and unpredictable environment, there is no omnipotent leadership: Leadership is not universal and contextual influences bound its effectiveness. Similarly, leader humility may have its limits. For instance, Pfeffer (2015) argued that humility might be an overrated leader characteristic because humble leaders rarely rise to the top. Recent research has also suggested a potential dark side of leader humility. Specifically, when followers attribute leader humility to leader self-serving intentions, they tend to experience higher psychological entitlement and subsequently exhibit more workplace deviance (Qin et al., 2020). Therefore, leader humility may not always lead to desired outcomes. Inspired by these studies and the high environmental uncertainty caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we investigate how environmental uncertainty

LODJ 43,1

14

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7739.htm

Received 1 June 2021 Revised 4 September 2021 Accepted 23 September 2021

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 43 No. 1, 2022 pp. 14-24 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/LODJ-06-2021-0254

constrains the positive effects of leader humility. Exploring the boundary conditions upon which the influences of leader humility are contingent is theoretically essential because doing so casts doubt on the notion that leader humility elicits positive effects in all contexts (Owens and Hekman, 2012). Practically, it allows leaders to recognize the limits of this leadership to avoid endorsing it in unfit situations.

Leader humility features a bottom-up leadership approach in which leaders acknowledge their limits and seek feedback from others (Owens andHekman, 2012; Owens et al., 2013).While followers welcome these leader characteristics during regular times, such characteristics may not be desirable in times of uncertainty. When the environment is highly uncertain, followers look up to leaders for timely guidance, visions, and ideas for necessary adjustments (Agle et al., 2006; Waldman et al., 2001). However, humble leaders diminish their power and status by acknowledging personal limits, seeking follower advice, and legitimizing growth and development (Owens and Hekman, 2012; Qin et al., 2021), which may signal a lack of control of the situation. Therefore, followers are likely to believe that leaders have little to offer to facilitate their work during uncertain times. Altogether, leader humility is likely to make followers perceive less leader support when the environment is more than less uncertain, leading to comparatively lower follower performance. Figure 1 depicts the hypothesizedmodel.

Our research makes several theoretical contributions. First, leader humility is widely regarded as positive leadership that engenders favorable outcomes (Ou et al., 2018; Owens and Hekman, 2016; Owens et al., 2013). However, we argue that it may be less effective in specific contexts, as delegating authority and admitting weaknesses may be interpreted less positively during specific times. As such, we investigate environmental uncertainty as a boundary condition upon which the positive effects of leader humility are contingent, enriching understanding of the limits and effectiveness of leader humility in dynamic and turbulent environments. Second, we identify perceived leader support as an essential mechanism to explain why the effectiveness of leader humility may be weakened in times of uncertainty. Extant studies have associated leader humility with relational factors, such as leader–member exchange and trust (Owens and Hekman, 2012; Qin et al., 2020). We adopt a resource perspective to suggest that humble leaders are likely perceived as providing little support when the environment is uncertain. Relatedly, we enrich knowledge about the antecedents of perceived leader support. Although perceptions of leader support are influenced by leader treatments (Amabile et al., 2004; Shanock and Eisenberger, 2006), little is known about their links with leader humility. We enhance understanding in this regard by proposing that the positive effect of leader humility on perceived leader support is likely weakened when the environment is uncertain.

Theory and hypotheses Leader humility and perceived leader support Humble leaders are characterized by admitting their mistakes and limitations, deflecting praise, being teachable or open to new ideas, advice, and feedback, and identifying followers’

Leader humility Follower performance

Environmental uncertainty

Perceived leader support

Figure 1. The

hypothesized model

Bad time to be humble!

15

unique strengths and contributions (Owens and Hekman, 2012; Owens et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2018). Leader humility is widely considered an upbeat leadership style (Ou et al., 2018; Owens and Hekman, 2016), which is positively associated with leadership potential (Swain and Korenman, 2018) and negatively related to rejection of leaders (Williams et al., 2021). Humble leaders initiate leader–follower role reversals, engage in bottom-up organizing, and empower followers (Owens and Hekman, 2012), facilitating follower development and enhancing follower perceptions of being valued and cared about (Owens and Hekman, 2016; Qin et al., 2020; Shanock and Eisenberger, 2006). Leaders who exhibit these behaviors are therefore likely perceived as providing support for their followers, leading to the first hypothesis:

H1. Leader humility is positively related to perceived leader support.

Environmental uncertainty as a boundary condition Leadership should vary upon environments because that suitable for stable environments may differ from that required by turbulent times (Bass, 1990). Accordingly, leader humility may not always be able to address follower needs. During regular times, followers seek to be empowered and included in decision-making (Martin et al., 2013). Leaders who fulfill these desires are likely perceived as supportive of their work and development (Kim et al., 2018). However, during uncertain times, things become more inconceivable (Milliken, 1987), and people perceive higher risks and turbulence (Antonakis et al., 2003). Conventional norms tend to become obsolete and ineffective, engendering distress and pressure (Marks, 1974) and undermining feelings of safety (Lane and Klenke, 2004). As followers desire to reestablish order (Owens and Hekman, 2012), they are likely to prefer leaders who take matters into their own hands rather than delegate responsibilities to others (Agle et al., 2006; Waldman et al., 2001).

In an uncertain environment, the support needed by followers likely differs from that in times of certainty (van Dierendonck et al., 2014). Followers are likely to perceive support from leaders they believe are competent, determined, and able to make decisions quickly (Humphreys and Einstein, 2003). During these times, efficient decision-making and action are more important than open discussion and decisions (van Dierendonck et al., 2014), which helps explain why narcissists tend to emerge as leaders when an organization is going through turbulence (Nevicka et al., 2013). Leaders tend to have more knowledge and experience than their followers (Eden and Leviatan, 1975), making them the default ones to handle uncertainty. Therefore, followers are likely to interpret leaders admittingweaknesses and seeking advice as shirking their responsibilities when the environment is uncertain, leading them to perceive little support from leaders. This discussion leads to the following hypothesis:

H2. Environmental uncertainty moderates the positive relationship between leader humility and perceived leader support, such that the relationship becomes weaker when environmental uncertainty is higher than lower.

Downstream implications for follower performance Follower performance is a crucial indicator of leader effectiveness. As such, it is vital to explore the downstream implications for follower performance. Leader support involves providing resources to facilitate followerwork functioning and showing concerns for follower well-being (Shanock and Eisenberger, 2006). For instance, supportive leaders encourage followers, provide guidance, and help followers resolve work issues (Amabile et al., 2004; Shanock and Eisenberger, 2006). This motivates followers to increase their job input, leading to enhanced job performance. As followers are likely to perceive little support from humble leaders in an uncertain environment, their job performance is likely to be comparatively lower

LODJ 43,1

16

than that of when leaders demonstrate humility in a regular environment. This discussion leads to the following hypothesis:

H3. Leader humility interacts with environmental uncertainty to affect follower performance through perceived leader support, such that leader humility has a weaker, positive relationship with follower performance through perceived leader support when environmental uncertainty is higher than lower.

Method Samples and procedures A time-lagged survey was conducted. Random Chinese employees were recruited through Credamo (a reliable data-collection platform). Data were collected at two phases to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Survey links containing statements of research purpose and data confidentiality and study variables were distributed to the participants. In the Time 1 questionnaire, 262 participants reported on their direct leaders’ humility, environmental uncertainty, and demographic information. Two weeks later, in the Time 2 questionnaire, 210 out of the initial participants reported on their perceptions of leader support and own performance. Among them, most were male (61%) and had been working with their immediate leaders for an average of 4.16 years (standard deviation [SD] 5 2.80). Most of their immediate leaders were male (80%).

Measures All items underwent a translation and back-translation process (Brislin, 1980). Unless otherwise noted, all items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (15 strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly agree).

Leader humility. Leader humility was measured with Owens et al.’s (2013) nine-item scale. A sample item was, “My leader acknowledges when others have more knowledge and skills than him- or herself” (Cronbach’s alpha [α] 5 0.90).

Environmental uncertainty. Participants were asked to complete a four-item environmental uncertainty scale (Waldman et al., 2001) that was instructed as, “How would you characterize the external environment within which your corporation functions?” Then, participants answered this question with a sample item, “Very dynamic, changing rapidly in technical, economic, and cultural dimensions” (α 5 0.83).

Perceived leader support. Shamir et al.’s (1998) eight-item measurement was used. A sample item was, “My leader shows patience toward failures if they are not caused by lack of effort” (α 5 0.82).

Follower performance. This variable was measured with Ellington et al.’s (2014) five-item scale. We used a referent-shift techique. A sample item was, “I get the job’s tasks done” (α 5 0.86).

Controls. Gender is likely to influence followers’ appraisals of and reactions to leader humility. Chiu and Owens (2013) found that female leaders who demonstrated humility were perceived as more charismatic by female than male followers. Following previous studies (Owens et al., 2015; Qin et al., 2021), both leader gender and follower gender were accounted for. In addition, follower tenure with the leader was controlled due to its potential influence on leader-follower interactions (Qin et al., 2021).

Results Preliminary analyses We conducted confirmatory factor analyses to ensure that the key constructs are empirically distinct. The fit indices of the hypothesized four-factormodel (all variables are independent) are

Bad time to be humble!

17

satisfactory (χ25 502.56, df5 290, CFI5 0.92,TLI5 0.91, RMSEA5 0.06, SRMR5 0.06; three item covariances are applied) and statistically superior to those of any other models featuring different combinations of variables (leader humility and perceived leader support combined: Δχ2(Δdf)5 192.97(3), p < 0.001; perceived leader support and follower performance combined: Δχ2(Δdf)5 213.30(3), p < 0.001; leader humility and environmental uncertainty combined and perceived leader support and follower performance combined: Δχ2(Δdf)5 526.89(5), p < 0.001; all variables combined:Δχ2(Δdf)5 656.53(6), p< 0.001). Themeans, SDs, intercorrelations, and internal consistencies of study variables are presented in Table 1.

Hypothesis tests Weconducted ordinary least squares analyses to test the hypotheses. Leader gender, follower gender, and follower tenure with the leader were controlled. Predictors were centered to reduce multicollinearity. The analysis results are shown in Table 2.

Test of H1. Results indicate a positive relationship between leader humility and perceived leader support (B 5 0.34, SE 5 0.04, p < 0.001; see Model 1), supporting Hypothesis 1.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Leader gender 0.20 0.40 — 2. Follower gender 0.39 0.49 0.32*** — 3. Follower tenure with the leader

4.16 2.80 0.04 0.07 —

4. Leader humility 5.75 0.79 �0.02 0.09 �0.01 (0.90) 5. Environmental uncertainty

3.46 0.91 0.02 0.09 0.06 �0.26*** (0.83)

6. Perceived leader support

4.92 0.56 0.00 0.06 �0.13 0.49*** �0.33*** (0.82)

7. Follower performance

6.15 0.66 �0.06 0.13 0.04 0.64*** �0.09 0.43*** (0.86)

Note(s):N5 210. SD5 standard deviation. Gender: 05male, 15 female. Cronbach’s alphas are presented in parentheses. ***p < 0.001

Variables Perceived leader support Follower performance Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Intercept 4.92*** (0.03) 4.89*** (0.03) 6.15*** (0.04) 5.06*** (0.37)

Controls Leader gender 0.01 (0.09) 0.03 (0.08) �0.14 (0.09) �0.13 (0.09) Follower gender 0.03 (0.07) 0.06 (0.07) 0.13 (0.08) 0.12 (0.08) Follower tenure with the leader �0.03* (0.01) �0.02 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01)

Predictors Leader humility 0.34*** (0.04) 0.31*** (0.04) 0.54*** (0.05) 0.48*** (0.05) Environmental uncertainty �0.11** (0.04) 0.05 (0.04) 0.09* (0.04) Leader humility 3 environmental uncertainty

�0.14** (0.05) �0.05 (0.05)

Perceived leader support 0.22** (0.08) R2 0.26 0.33 0.43 0.46 ΔR2 — 0.07*** — 0.03**

Note(s):N5 210. Gender: 05male, 15 female. Unstandardized estimates with (standard errors) are reported *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Table 1. Means, SDs, intercorrelations and internal consistencies of study variables

Table 2. SPSS ordinary least squares analysis results

LODJ 43,1

18

Test of H2. The interaction term of leader humility and environmental uncertainty negatively predicts perceived leader support (B 5 �0.14, SE 5 0.05, p < 0.01; see Model 2). This interaction pattern is presented in Figure 2. A simple slope test suggests that the positive relationship between leader humility and perceived leader support is weaker when environmental uncertainty is “high” (þ1 SD above the mean; B5 0.19, SE5 0.06, p < 0.01) than “low” (�1 SD below themean;B5 0.44, SE5 0.06, p< 0.001). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is supported.

Test of H3. We used the PROCESS macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2018). Results validate a significant conditional indirect effect (index of moderatedmediation5�0.03, SE5 0.02, 95% CI5 [�0.10,�0.002]). Specifically, leader humility exerts a weaker, positive effect on follower performance through perceived leader support when environmental uncertainty is “high” (indirect effect 5 0.04, SE 5 0.03, 95% CI 5 [0.004, 0.14]) than “low” (indirect effect 5 0.10, SE 5 0.06, 95% CI 5 [0.01, 0.23]). These results support Hypothesis 3.

Discussion In response to recent calls for a more comprehensive understanding of leader humility (Wang et al., 2018), this study investigates when the positive influences of leader humility are likely compromised. We found that the positive effect of leader humility on follower performance through perceived leader support was contingent upon environmental uncertainty. Specifically, this positive effect was weakened when the environment was uncertain. These results suggest that humble leaders are less effective during uncertain times.

Theoretical contributions This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, although leader humility has been associated with many favorable consequences (Ou et al., 2018; Owens and Hekman, 2016; Wang et al., 2018), several recent studies have discussed the boundary conditions upon which the positive influences of leader humility are contingent (e.g. Qin et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2018). However, those boundary conditions pertain to leader–follower interactions, such as follower attribution of leader humility, perceived leader power, and perceived leader competence. As leader effectiveness varies in different environments (Thompson and Vecchio, 2009; Vroom and Jago, 2007), how environmental influences affect

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Low leader humility High leader humility

troppus redael deviecreP

Low environmental uncertainty

High environmental uncertainty

Figure 2. The interactive effect of leader humility and

environmental uncertainty on

perceived leader support

Bad time to be humble!

19

the effectiveness of humble leaders is worthy of investigation. In particular, research has suggested that behaving humbly may be less effective in extreme conditions, such as under threat and time pressure (Owens and Hekman, 2012). Environmental uncertainty poses a threat to organizational functioning, demanding timely reactions from organizations. As such, examining environmental uncertainty as a boundary condition sheds light on the less practical side of leader humility. This finding echoes tenets of contingency leadership that effective leadership is not universal but requires leaders to adapt and adjust their behaviors to suit situational demands.

Second, by investigating perceived leader support as a key mechanism underlying why humble leaders are comparatively less effective in times of uncertainty, we enrich understanding of the immediate influence of leader humility. In an uncertain environment, followers seek decisive and confident leaders to take immediate actions to give clear directions and reestablish order (Owens and Hekman, 2012; Waldman et al., 2001). We highlight why humble leaders may be questioned in an uncertain environment. Although relational (e.g. leader–member exchange; Qin et al., 2020) and affective (e.g. negative affect; Qin et al., 2021) perspectives have been taken to understand why the positive influences of leader humility may be weakened, a resource perspective has received comparatively less attention. As providing resources for followers largely influences followers’ cognitive experiences and attitudinal outcomes (Amabile et al., 2004; Shanock and Eisenberger, 2006), adopting a resource perspective to examine how perceived leader support varies upon leader humility and environmental uncertainty enriches understanding of the effectiveness of leader humility.

Third, we deepen knowledge about the antecedents of perceived leader support. Leaders are expected to guide, direct, and facilitate follower performance (Eden and Leviatan, 1975). Perceptions of favorable leader treatments can significantly enhance followers’ motivations and job outputs. Research has associated perceptions of leader support with top-down leadership (e.g. empowering leadership; Kim et al., 2018). However, little attention has been paid to its link with bottom-up leadership. This is surprising considering that bottom-up leadership emphasizes follower well-being and response to individual needs (Owens and Hekman, 2012; van Dierendonck, 2011). Therefore, we enhance understanding in this regard by identifying leader humility as a bottom-up leadership approach contributing to perceptions of leader support.

Limitations and future research Despite the time-lagged study design, the nature of the cross-sectional data prevents us from drawing definitive causal conclusions on the hypothesized relationships. Relatedly, all variables were self-reported. Although common method variance is not a significant issue (the most prominent factor explains 33% of total variance, which is below the 50% threshold; Hair et al., 2010), using other-rater reports or objective measurements can further reduce this issue. For instance, follower performance can be measured by leader or coworker reports or objective metrics, such as performance records. As such, we encourage future research to conduct longitudinal or experimental studies and obtain measurements from multiple sources to drawmore robust causal inferences and enhance the generalizability of the current findings.

While we examine perceived leader support as an essential mechanism linking leader humility to comparatively lower follower performance in an uncertain environment, we encourage future research to explore other mechanisms. For example, demonstrating humility in times of uncertainty may lead followers to doubt leader competence (Cojuharenco and Karelaia, 2020; Owens and Hekman, 2012). As such, followers may attribute leader humility to dependence on them and believe the reasons underlying leader humility are due to leaders needing others’ help to maneuver through the tough times (Wang et al., 2018).

LODJ 43,1

20

Decreased trust in leader may also be a possible explanation, as followers perceive leaders to be evasive of leader duties.

We only measure perceived leader support in general terms. Which facets of leader support are more desirable in an uncertain environment is worthy of further investigation. The two-factor theory of leader behavior suggests that influential leaders should engage in task and relationshipmanagement (Amabile et al., 2004). Followers are likely to prioritize goal achievement over psychological needs during uncertain times (van Dierendonck et al., 2014). Therefore, task-related support from leaders may bemore desirable than relationship-related support in an uncertain environment.

Another exciting research avenue pertains to exploring influential leadership during uncertain times. As indicated in our findings, the reason for comparatively lower follower performance in an uncertain environment was because employees perceived little support from their humble leaders. In contrast, directive and autocratic leaders may be perceived as a source of reliability during periods of uncertainty. These leadership styles, often considered less than desirable during regular times, may elicit positive influences in times of uncertainty. In addition, as humble leaders are likely to acknowledge their weaknesses, they may realize the limits and contextual constraints of the positive effects of their humble behaviors over time and adjust their behaviors accordingly (Qin et al., 2020). Therefore, adopting a dynamic and temporal perspective to study leader humility will likely shed light on whether humble leaders may adjust themselves when uncertainty prolongs.

Practical implications Organizations nowadays face an increasingly complex and dynamic environment. Leaders are generally encouraged to express humility by admitting their weaknesses, appreciating followers’ strengths and contributions, and being open to employees of different skills, backgrounds, and abilities (Owens and Hekman, 2012; Wang et al., 2018). However, our findings suggest that leaders should think twice about being humble in times of uncertainty and be decisive and provide clear guidance during these times. Our study does not deny the positivity of leader humility but instead points out that even a good virtue such as humility has limits. As such, leaders should adapt leadership to environmental needs and organizations should train their leaders about the advantages and disadvantages of leadership during different times.

References

Agle, B.R., Nagarajan, N.J., Sonnenfeld, J.A. and Srinivasan, D. (2006), “Does CEO charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationships among organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and top management team perceptions of CEO charisma”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 161-174, doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785800.

Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. and Kramer, S.J. (2004), “Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: perceived leader support”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 5-32, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-295, doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4.

Bass, B.M. (1990), “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 19-31, doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S.

Boje, D.M., Rosile, G.A., Durant, R.A. and Luhman, J.T. (2004), “Enron spectacles: a critical dramaturgical analysis”, Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 751-774, doi: 10.1177/ 0170840604042413.

Bad time to be humble!

21

Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written material”, in Triandis, H.C. and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 389-444.

Chang, G. and Diddams, M. (2009), “Hubris or humility: cautions surrounding the construct and self- definition of authentic leadership”, Paper Presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL, doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2009.44247841.

Chiu, C.-Y. and Owens, B.P. (2013), “Exploring the relationship between humility and perceived charisma: role of gender”, Paper Presented at the 73th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Lake Buena Vista, FL, doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2013.15821abstract.

Cojuharenco, I. and Karelaia, N. (2020), “When leaders ask questions: can humility premiums buffer the effects of competence penalties?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 156, pp. 113-134, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.12.001.

Eden, D. and Leviatan, U. (1975), “Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 736-741, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736.

Ellington, J.K., Dierdorff, E.C. and Rubin, R.S. (2014), “Decelerating the diminishing returns of citizenship on task performance: the role of social context and interpersonal skill”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 748-758, doi: 10.1037/a0036102.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hayes, A.F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Humphreys, J.H. and Einstein, W.O. (2003), “Nothing new under the sun: transformational leadership from a historical perspective”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 85-95, doi: 10.1108/ 00251740310452934.

Kim, D., Moon, C.W. and Shin, J. (2018), “Linkages between empowering leadership and subjective well- being and work performance via perceived organizational and co-worker support”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 844-858, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-06-2017-0173.

Lane, M.S. and Klenke, K. (2004), “The ambiguity tolerance interface: a modified social cognitive model for leading under uncertainty”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 69-81, doi: 10.1177/107179190401000306.

Li, J. and Tang, Y. (2010), “CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: the moderating role of managerial discretion”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 45-68, doi: 10.5465/ amj.2010.48036912.

Marks, S.R. (1974), “Durkheim’s theory of anomie”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 329-363, doi: 10.1086/225803.

Martin, S.L., Liao, H. and Campbell, E.M. (2013), “Directive versus empowering leadership: a field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 1372-1395, doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0113.

Milliken, F.J. (1987), “Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: state, effect, and response uncertainty”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 133-143, doi: 10.2307/257999.

Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A.H.B., Van Vianen, A.E.M. and Ten Velden, F.S. (2013), “Uncertainty enhances the preference for narcissistic leaders”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 370-380, doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1943.

Ou, A.Y., Waldman, D.A. and Peterson, S.J. (2018), “Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 1147-1173, doi: 10.1177/ 0149206315604187.

Owens, B.P. and Hekman, D.R. (2012), “Modeling how to grow: an inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 787-818, doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0441.

LODJ 43,1

22

Owens, B.P. and Hekman, D.R. (2016), “How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 1088-1111, doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0660.

Owens, B.P., Johnson, M.D. and Mitchell, T.R. (2013), “Expressed humility in organizations: implications for performance, teams, and leadership”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1517-1538, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0795.

Owens, B.P., Wallace, A.S. and Waldman, D.A. (2015), “Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: the counterbalancing effect of leader humility”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 1203-1213, doi: 10.1037/a0038698.

Pfeffer, J. (2015), Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time, HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

Qin, X., Chen, C., Yam, K.C., Huang, M. and Ju, D. (2020), “The double-edged sword of leader humility: investigating when and why leader humility promotes versus inhibits subordinate deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 105 No. 7, pp. 693-712, doi: 10.1037/apl0000456.

Qin, X., Liu, X., Brown, J.A., Zheng, X. and Owens, B.P. (2021), “Humility harmonized? Exploring whether and how leader and employee humility (in)congruence influences employee citizenship and deviance behaviors”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 170 No. 1, pp. 147-165, doi: 10.1007/ s10551-019-04250-4.

Rosenthal, S.A. and Pittinsky, T.L. (2006), “Narcissistic leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 617-633, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E. and Popper, M. (1998), “Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 387-409, doi: 10.2307/ 257080.

Shanock, L.R. and Eisenberger, R. (2006), “When supervisors feel supported: relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 689-695, doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.91.3.689.

Swain, J. and Korenman, L. (2018), “In their humble opinion: how expressions of humility affect superiors’ assessments of leadership potential in the US Army”, Military Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 507-527, doi: 10.1080/08995605.2018.1503002.

Thompson, G. and Vecchio, R.P. (2009), “Situational leadership theory: a test of three versions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 837-848, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014.

van Dierendonck, D. (2011), “Servant leadership: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1228-1261, doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462.

van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., de Windt, N. and Alkema, J. (2014), “Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 544-562, doi: 10. 1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014.

Vroom, V.H. and Jago, A.G. (2007), “The role of the situation in leadership”, American Psychologist, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 17-24, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17.

Waldman, D.A., Ram�ırez, G.G., House, R.J. and Puranam, P. (2001), “Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 134-143, doi: 10.2307/3069341.

Wang, L., Owens, B.P., Li, J.(J.) and Shi, L. (2018), “Exploring the affective impact, boundary conditions, and antecedents of leader humility”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 9, pp. 1019-1038, doi: 10.1037/apl0000314.

Bad time to be humble!

23

Weick, K.E. (2001), “Leadership as the legitimization of doubt”, in Bennis, W., Spreitzer, G.M. and Cummings, T.G. (Eds), The Future of Leadership: Today’s Top Leadership Thinkers Speak to Tomorrow’s Leaders, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 91-102.

Williams, E.A., Pillai, R., McCombs, K.M. and Lowe, K.B. (2021), “The roles of character and charisma in evaluating leadership: effects of dark triad and honesty-humility traits, attributed charisma, and COVID-19 crisis anxiety in rejecting a presidential leadership candidate”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 181, 111035, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111035.

Wolfteich, C.E., Ruffing, E.G., Crabtree, S.A., Devor, N.G. and Sandage, S.J. (2021), “Humility and religious leadership: a qualitative study of theology and practice”, Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 231-254, doi: 10.1080/19349637.2019.1691967.

Corresponding author Jih-Yu Mao can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

LODJ 43,1

24