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 characterist.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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
https://doi.org/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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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).

8. 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:

9. 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:

10. 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).

11. 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

12. (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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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,

16. 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;

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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!

24. 21
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785800
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604042413
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604042413
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.

25. 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

26. 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/

27. 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
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2009.44247841
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2013.15821abstract
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.12.001
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036102
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310452934
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310452934
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2017-0173
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190401000306
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036912
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036912
https://doi.org/10.1086/225803
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0113
https://doi.org/10.2307/257999
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1943
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315604187
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315604187
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0441
Owens, B.P. and Hekman, D.R. (2016), “How does leader
humility influence team performance?
Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0660

31. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038698
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000456
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04250-4
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04250-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005
https://doi.org/10.2307/257080
https://doi.org/10.2307/257080
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.689
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.689
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2018.1503002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17
https://doi.org/10.2307/3069341
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000314
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.

32. 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
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111035
https://doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2019.1691967
mailto:[email protected]Bad time to be humble! When and why
leaders should not be humbleTheory and hypothesesLeader
humility and perceived leader supportEnvironmental uncertainty
as a boundary conditionDownstream implications for follower
performanceMethodSamples and proceduresMeasuresLeader
humilityEnvironmental uncertaintyPerceived leader
supportFollower performanceControlsResultsPreliminary
analysesHypothesis testsTest of H1Test of H2Test of
H3DiscussionTheoretical contributionsLimitations and future
researchPractical implicationsReferences
Please choose any two questions from your readings to answer
in your original post. Your original post is due by Thursday of
each week. Make sure that you provide a reference for the text
in the discussion board. Reply to at minimum 2 of your

33. classmates posts for full credit. Responses to your classmates
are due by Sunday of each week.
Hickman 2010
· Identify and discuss concepts of political change. Use these
concepts to analyze how political change concepts have or can
influence your workplace or organization.
· Some leadership scholars argue that transformational
leadership may be the dominant and most used theory of
leadership today. What specific elements of transformational
leadership would support this argument?
Noopila & Chacon Chapters
· In your experience how has communication influenced change
within your organization, community, or personal life? Explain.
· Have you had an experience where you or a leader that you
know has led through crises? What types of decisions were
made? Would you consider doing things differently? Explain.