Impacts of Leader Humility Between Authority and Trustworthiness on Compliance: Tests of Three-Way Interaction

Abstract

This study aims to examine how leader humility affects the relationship between authority and trustworthiness, and its effect on subordinate compliance. This study further addresses the reliability and validity issue to advance the measurement of humility; 300 participants consisting of leader-subordinate dyads of 50 leaders and 250 subordinates contributed to the data collections. This study found that both trustworthiness and authority have impact on subordinate compliance. Through three-way moderating analysis, this study further revealed that a leader’s high humility, along with high trustworthiness under high authority results in the highest compliance, whereas a leader’s high humility combined with low trustworthiness under low authority leads to the lowest compliance. Moreover, although a leader’s personal background showed no relationship with the degree of leader humility, divergent combinations of leader-subordinate backgrounds were found to affect the degree of humility. Based on our findings, we propose that to effectively increase compliance, leader humility must be viewed as a strength when combined with high trustworthiness in high authority situations. This study may prompt future research in exploring humility in the context of virtue versus power, and the effects of humility in leadership. The implications of these findings for both theory and practice are also discussed.

Keywords

authority compliance humility leadership trustworthiness

Introduction

The importance of humility in leadership has become increasingly relevant as a research topic, particularly in relation to the effectiveness of leadership, followers, organizations and teams (Collins, 2005; Mao et al., 2019; Ou et al., 2014; Rego et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2014; Yuan et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017). For example, Collins (2005) concluded that the key ingredient that enables a company to become great is having a Level 5 leader: A CEO with humility combines this with intense professional skills. Before the advent of corporate scandals that occurred in the United States, this idea may have sounded counterintuitive to what almost everyone believed, meaning that CEOs should be charismatic, larger-than-life figures. Prior research has focused on humility measures (Ashton & Lee, 2007; Landrum, 2011), job performance, satisfaction (Johnson et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2014), innovation (Yuan et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017), the effect of this on organization or team performance (Collins, 2005; Owens et al., 2013; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004), and leadership behaviors (Hayes & Comer, 2011; Owens & Hekman, 2012).

Drawing from a compliance theory on power-involvement relationships (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Etzioni, 1970), we propose an interactive framework for examining the moderating effects of leader humility on authority-compliance and trust-compliance relationships. It has been argued that Etzioni’s compliance theory is complementary to the concept that formal authority is effective when accepted by subordinates. Etzioni (1970) maintains that a leader exerting his influence must combine authority with strong personal characteristics, and exert power while acting as a moral role model. This research aims to examine: 1) whether power that arises as authority and trustworthiness would influence subordinate compliance; 2) whether trustworthiness affects compliance more strongly than authority, and 3) whether there is moderation of leader humility between authority and trustworthiness in obtaining compliance. Furthermore, this study seeks to test if the three-way moderating effects of humility, authority and trustworthiness affect compliance. This study also explores the role of humility in leadership within the context of virtue and power, and presents the first research to theorize and empirically investigate these issues together.

Scholars suggest that humility should be positively viewed as the science of the self-examined through a trustful understanding of one’s strengths and weaknesses , involving not only honest self-appraisal but also an ability to forget the self and appreciate the value of all things (Ben-Ze'ev & Ben-Zeʼev, 2001; Tangney, 2000). Humility demonstrates not only a willingness to see the self accurately (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), but also a strong desire to serve followers (George, 2003). However, humility has also been perceived as a form of personal weakness (Exline & Geyer, 2004), such as the underestimation of one’s own importance or a lack of self-confidence (Pearsall & Trumble, 1996), a kind of monkish virtue (Hume, 1994), a personal tendency to judge or closely focus insight on oneself (Morris et al., 2005).

Eastern wisdom approached humility as a need to let go of the self and connect with a greater reality (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Buddhist and Taoist teachings recognized humility as important to human excellence. In Buddhist teaching, two key elements of enlightenment used to end suffering from individual misperception or ignorance of the self (Mishra, 2004) were right view, involving awareness of things as they really were, and right intention, involving freeing oneself from selfishness. Humility was valued in the Taoist tradition because it was believed that leader effectiveness was largely determined by the leader’s ability to let go in order to achieve harmony with Tao. For example, humility, or “Ch’ien”, included in the I-Ching, Xi Ci II, symbolizes auspicious. The Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu proposed, “All streams flow to the sea because it is lower than they are; humility gives it its power.” Thus, if one wants to govern the people, one must place oneself below them, called “resting below”, i.e. one must learn how to follow them. In other words, “A good employer is humble and known as the virtue of “Not striving” (Chaper 66, 68; Tao Te Ching) (translation by Mitchell, 1988). Moreover, “The superior man possesses merit, still humble; the myriads of the people will submit to him” (I-Ching, Xiang Zhuan); this is interpreted as “no resting.”

Leader humility is referred to as a personal orientation founded on a willingness to see the self accurately and a propensity to put oneself in perspective (Morris et al., 2005). Additionally, Solomon (1999) defined humility as “a realistic assessment of one’s own contribution and the recognition of the contribution of others, along with luck and good fortune that made one’s own success possible” (p.94). Most prior empirical studies on leader humility primarily emphasized humility-based behaviors of the self and the followers; for example, Exline and Geyer (2004) examined the perception of humility, and found that humility was viewed as a strength across the social roles sampled and positively associated with high self-esteem and religiosity. Morris et al. (2005) proposed that humility is a mediator between individual differences and leader behaviors, predicating that humility is best viewed as supportive of others, a socialized power motivation and a factor in participative leadership. Owens and Hekman (2012) proposed that humble leaders must acknowledge their limitations, faults and mistakes, modeling teachability and spotlighting followers’ strength and contributions. However, little is known about interpersonal relationships between subordinates and leaders demonstrating humility with trustworthiness under authority. This article aims to address this gap by exploring how leader humility affects the relationships among authority and trustworthiness and subordinate compliance, and develops leader humility as a moderator in the leadership framework.

Drawing from the integrated viewpoints and thoughts from the East and the West, we offer the perspective that humility involves six connected but distinct dimensions: (1) self-awareness (Furey, 1986; Morris et al., 2005; Schein et al., 2001; Tangney, 2000; Xu et al., 2019), (2) openness (Collins, 2005; Morris et al., 2005; Richards, 1992), (3) transcendence (Dennett, 1995; Morris et al., 2005; Peterson & Seligman, 2004), (4) self-reflection and improvement (Collins, 2001; Furey, 1986; Schein et al., 2001), (5) respectfulness and focus on others (Exline & Geyer, 2004; Owens & Hekman, 2012; Rowatt et al., 2002; Tangney, 2002), and (6) gratitude (Ben-Ze'ev & Ben-Zeʼev, 2000; Collins, 2001; Garmston, 1999; Solomon, 1999; Tangney, 2002; Xu et al., 2019).

This study defines humility as a characteristic in an individual who possesses the endorsed yet relinquishes freely, with the ability to transcend acceptance of all existing facts and values. This characteristic resonates with the ideas of Xu et al. (2019), that a person with humility accurately and open-mindedly realizes the self in his/her abilities, limitations, and in confronting the challenges of life. This study uses the integrated dimensions and definition of humility above to test two research questions: first to determine whether leader humility facilitates subordinate compliance under authority, and second to determine if leader humility strengthens compliance because of trustworthiness.

Theoretical framework and hypothesis

This study proposes the framework that leader humility combined with trustworthiness under authority affects subordinate compliance. Drawing from compliance theory, Etzioni (1975, 1997) classified organizations by the type of power they use to direct the behavior of their members and the type of involvement of the participants. It is depicted by three kinds of power: coercive, remunerative, and normative, used by the power holders to generate congruent compliance relationships: normative-moral, remunerative-calculative, and coercive-alienative (Azim & Boseman, 1975). Power and authority are not conceptually distant (Grimes, 1978); they are considered extremes on a control continuum. Such control is distinct from Buckley’s (1967) definitions of power and authority: Power is the control or influence over the actions of others to promote one's goals without their consent, against their will or without their knowledge or understanding. Authority is the direction or control of the behavior of others for the promotion of collective goals based on some ascertainable form of their knowledgeable consent. Blau and Scott (1962) summarized four properties of authority: 1) authority is invested in a position; 2) a characteristic of an exercise of authority is voluntary compliance by subordinates; 3) the suspension of judgment by subordinates is in advance of a command or decision; 4) authority can arise only in a collective context. Thus, power that arises from a position seeking to achieve a collective goal rather than that of an individual is authority. Etzioni’s power-involvement contention is complementary to the concept that formal authority is effective when voluntarily accepted by subordinates (Barnard, 1938). The first proposed framework is developed as assuming that authority, arising from a position in a collective context, affects subordinate compliance.

Raven, Schwarzwald, and Koslowsky (1998) contended that effective leaders not only use authority, but also trustworthiness to achieve real compliance by subordinates. According to social exchange theory, built on the norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), Blau (1964) posited that a party in an exchange relationship voluntarily provides benefits to the other party. This reciprocity of trust is a particularly salient issue in the area of leader-subordinate relationships, since the dominant view among leadership theorists is that leader-member exchange (LMX) is mutual and reciprocal (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1993). However, Brower et al. (2000) argued that trust is not necessarily mutual and is not reciprocal because A can trust B, but B may not trust A. Mayer et al. (1995) defined trust as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor. They further proposed that the trustee would be deemed quite trustworthy if factors of trustworthiness: ability, benevolence, and integrity were all perceived to be high. Yet some empirical studies suggest that employee involvement in the decision-making process (Guest et al., 1993) is likely to result in a better understanding of both their perspective and that of management on several operational issues related to work (Leana & Florkowski, 1992). In response, employees are likely to develop a positive attitude towards management. According to Mayer et al. (1995), a positive employee attitude is indicative of the trustworthiness of top management. Since trust is the willingness to be vulnerable to the trustee, this study proposes that there is a strong effect of trustworthiness on subordinate compliance when ability, benevolence and integrity are perceived as being high.

Covey (2006) argued that when people with formal authority or in a position of power refuse to use that authority and power, their moral authority in terms of service, sacrifice and contribution tends to increase because they use reasoning, persuasion, kindness, empathy and trustworthiness instead. According to Covey, borrowing strength from position builds weakness in leaders’ self and others; the use of formal authority leads to less authentic openness and trust tends to atrophy. In contrast, Collins (2005) posited that humble leaders define their organization by references to core values and purpose, build commitment rooted in freedom of choice rather than coercion and control, and accept that the exercise of true leadership is inversely proportional to the exercise of power. Thus, leader humility promotes realizing the effects of authority, resulting from a position in a collective context, in attaining subordinate compliance.

Finally, humility is regarded as a positive characteristic possessed by leaders who are more likely to trust others. Nielsen et al. (2010) defined humility as “a desirable personal quality reflecting the willingness to understand the self (identities, strengths, limitations), combined with perspective in the self’s relationships with others” (p. 34). Mishra and Mishra (2011) posited that leader humility encourages leaders to be vulnerable to their followers and motivates followers to trust one another by acknowledging their collective vulnerability. By admitting their limitations and not pretending to hold all the answers, humble leaders are as dependent on their followers as the followers are on them. Therefore, leader humility fosters the shared sense of trustworthiness between leaders and subordinates, thus increasing compliance. This research framework (Figure 1) leads us to assess whether leader humility is a vital component of effective leadership, corresponding with subordinate deep involvement (compliance), or effective leadership needing to be more trustworthy.

Figure 1.

Model of leader humility and subordinate compliance.

Authority and compliance

Compliance refers to a personal expression of changed attitude or behavior in complying with the requests of others (Taylor, Peplau, & Sears, 1997). Bass (1990) regarded leadership as a respectful and cooperative process that leaders are willing to initiate and followers are willing to go along with. Compliance, therefore, is indicative of a significant relationship among subordinate attitudes and behavior and effective leadership (Becker et al., 1996).

Authority is defined as a kind of legitimate power that can be assigned to specific persons or positions (Katz & Kahn, 1966). A mover with power is able to influence others to execute his/her orders, or to achieve the scope that others have supported. Chinese and Western leadership scholars have debated the effect of leadership on authority-compliance relationships for decades. For example, paternalistic leadership, referred to as, “a style that combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence” (Farh & Cheng, 2000: 91; Westwood & Chan, 1992) was regarded as effective leadership combining high power within a detached form of workplace culture (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Scholars have argued that perceptions of paternalism, as combining benevolence with control of decision making, have not been favorable (Aycan, 2006; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2005). Regarding this argument, Cheng et al. (2004) conducted an empirical study and found a contingency result: moral leadership has the greatest effect on subordinate compliance; benevolent leadership has the most powerful effect on identification and imitation, and for subordinates with high authority orientation and who value compliance and obligations, authoritarian leadership shows a stronger effect. The findings are consistent with a previous study (Cheng et al., 2000) showing that, for Chinese subordinates, leadership with both 恩 en (favor) and 威 wei (might) is the most effective in inducing positive subordinate responses to the superior.

Etzioni (1975) categorized three kinds of power: utilitarian power used by leaders to reward subordinates based on performance, coercive power used to force followers to meet power holders’ expectations, and normative power used to reach controls based on common beliefs among members. In contrast to Etzioni’s (1975) congruent power-involvement relationships, French and Raven (1959) proposed that the powers are not only come from positions (harsh powers, such as rewards, coercive and legitimate powers), but also from persons (soft powers, such as giving expert and referent advices). These three authoritative powers are similar to the resource dependence perspective contending that power is the source of limited and irreplaceable resources that a leader can control (Farmer & Aguinis, 2005). Drawing from the fact that authority is derived from power of position and the power to control resources, this study argues that there is a strong link between authority and subordinate compliance.

H1 ：With the positive correlation of power with compliance, authority significantly impacts subordinate compliance.

Trustworthiness and compliance

Referring to Mayer et al. (1995) and Schoorman et al. (2007), this study defines trustworthiness as the willingness of the trustor (subordinate) to be vulnerable to the trustee (leader), and dependent on three factors of trustworthiness demonstrated by the trustees: ability, benevolence, and integrity. Nadelson et al. (2014) defined trustworthiness as the extent to which an individual finds a situation or people worthy of trust; trustworthiness is thus an attribute people assign to situations or individuals, and is used as a basis for determining trust (Barney & Hansen, 1994). Trustworthiness has been identified as a precedent to the development of trust (Caldwell & Clapham, 2003). Brower et al. (2000) proposed that trustworthiness is linked to effective leader-member dyadic relationships.

According to Mayer et al. (1995), trustworthiness is important in understanding why and how some parties are more trusted than others. The trustors (subordinates) are more willing to take risky actions; they tend to comply more with trustees’ (leaders’) request. Leader trustworthiness has the potential to explicate how leadership behaviors can lead to increased interpersonal commitment and extra employee role behaviors (Caldwell & Hansen, 2010). This study argues that the trustworthiness of leaders with highly predictable behavior affects subordinate compliance:

H2：Trustworthiness significantly affects subordinate compliance.

Humility, authority and compliance

Chinese pundits posited that, “Leadership is a kind of influential process which takes time to gradually convince followers of complete compliance” (I-Ching, Tuan Zhuan); and that, “When one causes men to submit by virtue instead of by force, they submit to him sincerely and willingly” (Mencius, Gon Sun Chou I). It is suggested that Power and Virtue are essential elements for effective leadership, which is consistent with compliance theory.

According to McClelland (1975), leaders with a preference for personalized power (i.e., those at the lower levels of power motivation) are more likely to use power for the betterment of the self and tend to manifest dominance-submission as well as win-lose relationships between the leader and others. Personal satisfaction for these leaders stems from winning, specifically by conquering others. Those who want to exercise control over others and to advance personal interest are concerned about maintaining their authority positions. This study argues that subordinates will exhibit less compliance to leaders with formal authority derived from personalized power. In contrast to personalized power, socialized power (i.e., those at the higher levels of power motivation) is characterized by a concern for the achievement of group goals through the efforts of group members, and is used to influence others to achieve organizational success for the betterment of all rather than for self-promotion or glorification. In line with authority that arises from a position of power in a collective context, effective leaders with a high need for socialized power exercise power more for the benefit of the whole organization, while also achieving subordinate compliance.

Morris et al. (2005) supported the idea that leader humility has positive socialized power motivation, with the intent to provide benefits to organizations. For example, Collins (2001, Collins, 2005) conducted an empirical study examining why leader humility brings significantly great benefits to organizations, and found several indicative examples: (1). First, the superior performance of the organization led by the ‘humble’ CEO is continually sustained over long periods, often spanning decades. Second, the organization is quite often the benchmark performer in its particular industry. Finally, the sustained superior performance of the organization continues long past the tenure of the humble leader if the humble leader retires, resigns, or otherwise leaves the helm of the organization. Therefore, McClelland’s (1975) socialized power motivation is consistent with Blau and Scott’s (1962) concepts of authority. This study expects that this form of leader humility with authority arising from socialized power rather than personalized power leads to higher subordinate compliance.

H3a. Leader humility significantly and positively moderates the relationships between authority that arises from power and authority that arises from compliance.

Humility, trustworthiness and compliance

Taken together with the aforementioned Western and Eastern thoughts, humble leaders demonstrate a willingness to see the self accurately and ignorance of the self; they display a strong desire to serve others and display the virtue of “Resting below” to the followers as well as “Taking no merits” from them. Thus, humble leaders engage in more of a bottom-up approach to leadership (Morris et al., 2005; Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004; Weick, 2001) because they acknowledge themselves as the ones who can’t figure all the answers out at the top (Senge, 2006). Humble leaders are perceived to genuinely care about their subordinates and convey this authentic concern in relationships (Caldwell & Hayes, 2007). Humble leaders will better reflect the values and opinions of followers and further enhance follower commitment and motivation toward the mission (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Moreover, leader humility can enhance the creation of trust (Argandona, 2015). Al Alawati et al. (2019) maintain that humble leaders heighten followers’ trust and commitment; hence, leader humility, characterized from a trustful understanding of the self and serving others, is argued to be trustworthy and to facilitate subordinate compliance.

H3b. Leader humility significantly and positively moderates the relationship between trustworthiness and compliance.

Three-way interaction: Humility, authority, trustworthiness

As several findings indicate, humility involves leaders modeling to their followers how to reinforce mutual leader-follower development (Owens & Hekman, 2012), follower satisfaction, and engagement (Owens et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2014; Zhong et al., 2019). There are other conditions which facilitate interactions with humility; for instance, Owens and Hekman (2012) suggested that the moderating effect of humility on leadership may be influenced by other factors, such as organizational learning culture, hierarchical rigidity, etc. Sun et al. (2014) found that the interactive effects between follower proactive personality and leader humility can impact followers’ job satisfaction. Inherently, the level of subordinate compliance to leaders may be dependent on the level of authority that arises from power and trustworthiness. Therefore, this study further investigates the interactive conditions: humility moderating the relationships among authority, trustworthiness and compliance.

H4. There is a three-way integration between leader humility, authority, and trustworthiness in explaining subordinate compliance. The highest levels of compliance are expected when humility, authority, and trustworthiness are all high.

Methodology

Data and samples

The purpose of this study is to examine how leader humility moderates the effects of authority and trustworthiness on subordinate compliance. Data were collected from six private companies and five public organizations in Taiwan, including 300 participants (i.e., dyads of 50 leaders with 250 subordinates). To avoid the issue of common method variance, this research conducted a dyad survey of the leader–subordinate relationship. Leaders completed the humility questionnaires, and their immediate subordinates were asked to complete the questionnaires on authority, trustworthiness, and compliance. Of the valid responses, 187 and 33 were completed by subordinates and leaders, yielding 75.8% and 66% response rates, respectively. This study performed descriptive analysis, analysis of variance, and hierarchical regression analysis to examine the main effects and the three-way moderating effects. This study constructed the hierarchical linear model (HLM) to test the cross-level moderation effect of leader humility. As team level variables are aggregated by individual reports in the teams, it is necessary to test the feasibility of ICC1 and ICC2. The ICC1 value was 0.000044, which is lower than the threshold of 0.12, and the ICC2 value was 0.0014, which is lower than the threshold of 0.7, as calculated based on the null model (only including common intercept, controlled variables, between-group error term, and within-group error term) of subordinate compliance. The above results show that this study is not suitable for constructing HLM.

Dependent variables

Compliance

The scale was adapted from Cheng et al. (2000) based on responses describing the compliance of subordinates working under paternalistic leadership. The scale consists of 5 items used to measure the degree to which a subordinate shows compliance to leaders, for instance, “I am sincerely compliant to my leader” (α =.91).

Independent variables

Humility

The study developed the measurements of humility, including 16 items of five dimensions (α = .82). The five dimensions are named as follows. “No resting” consists of 5 items, with the example: “After successfully doing something, I usually do not think it was due to my merit” (α =.91). “Openness” consists of 4 items, with the example: “I usually can accept notions and methods different from mine” (α =.77). “Consulting below” consists of 4 items, with the example: “Whenever I consult others, I fear that they look down on me” (α = .84). “Knowing limits” consists of 3 items, with the example: “I clearly understand what I am good at and not good at” (α =.79). Finally, “transcendence” consists of 3 items, with the example: “As anything is usually very complex, one doesn’t think the self can grasp the truth” (α =.62).

Authority

In order to catch the realms of authority that arise from a position in a collective context, this study followed the Power Perceived Scale (α＝.93) developed by Hersey et al. (1979) to measure authority, 5 items with the examples: “My leader is able to impose sanctions and punishment against those who are not cooperative”, “My leader is capable of offering adequate rewards to those who can operate in coordination,” and “My leader has enough influence on decision making in the organization.”

Trustworthiness

This study used Mayer et al.^’s (1995) 16 items of three dimensions (α = .94), including ability, benevolence, and integrity, to measure trustworthiness in the leader. 6 items ask subordinates about the abilities of leaders, with the example: “I have confidence in my leader” (α =.92). 5 items relate leaders’ benevolence to subordinates, with the example: “When my leader makes an important decision, he or she can consider our interests” (α =.96). 5 items were asked to measure leaders’ integrity, with the example: “My leader’s behavior is consistent all the time” (α =.65).

Controls

Prior research suggests that background variables are related to subordinates’ mental responses (Burke & Richardsen, 2000; Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Tsai, 2001). For instance, Cheng et al. (2004) found that tenure and position are related to compliance. Furthermore, females were found to be more likely to use reward powers on incompliant subordinates than were male leaders, connecting to variations of gender and age (Farh et al., 1997). Farh et al. (1997) argued that leaders, as well as subordinates, tend to have stronger organization commitment under longer tenure, more resources, and longer working experience, consistent with the finding that the tenure of followers and leaders impacts subordinate response (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Therefore, this study controlled the background variables such as gender, position, education, tenure, years of co-working between subordinates and leaders, since they might influence the compliance of subordinates.

Data analysis

Questionnaire surveys were conducted in Taiwan, following a back-translation procedure. Measurements were based on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Variance analysis was performed to analyze subordinate and leader background characteristics, such as gender, age, position, education, marital status, and industry. Leader positions were found to hold a significant correlation with authority and ability. The factors of subordinate gender and education revealed a significant association with leader humility. Subordinates with college degrees showed a higher correlation with leader humility than those with senior high and junior college degrees. Among the five dimensions of humility, our variance analysis reports that only the leader^’s age (over 50) was significantly correlated with the item “consulting below.”

This study used hierarchical regression analysis; a series of hierarchical multiple regressions was performed to test the main and moderating effects for the proposed hypotheses. Control variables were first fit in the model. Humility and the independent variables of authority and trustworthiness were then separately incorporated into the model. Finally, the interaction term between humility and the independent variables were introduced to the model in the presence of other covariates. To avoid multicollinearity, we centralized the variables and the moderator before multiplication (Aiken & West, 1991). A significant interaction term is evidence of a moderating effect of humility. In such case, a “moderated plot” was plotted (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Three-way interaction of humility between authority, trustworthiness and compliance.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis

In order to test the discriminative validity of the variables in this study, AMOS 20 was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis of the discriminative validity among the variables in this study. The four-factor model, three-factor model, two-factor model, and single-factor model were tested, respectively, and the results are shown in Table 1. A comparison of the fit indices of the four models shows that the three-factor model has the best fit, especially the combination of subordinate trust and supervisor moderation: χ²/df = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.117, TLI = 0.785, CFI = 0.800, SRMR = 0.083, which indicates that the variables in this study have good structure validity.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations.^a

	Variables	Mean	s.d.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	Subordinate sex	.44	.50
2	Subordinate education	3.51	.94	–.02
3	Subordinate rank	3.80	.63	–.12	.24**
4	Co-work years	6.70	7.10	.10	–.16*	–.06
5	Subordinate tenure	16.40	9.32	.11	–.06	–.03	.43**
6	Supervisor Sex	.75	.43	.10	.01	–.08	–.02	–.03
7	Authority	4.97	.75	.09	–.14	–.09	.05	–.12	–.05
8	Trustworthiness	4.97	.56	–.07	.02	.00	–.14	–.08	–.03	.63**
9	Humility	4.91	.44	–.15*	.25**	.07	.08	.19*	.07	.04	.07
10	Compliance	5.12	.68	–.01	–.10	.02	–.04	–.09	–.03	.74**	.82**	.08

^an = 187.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Descriptive statistics

The characteristic data of the sample participants are described as follows. The percentage of gender-related trust to female subordinates and leaders was 56.1% and 36.4%, respectively, and for male subordinates and leaders it was 43.9% and 63.6%, respectively. The age percentage of participating subordinates was 36.4% for ages 46∼50, 17.6% for ages 41∼45, and 9.1% for ages 36∼40, where the age percentage of participating leaders was 42.4% for ages 46∼50, 27.3% for ages 41∼45, and 27.3% for over age 51. The percentage of education related to subordinates was 58.8% for college, 17.6% for junior college, while for leaders it was 33.3% for junior college, and 24.2% for college and graduate levels; 36% of subordinate tenure was over 20 years and 3.2% were less 1 year; 74.3% of subordinates were married and 20.3% were unmarried, while 90.9% of leaders were married. Non-leader subordinates were at 82.4%, and leader positions were among 21.2% for the top manager level, 42.4% for middle managers, and 36.4% for base-level supervisors. Involved industries reported 46.5% in manufacturing and 53.5% in service.

The correlation matrix (Table 1) reported significant and positive relationships as follows: trustworthiness and authority (r = .63, p < .001), authority and compliance (r = .74, p < .001), humility and subordinate education (r = .25, p < .01), indicating that the higher the level of education subordinates, the stronger the degree of humility the leader will demonstrate. Humility and subordinate tenure were also positive (r = .19, p < .05), showing that subordinates with longer tenure more strongly correlate with leader humility. However, other correlations were reported as being negative, such as humility and subordinate gender (r = -.15, p < .05), indicating a more positive correlation in humility for females than that demonstrated in males. The variance inflation factor, VIF, was between 1.06 and 2.05, far below 10, ensuring that multicollinearity did not affect the analysis results (Hair et al., 1998).

Model 1 (Table 2) shows results that were not significant, as control variables related to background characteristics were added in the model. Model 2 (Table 2) indicates that both authority and trustworthiness significantly impacted subordinate compliance (△R² = .75; F = 54.13, p < .001). The effect of authority on compliance was significant (△R² = .29; p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Moreover, trustworthiness significantly affects compliance (△R² = .66, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 2. Model 4 (Table 2) reports that humility significantly moderates the relationship of both authority and trustworthiness on compliance (△R² = −1.2, p < .05). A further simple slope analysis, we can see that for subjects with a higher level of leader humility (M + 1SD), leader authority has a significant positive predictive effect on subordinate compliance, simple slope = .3649, t = 5.7303, p < .01; and for subjects with a low level of leader humility (M-1SD), although leader authority has a positive predictive effect on subordinate compliance, its predictive effect is small, simple slope = .1531, t = 2.2917, p < .05, indicating that as the leader’s level of humility increases, the predictive effect of leader’s authority on subordinates’ compliance is gradually increasing. It can also be seen for subjects with a higher level of leader humility (M + 1SD), subordinate trust has a significant positive predictive effect on subordinate compliance, simple slope = .8653, t = 11.6202, p < .01. For subjects with a lower level of leader humility (M-1SD), subordinate trust also has a positive predictive effect on subordinate compliance, but its predictive effect is less, simple slope = .6507, t = 7.5745, p < .01, indicating that as leader humility increases, the predictive effect of subordinate trust on subordinate compliance is gradually increasing.

Table 2.

Hierarchical regression modeling for subordinate compliance.

Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Subordinate sex	–0.03	0.00	.03	.034
Subordinate education	–0.07	–0.07	–.10*	–.098
Subordinate rank	0.09	.15**	.14**	.140
Co-work years	0.01	0.02	.03	.037
Subordinate tenure	–0.07	0.01	–.03	–.040
Supervisor Sex	0.03	0.05	.06	.051
Supervisor position	–0.02	0.00	–.00	.008
Authority		.29***	.27***	.27***
Trustworthiness		.66***	.64***	.65***
Moderator		.05	.09	.14**
Humility
Moderation by Humility
Humility × Authority			.08	.04
Humility × Trustworthiness			–.07	–.04
Authority × Trustworthiness			.05	.04
Humility × Authority × Trustworthiness				–.12*
△R²	.02	.77***	.78***	.79***
R²	.02	.75***	.76***	.77***
Adjusted R²	.02	.75***	.02*	.01*
Model F	.42	48.92***	40.10***	40.00***

^an = 187.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Three-way interactive effect analysis

To test H4 (Hypothesis 4), this study computed the three-way interaction between subordinate trustworthiness, leader humility, and leader authority, and entered the result into the equation. As seen in Table 2, Model 4 shows that the addition of the three-way interaction between subordinate trustworthiness, leader humility, and authority increases the R² of the overall model by 0.79 (p < .001), which suggests that it is appropriate to examine the nature of this relationship, supporting Hypothesis 4 that humility significantly moderates the relationship of both authority and trustworthiness on compliance. A further simple slope analysis of the three significant interaction effects shows that the tests of simple slopes for all four lines are significant (p < .001). As Table 3 and Figure 2 show, the highest levels of subordinate compliance are observed when subordinate trustworthiness, leader humility, and leader authority are high. This figure also shows that when subordinate trustworthiness and leader humility are both high, but leader authority is low, and when subordinate trustworthiness and leader authority are both high, but leader humility is low, the levels of subordinate compliance are also high. The more moderate expectations for two further combinations—high subordinate trustworthiness, low leader humility and low leader authority, and low subordinate trustworthiness, high leader humility and authority—are also apparent in Figure 2. Lower levels of expected subordinate compliance are observed when leader humility is low, but both subordinate trustworthiness and leader authority are high, and when leader humility is high, but both subordinate trustworthiness and leader authority are low. The lowest expected levels of subordinate compliance are observed when subordinate trustworthiness and leader authority are both low, but leader humility is high.

Table 3.

Tests of simple slopes.

		Compliance
Humility	Authority	B	t
Low	Low	0.64	5.80***
High	Low	0.96	10.20***
Low	High	0.79	6.37***
High	High	0.66	6.76***

***p< .001.

Unstandardized coefficients are reported.

From the intersection of two lines, the low authority and high humility, and the low authority and low humility in Figure 2, it can be seen that when authority is low, the interaction effect of high humility was found to be more significant than the effect of low humility on the relationship between trustworthiness and compliance. Likewise, under high authority, the moderating effect of high humility is more significant than that of low humility on the relationship between trustworthiness and compliance.

Discussion and conclusion

Key findings

This study found the direct impact of humility on subordinate compliance.

The most effective form of leadership to facilitate subordinate compliance is comprised of high humility with high authority and high trustworthiness; whereas, high leader humility with low trustworthiness illustrates the lowest compliance when authority is low. These conclusions may clarify the idea that, in order to effectively increase compliance, leader humility can be viewed as a strength when combining high trustworthiness under high authority, but may be regarded as weakness when both authority and trustworthiness are low. Second, both trustworthiness and authority positively impact compliance, which is consistent with previous research that showed power sources and the ways power may be used can influence subordinates’ compliance (Cheng, et al., 2004; Farh et al., 2006; Koslowsky et al., 2001). Indeed, the authoritarian-oriented perspective has also been gradually weakened in Chinese organizations (Cheng & Farh, 2000; Yang, 1998). Working with Eastern and Western samples, Owens et al. (2019) found that the moral humility of leaders can predict the moral efficacy and moral behavior of followers.

Theoretical implications

Based on academic standpoints, this research examined the influence of leader humility on subordinate compliance, and used both Eastern and Western leadership concepts to comprehend and predict the leadership phenomenon in Taiwanese society. Verifying the importance of complementary power, as well as the combination of soft power and hard power to highlight the role of leader humility, may be an important direction for future research. This study found that both trustworthiness and authority have impact on subordinate compliance. According to three-way moderating analysis, this study further revealed that a leader’s high humility, along with high trustworthiness under high authority, results in the highest compliance; while a leader’s high humility combined with low trustworthiness under low authority leads to the lowest compliance. Based on our findings, this study proposes that, in order to effectively increase compliance, leader humility must be viewed as a strength when combined with high trustworthiness in high authority situations.

In addition, while this study found that the degree of humility is independent of personal background, there are still distinctions between the humility level and the different leader-subordinate background combinations. For example, the humility effect is higher when the leader-subordinate combination is female-male or male-female. Leader humility is higher when subordinates have a university education. Moreover, leaders over age 50 are more willing to consult others, which is possibly due to their awareness of their own weaknesses, thus, they are willing to accept the opinions of others.

Nevertheless, due to concerns regarding the accurate measurement of humility through self-rating (Morris et al., 2005; Tangney, 2000), following the suggestion of Morris et al. (2005), and in order to exert higher validity from critical events, this study used either the self-evaluation scale or the newly developed measurement of the observable behavior scale. Furthermore, although many researchers have found that most excellent leaders possess the common trait of humility, to achieve leadership effectiveness (Collins, 2001; Etzioni, 1989; Hansen et al., 2010), effective leader humility depends on timing, the situation (Morris et al., 2005), and subordinate attributes towards leader humility (Qin et al., 2020).

Practical implications

Research on leadership, and leadership effectiveness, have been major issues for both academia and business management. However, turmoil and anarchy in the global business environment have taken their toll, and led to demands for better leadership, and more importantly, ethics. While leaders constantly encounter traditional challenges regarding the survival of their enterprises, in contemporary times, they are also challenged regarding their integrity and morality; as heroic and charismatic beliefs in leadership are less emphasized, the authentic, ethical, and spiritual aspects of leaders’ self-awareness are emerging. In retrospect, leaders need to pursue their inner self and the essence of leadership; exploring the concept of humility may somewhat illuminate the maze of modern leadership. Specifically, we should seek practical guidelines and principles for promoting effective leadership by enhancing the compliance of subordinates through the proper exertion of the leader’s humility.

This paper suggests that, in addition to authorized power sources, truly effective leadership lies in the compliance of followers, which is a simple statement, but is difficult to put into action. Leader humility plays a major role in relation to compliance from subordinates, and this is particularly important for managers in Western countries, where a leader’s aggressiveness may be emphasized; it is also especially applicable for managers in the East where leaders are thought to be more conservative. Humility is not spuriously being humble or showing mediocrity; it is honestly facing oneself and being open to others, meaning a willingness to take good advice from others and not being arrogant in order to succeed. However, too much humility can mean no leadership at all; while total arrogance may not convince followers to work collectively for the benefit of the organization. There are two sides of the spectrum when exerting humility, and a delicate balance should be maintained.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yishuo Hung

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Al Alawati

H. A. H.

Sayed

R. T.

Caldwell

(2019). Transformative ethics and moving toward ‘greatness.’ Problems and realities. Modern College of Business & Science, 12, 10.

Argandona

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

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 11(2), 150–166.

Aycan

(2006). Paternalism: towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In Yang

K. S.

Hwang

K. K.

Kim

(Eds.), Scientific advances in indigenous psychologies: Empirical, philosophical, and cultural contributions (pp.445–466). Sage.

Azim

A. N.

Boseman

G. F.

(1975). An empirical assessment of Etzioni’s typology of power and involvement within a university setting. The Academy of Management Journal, 18, 680−689.

Barnard

C. I.

(1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.

Barney

J. B.

Hansen

M. H.

(1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 175–190.

Bass

B. M.

(1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). Free Press.

10.

Becker

T. E.

Billings

R. S.

Eveleth

D. M.

Gilbert

N. L.

(1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464–482.

11.

Ben-Ze'ev

Ben-Zeʼev

(2001). The subtlety of emotions. MIT press.

12.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193–206.

13.

Blau

P. M.

Scott

W. R.

(1962). Formal organizations. Chandler.

14.

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.

15.

Buckley

(1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Prentice-Hall.

16.

Burke, R. J., & Richardsen, A. M. (2000). Psychological Burnout in Organizations: Research and Intervention. In Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Revised and Expanded (pp. 349-386). Routledge.

17.

Caldwell

Hansen

M. H.

(2010). Trustworthiness, governance, and wealth creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 173–188.

18.

Caldwell

Clapham

S. E.

(2003). Organizational trustworthiness: An organizational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(4), 349–364.

19.

Caldwell

Hayes

L. A.

(2007). Leadership, trustworthiness, and the mediating lens. Journal of Management Development, 26(3), 261–281.

20.

Cheng

B. S.

Chou

L. F.

Farh

J. L.

(2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3–64.

21.

Cheng

B.-S.

Chou

L.-F.

T.-Y.

Huang

M.-P.

Farh

J.-L.

(2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89–117.

22.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

(2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591−621.

23.

Collins

(2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. Harper Business.

24.

Collins

(2005). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 7, 136–146.

25.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage.

26.

Cordes

C. L.

Dougherty

T. W.

(1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 621–656.

27.

Covey

S. R.

(2006). Servant leadership use your moral authority to serve. Leadership Excellence, 23, 5.

28.

Dennett

D. C.

(1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. Simon & Schuster.

29.

Etzioni

(1970). Compliance theory. In Grusky

Miller

(Eds.), The sociology of organizations (pp. 103–126). Free Press.

30.

Etzioni

(1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. Free Press.

31.

Etzioni

(1989). Humble decision making. Harvard Business Review, 67(4), 122–126.

32.

Etzioni

(1997). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, European University Institute. Code of Ethics in Academic Research, 79, 1–26.

33.

Exline

J. J.

Geyer

A. L.

(2004). Perceptions of humility: A preliminary study. Self and Identity, 3(2), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500342000077

34.

Farh

J. L.

Cheng

B. S.

(2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In: Li

J. T.

Tsui

A. S.

Weldon

(Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 94–−127). Macmillan.

35.

Farh

J. L.

Cheng

B. S.

Chou

L. F.

Chu

X. P.

(2006). Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In Tsui

A. S.

Bian

Cheng

(Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance. M. E. Sharpe.

36.

Farh

J. L.

Earley

P. C.

Lin

S. C.

(1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behaviour in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 421–444.

37.

Farmer

S. M.

Aguinis

(2005). Accounting for subordinate perceptions of leader power: An identity-dependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1069–1083.

38.

French

J. R.

Raven

(1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright

Zander

(Eds.), Group dynamics. Harper & Row.

39.

Furey

R. J.

(1986). So I'm not perfect: A psychology of humility. Alba House.

40.

Garmston

R. J.

(1999). Humility: Attitude readies the adult mind for learning in public. Journal of Staff Development, 20, 71−73.

41.

George

(2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. Jossey-Bass.

42.

Gouldner

A. W.

(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

43.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

44.

Grimes

A. J.

(1978). Authority, power, influence and social control: A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3(4), 724–735.

45.

Guest

Peccei

Thomas

(1993). The impact of employee involvement on organisational commitment and ‘them and us’ attitudes. Industrial Relations Journal, 24(3), 191–200.

46.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis international edition (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

47.

Hansen

M. T.

Ibarra

Peyer

(2010). The best-performing CEOs in the world. Harvard Business Review, 88 (I), 104–113.

48.

Hayes

Comer

(2011). Lead with humility. Leadership Excellence, 28, 13.

49.

Hersey

Blanchard

K. H.

Natemeyer

W. E.

(1979). Situational leadership, perception and the impact of power. Group & Organization Management, 4, 418–428.

50.

Hofstede

Bond

M. H.

(1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21.

51.

Hume

(1994). Political writings. Hackett.

52.

Johnson

M. K.

Rowatt

W. C.

Petrini

(2011). A new trait on the market: Honesty–humility as a unique predictor of job performance ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(6), 857–862.

53.

Katz

Kahn

(1966). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley.

54.

Koslowsky

Schwarzwald

Ashuri

(2001). On the relationship between subordinates' compliance to power sources and organisational attitudes. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 455–476.

55.

Landrum

R. E.

(2011). Measuring dispositional humility: A first approximation. Psychological Reports, 108(1), 217–228.

56.

Leana

C. R.

Florkowski

(1992). Employee involvement programs: Integrating psychological theory and management practice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 233–270.

57.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Stilwell

(1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662–674.

58.

Mao

Chiu

C. Y.

Owens

B. P.

Brown

J. A.

Liao

(2019). Growing followers: Exploring the effects of leader humility on follower self‐expansion, self‐efficacy, and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 56(2), 343–371.

59.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

60.

McClelland

D. C.

(1975). Power: The inner experience. Irvington Publishers.

61.

Mishra

(2004). An end to suffering – The Buddha in the world. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

62.

Mishra

A. K.

Mishra

K. E.

(2011). POS and trust in leaders. The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press.

63.

Mitchell

(1988). Tao Te Ching: A new English version. Harper & Row.

64.

Mitchell

M. S.

Ambrose

M. L.

(2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168.

65.

Morris

J. A.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Urbanski

J. C.

(2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323–1350.

66.

Nadelson

Jorcyk

Yang

Smith

M. J.

Matson

Cornell

Husting

(2014). I just don't trust them: The development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114(2), 76–86.

67.

Nielsen

Marrone

J. A.

Slay

H. S.

(2010). A new look at humility: Exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 33–43.

68.

A. Y.

Tsui

Kinicki

A. J.

Waldman

D. A.

Xiao

Song

L. J.

(2014). Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and Middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34–72.

69.

Owens

B. P.

Hekman

D. R.

(2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behavior contingencies, and outcome. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 787–818.

70.

Owens

B. P.

Johnson

M. D.

Mitchell

T. R.

(2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517–1538.

71.

Owens

B. P.

Yam

K. C.

Bednar

J. S.

Mao

Hart

D. W.

(2019). The impact of leader moral humility on follower moral self-efficacy and behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 146–163.

72.

Pearsall

Trumble

(1996). The Oxford English reference dictionary (2nd ed). Oxford University Press.

73.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.

74.

Qin

Chen

Yam

K. C.

Huang

(2020). The double-edged sword of leader humility: Investigating when and why leader humility promotes versus inhibits subordinate deviance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(7), 693–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000456

75.

Raven

B. H.

Schwarzwald

Koslowsky

(1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 307–332.

76.

Rego

Cunha

M. P. E.

Simpson

A. V.

(2016). The perceived impact of leaders’ humility on team effectiveness: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, (2016)., 1–14.

77.

Richards

(1992). Humility. Temple University Press.

78.

Rowatt

W. C.

Ottenbreit

Nesselroade

K. P.

Jr ,., & Cunningham

P. A.

(2002). On being holier-than-thou or humbler-than-thee: A social–psychological perspective on religiousness and humility. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 227–237.

79.

Schein

E. H.

Kahane

Scharmer

(2001). Humility and ignorance: What it takes to be an effective process consultant. Reflections: The SoL Journal, 3(2), 8–19.

80.

Schoorman

F. D.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.

81.

Senge

P. M.

(2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Broadway Business.

82.

Solomon

R. C.

(1999). A better way to think about business: How personal integrity leads to corporate success. Oxford University Press.

83.

Sun

Owens

B. P.

Hekman

D. R.

(2014). When proactive employees meet humble leaders: job satisfaction, innovation and learning behavior. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.

84.

Tangney

J. P.

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

85.

Tangney

J. P.

(2002). Humility. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S.J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press.

86.

Taylor

S. E.

Peplau

L. A.

Sears

D. O.

(1997). Social psychology. Prentice-Hall.

87.

Tsai

W. C.

(2001). Determinants and consequences of employee displayed positive emotions. Journal of Management, 27(4), 497–512.

88.

Uhl-Bien

Maslyn

(2005). Paternalism as a form of leadership: Differentiating paternalism from leader member exchange . Paper presented at the meeting of the academy of management, Hawaii.

89.

Vera

Rodriguez-Lopez

(2004). Strategic virtues: Humility as a source of competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 393–408.

90.

Weick

K. E.

(2001). Gapping the relevance bridge: Fashions meet fundamentals in management research. British Journal of Management, 12(s1), S71–S75.

91.

Westwood

Chan

(1992). Headship and leadership. In Westwood

(Ed.), Organisational behaviour: Southeast Asian perspectives (pp.118–143). Longman.

92.

Anderson

Caldwell

(2019). Humility as enlightened leadership: A Chinese perspective. Journal of Management Development, 38(3), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2018-0341

93.

Yang

K. S.

(1998). Chinese responses to modernization: A psychological analysis. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1(1), 75–97.

94.

Yuan

Zhang

(2018). When a leader is seen as too humble: A curvilinear mediation model linking leader humility to employee creative process engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39, 468–481.

95.

Zhang

A. Y.

Tsui

A. S.

Wang

(2017). CEO humility, narcissism and firm innovation: A paradox perspective on CEO traits. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 585–604.

96.

Zhong

Zhang

D. Z.

(2019). Can leader humility enhance employee wellbeing? The mediating role of employee humility. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2019-01