Tom Loncar considers ways in which people can struggle with ‘I might be wrong’, and processes for fostering psychological flexibility.
16 August 2024
The idea that 'I might be wrong here' can be difficult for leaders to accept. Leaders don't do that. The strong leader is decisive, inspirational and right.
In my executive coaching practice, such rightness can manifest as inflexibility in my clients' perceptions of the environments they operate in. Responses such as 'this is how I am', 'this is how it is' and 'this is what is expected of me' can limit richer exploration of learning opportunities. How do we find a path through these rigid positions and towards psychological flexibility and adaptive growth in leaders, while also fostering wider psychological safety for the people who work with them?
Zombified leadership and psychological safety
These rigid positions on what leaders can and can't do often trace back to lingering tenets of 'zombie leadership' – ideas that, despite being demonstrably false, refuse to die and continue to walk among us (Haslam et al., 2024). This includes the endowment of a rarefied 'specialness' to those who make it to the top of their organisational charts; 'leaders-as-saviours', in possession of extraordinary skills that those who follow will never have.
Such a dichotomous view of leader separateness can embed beliefs and expectations around leader infallibility, where any hint of 'I might be wrong on that' is unwelcome. The knock-on effect for their wider group is one that can undermine psychological safety; questioning a leader's position or merely offering an alternative view can be seen as a risk not worth taking (Edmondson, 1999; Torralba et al., 2020).
The role of intellectual humility
Effective leaders who rise above such zombie quagmires instead welcome a good kind of fallibility; a place where they don't know everything, and where they recognise the value of others' opinions. They are intellectually humble. In my coaching work, clients who open the door to intellectual humility can bring less helpful beliefs and assumptions to the surface, which can then be more consciously observed and tested through intentional experimentation. Through this they learn and establish more effective patterns of behaviour, which can foster personal learning, enhance interpersonal relationships and bring wider organisational benefits.
Of course, intellectual humility is not an all-contexts panacea; the discerning application of decisiveness is a key leadership competence (Anderson & Adams, 2015). But intellectual humility is often unexercised and too easily overlooked in situations that would particularly benefit from its application. Here, I'll describe five scenarios that illustrate its palpable absence in leadership development, followed by an examination of psychological flexibility processes that can help surface and nurture it. But first, let's look at intellectual humility's emergence as a focus of interest across psychology.
Intellectual humility in psychology
Intellectual humility 'involves recognizing that there are gaps in one's knowledge and that one's current beliefs might be incorrect' (Porter et al., 2022, p.524). It sounds simple enough, but such recognition is all too easily bypassed.
As humans, we have a natural tendency toward naïve realism (Ross & Ward, 1996) where our views of the contexts we face are assumed to be objective and complete, rather than a thin slice of data filtered by idiosyncratic blends of cognitive biases. While examinations of intellectual humility by philosophers and theological scholars date back centuries, it is only in the last decade or so that it has come under scrutiny in psychology (Bąk et al., 2022).
Subfields which have taken a strong interest in intellectual humility include social-personality, cognitive, clinical and educational psychology, and leadership and organisational behaviour (Porter et al., 2022). Indeed, the British Psychological Society's Research Digest has covered intellectual humility across a diverse range of journals, including the Journal of Positive Psychology (intellectual humility's role in knowledge acquisition; Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2020), Self and Identity (openness to opposing views; Porter & Schumann, 2018), Memory (accuracy of self-knowledge in the presence of penalties; Arnold et al., 2016) and Personality and Individual Differences (perceptions of self-assessed intelligence; Howard & Cogswell, 2018).
The Psychologist has also featured articles from psychologists applying their own perspectives to the topic, including Elaine Fox's Switchcraft: Harnessing the Power of Mental Agility to Transform Your Life (Fox, 2022a). According to Fox, intellectual humility 'helps to strip away our natural tendency to interpret the world around us with a lens that is heavily coloured by our own personal biases, self-interests, and experience' (Fox, 2022b). Against a wider emerging backdrop of political polarisation, conspiracy theories and fake news where 'truth' has become contestable, intellectual humility is becoming an activated area of interest for psychologists (e.g. Bowes & Tasimi, 2022; Smith, 2023).
While there is some variation in how intellectual humility is explored across subfields of psychology, a comprehensive 2022 review by Tenelle Porter of the University of Pennsylvania and colleagues noted a significant commonality; there is a 'metacognitive core' to the construct 'composed of recognizing the limits of one's knowledge and awareness of one's fallibility' (Porter et al., 2022, p.525). It's an internal acknowledgement that one doesn't and can't know it all.
While cognitive psychology focuses on this metacognitive core, other subfields such as social and personality psychology extend to social aspects of intellectual humility, where it is demonstrated through behaviour and through 'valuing the intellect of others' (Porter et al., 2022, p.525). Absences of intellectual humility can manifest as 'an unfounded insistence that one's own beliefs are correct and a disregard of people who hold different views' (Leary et al., 2017, p.793).
This wider contextual lens is useful in examinations of leadership, where actions – and interactions – invariably speak louder than thinking alone. Leaders who are adept at attuning to the interpersonal and contextual challenges they face with a modicum of intellectual humility can facilitate wider sustained effectiveness in their organisations, as the studies below highlight.
How does it matter to leadership?
It is perhaps natural to assume that intellectual humility might bring a gentler qualitative edge to leadership. Its impact is far stronger; the benefits extend to real business outcomes in often challenging market settings. For example, a study of 105 CEOs leading companies in the hypercompetitive tech sector found that higher CEO humility yielded a more collaborative executive team, an enhanced strategic orientation, and stronger financial performance (Ou et al., 2018). Another tech sector study that explored leader–innovation relationships across 135 teams revealed that humble leadership is key for both team processes and innovation via sharing and adaptation to new ideas (Lei et al., 2022). Both of these studies referenced Owens et al.'s (2013) conceptualisation of leader humility as accurate self-awareness, appreciation of others' strengths, and openness to new insights; all necessary ingredients to facilitating a learning orientation and wider psychological safety.
There may also be a significant benefit in intellectual humility being cultivated in emerging leaders, laying the foundations for wider application as careers mature. Krumrei-Mancuso and Rowatt (2023) examined follower reports on 78 young leaders in the role of university residential advisors. Leaders who were reported to have respect for diverse viewpoints yielded followers who were significantly more satisfied with their leader's interpersonal abilities and also their justice orientation.
Intellectual humility's absence in leadership – scenarios
Clearly, intellectual humility can be useful to leaders. And while many leaders will grasp its potential benefits, and may even apply it usefully across many situations, it may lie dormant and unseen as an option in others. Let's consider some scenarios that highlight the costs of that.
A) The ouch of feedback
While many organisations can proffer the cute soundbite that 'all feedback is a gift', such offerings can be jarringly unwelcome if they clash with personal beliefs on competence. A key vehicle for such perturbances is multi-rater '360 degree' feedback where leaders are evaluated on a set of competency measures (e.g. The Leadership Circle; Anderson, 2006) by those who work with them (including bosses, peers, direct reports and key clients/stakeholders).
Such evaluations can be a rite of passage for those settling into their first chapter of leadership. Blindspots invariably emerge and can be both positive (where the leader rates themselves lower than their evaluators) and negative (where their evaluators' rating is lower). It is in the case of the latter where a personal belief about my competence as a leader is placed on the stage, and next to an alternative and unexpected 'truth'. A lack of intellectual humility can manifest in unproductive behaviours in response to these gaps. Whether it is an opening to dispute ('that is plain wrong – look at this evidence!'), disappointment ('can't they see how hard I'm working!'), conspiracy theorising ('well, they would say that!'), or any other manner of inflexible decoding, a road less expansive emerges. For such leaders, unforeseen feedback compels defence or retreat, rather than informing a springboard for developmental attention.
B) Assumed awfulness – the malaise of the upward but stagnating SME
A distinct manifestation of a lack intellectual humility can often be seen in transitions by subject matter experts (SMEs) to higher roles where they are expected to lead others. In this scenario, an entirely different form of contribution is called for, where substantive delegation to direct reports is key. While they can appreciate the more elevated mandate that is expected in their new role, they can nonetheless feel compelled to stay 'in the weeds', with only tokenistic attention to delegating significant tasks. The costs can include working excessively long hours, micromanaging and being experienced as a 'doer' rather than a leader.
Some of the assumptions perpetuating this malaise can include 'this is the only way I can definitely prove my value' (personal), 'my staff will make mistakes so need to be closely supervised' (interpersonal), and 'any mistakes that might arise in doing things differently will be too difficult to handle' (contextual). A lack of intellectual humility means that these assumptions are treated as being entirely true and so are never tested through substantive experimental attention – it would be too awful to do so.
C) Here, but not here = 'executive absence'
Back-to-back meetings are an increasing post-Covid norm (Laker et al., 2022) – there are too many of them and a dilution of presence becomes inevitable. This can be through multitasking in situ (e.g. one eye on the meeting, the other on incoming emails… or in the case of some of my clients, on other meetings!) or through a withdrawal of intentionality (this is something I've got to do, rather than get to do), as has become the fate of many once-useful daily stand-up meetings (Gilkey, 2023).
While such behaviours may bring some efficiency gains in the short term, they can also build patterns that cumulatively support executive absence and inattention. While interpersonal situations were once a forum for building executive presence, an odd opposite is now too often the reality. The intellectual humility deficit in such situations is more insidious – everyone's doing it – but unchecked it amounts to a wilful and persistent attention away from potentially useful data in the environment.
D) 'But that's me being authentic'
This is a common retort from leaders who feel unacceptably constrained by the notion that they would benefit from changing behaviours that they feel are values-based and 'authentic', in order to accommodate a wider need. It might be over-sharing of personal information, the framing of feedback, the unnuanced intensity of how they apply their 'strengths', or similar behaviours that serve to emphasise their authenticity. In such cases, a lack of intellectual humility shows up as an inability to recognise, value and then attune to the needs of others in complex contexts, due to a discordant sense of personal compromise that such an act would entail.
E) My 'helpful' view is required asap
The final scenario is also related to meetings, though this time with an unintended psychological safety impact. A leader's well-meant early offering of an opinion at the start of agenda items can sometimes inadvertently inhibit wider dialogue. As Cornell University social psychologist Vanessa Bohns perceptively puts it: 'even an offhand suggestion by someone in power can feel like a command to someone in a position of low power' (Bohns, 2021, p.136). Offering something different could indeed be seen as a career-limiting move! This is particularly relevant in cross-cultural teams; members from high-context cultures can tend to shy away from any potential for disagreement (Toegel & Barsoux, 2016). Thus, while other people's ideas may potentially be valued by the leader, they are discouraged through a lack of appreciation of the power dynamics at play; the absence of this kind of intellectual humility can suppress the development of psychologically safe conditions where a wider array of ideas can be surfaced.
So, low intellectual humility can nullify or diminish situations that might otherwise be opportunities for learning and connection. These scenarios highlight a range of rigidities that can both overtly and more perniciously detract from personal, interpersonal and wider contextual effectiveness. They also highlight distinct opportunities for a flexibility shift, where intellectual humility is engaged and welcomed. These can be examined through the lens of psychological flexibility.
Six processes of psychological flexibility
Psychological flexibility can be defined as 'the ability to adapt to a situation with awareness, openness, and focus and to take effective action, guided by your values' (Harris, 2008, p.35). It facilitates a capacity for shifting 'mindsets or behavioral repertoires when these strategies compromise personal or social functioning' (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010, p.865). This attunement of a values-based inner core to complex situational demands presents as a useful lever to meeting the challenges in the scenarios I've described.
Psychological flexibility was originally conceptualised as the target of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) (Doorley et al., 2020; Hayes et al., 2004). In ACT, psychological flexibility is established through focus on six interrelated processes, which I will now link to our scenarios.
Cognitive defusion (scenario A: de-ouching feedback)
When feedback feels like an unwelcome jolt, it can indicate that cognitive fusion is present. This is a rigidity in thinking about how I, we, they and/or it 'should' be, and it might lie dormant until a challenge (such as unforeseen feedback) is felt.
Cognitive fusion is psychological inflexibility characterised by thought processes seeking to impose a 'false order' (Hayes, 2019, p.151). Perturbances to this order through feedback can call into action a range of defensive reactions that might include ruminative problem solving, blaming others or chastising oneself (Harris, 2006). Rather than being a springboard for insight, feedback is instead an opening to a range of defensive or protective reactions.
The psychologically flexible response instead is cognitive defusion, where we look at the information; it is just data after all. As in all living systems, openness to feedback loops is crucial to one's agility in changing environments (El-Samad, 2021). An intellectually humble leader is open to such feedback and is not threatened by it; any initial 'ouch' is followed by 'wow'. Surprising data will inspire interest rather than defence, and be considered as an input that can inform development.
Perspective-taking (scenario A: adding intentionality to feedback and scenario E: facilitating psychologically safe environments)
Opening up to feedback can also be a conscious gateway to perspective-taking. This process involves moving beyond an egocentric conceptualisation of the self, to a wider awareness and intentionality of experience 'across people, place and time' (Hayes, 2019, p.175). Feedback can be a confirmation that we can be experienced very differently by different groups of people; it is rare for an individual leader to have the same 360 profile across the various groups that have evaluated them. For example, they may 'manage up' well, while having ineffective relationships with peers or direct reports; indeed, they may be perceived as 'kissing up, while kicking down' (Loncar, 2016).
Such segmented data views that 360 reports can provide can activate conscious experiments in areas which might benefit from targeted attention with specific groups. Perspective-taking is crucial to what matters here? … and how can I show up to support that intention … one situation at a time. This also reveals the unfolding temporal aspect of the perspective-taking process; 'I used to be uncomfortable with X' is a reflection that many intellectually humble leaders have in their narratives; developmental attention is cumulative and crucial to conscious learning.
Perspective-taking is also key to cultivating cultures of psychologically safety where leader egos are consciously put to the side and a message of 'I need to hear from you' is communicated and reinforced (Edmondson, 2024). This will include curtailing seemingly benevolent urges to speak first and instead nurture skills that draw out contributions from others.
In summary, intellectually humble leaders are skilled at stepping back and making useful connections, and through this show up intentionally attuned to the people and contexts they are with.
Acceptance (scenario B: testing assumptions of awfulness)
The assumptions about delegation described in scenario B are examples of avoidance in the face of assumed pain ahead; a retreat back from a threshold of a bigger leadership contribution. The acceptance process instead opens up to this and purposefully goes through the sensed threshold; it represents a 'willingness to experience odd or uncomfortable thoughts, feelings, or physical sensations in the service of response flexibility', thereby opening the door to a fuller participation (Hayes, 2011).
Substantive experiments in delegation will often feel difficult to initiate (one client described the very idea as 'complete abandonment') but are indeed necessary to enabling learning in the leader and their team. An intellectually humble leader will recognise assumptions serving to enforce both subtle and more pronounced patterns of avoidance, and be prepared to substantively test them in service of their own and their team's learning and growth.
Presence (scenario C: from 'executive absence' to presence through useful noticing)
The psychologically flexible alternative to 'executive absence' in meetings is the process of presence. While this may seem obvious, it is clearly not easy in the face of the many competing forces compelling and dividing attention.
Presence involves greater orientation to the internal and external environment in the here and now, with deliberate and flexible attention; simply put, it is 'useful noticing' (Hayes, 2019, p.211). This accords with wisdom from pioneering leadership scholar the late Warren Bennis who often observed that the most successful leaders are also 'first-class noticers' (e.g. Bazerman, 2014; Bennis & Thomas, 2002, p.19).
First-class noticing can too easily take a back seat in modern interpersonal contexts where distractions and patterns of divided and device-tethered attention abound. Committing to noticing more deliberately in meetings can surface many benefits for leaders, including opportunities for future dialogue with individual participants and 'strengths spotting' in junior staff (Linley, 2008). Furthermore, Gallup research has shown that noticing which supports recognition of others can significantly contribute to broader employee engagement (Lorenz, 2022).
An intellectually humble leader, then, is conscious about where their attention is placed; they orient to being first-class noticers and recognise there is always valuable information to be discerned.
Values (scenario D: authenticity with responsibility in this situation and scenario E: facilitating psychologically safe environments)
Such presence is potentiated through reference to one's values across the contexts that matter. Values are self-determined qualities of action enabling meaning and purpose to be created by choice (Hayes, 2019). Importantly, self-determined does not mean self-centred, as more rigid manifestations of 'that's me being authentic' can embody, often with an adverse psychological safety impact.
Stanford social psychologist Deborah Gruenfeld characterises such interpretations of authenticity as impulsivity at the expense of responsibility (Stanford Seed, 2022). When aspiring to be effective and enabling as a leader, it's not just about you and so values must be consciously and adaptively engaged.
Leading ACT clinician and trainer Russ Harris likens the dynamic-while-robust nature of an individual's core values to continents on a spinning globe of the world (Harris, 2019). They are always there, but not all of them will be seen at once. An intellectually humble leader will temper any impulsivity and lead with their values consciously calibrated to the people and situations they face, and through this foster wider psychological safety.
Committed action (all scenarios: wider patterns of values-based effectiveness)
Enveloping the above processes is where the 'rubber meets the road' (Atkins et al., 2019, p.62; Hayes, 2015) – the process of committed action. Rather than being sporadic events, psychologically flexible committed action has cumulative benefits; the values-based foundations bring an inherent meaning and vitality that naturally support widening patterns of action and with them a commensurate sense of life competence (Hayes, 2019; Hayes et al., 2022).
In place of behaviours oriented to feedback aversion, insular self-focus, avoidance, 'executive absence' and impulsivity, the intellectually humble leader's behaviours are more openly attuned to what's in front of them, valuing the people and situations they are in with discernment, while also consciously engaging their own values – they cultivate learning experiences and include others in the journey.
Overlapping and interrelated, with options
These six psychological flexibility processes are 'overlapping and interrelated' (Hayes, Luoma, et al., 2006, p.17). Any of the described intellectual humility scenarios could validly be examined through the lens of an alternative process; for example, feedback aversion through acceptance, authenticity through perspective-taking, assumed awfulness through defusion, and so on. There is an elevating shift from rigidity when psychological flexibility is engaged, as previously obscured options for consideration and action become apparent.
And option generation is key. As the maxim of corporate finance states: 'options have value' (Beinhocker, 1999, p.105). Leaders who lack intellectual humility tend to see only black and white. There is no acknowledgement of the possibility for grey, and so the potentiality that resides there is unexplored. Intellectually humble leaders, on the other hand, acknowledge their initial instincts might be wrong and with psychological flexibility can surface options that would otherwise be bypassed. In the scenarios we've examined, intellectual humility helps leaders to:
Be open to feedback without defensiveness or protective recoil; external perspectives provide valuable data that can inform developmental action.
Move from avoidance to experimentation, and lean into opportunities for adaptive learning.
Engage a wider and more flexible presence that orients to 'useful noticing'.
Apply intentionality over impulsivity, where values are consciously and responsibly attuned to the situations they are in.
Foster conditions that support psychological safety across their wider group, where contributors know they can speak up and that their voice will be valued.
Intellectually humble leaders are mindful of their fallibility… and that's ok. For everyone.
Tom Loncar (MSc Psychology & Neuroscience of Mental Health, MBA, PCC) is a Sydney-based executive coach and founder of GrowGRAVITAS®Leadership Development.
References
Anderson, R. J. (2006). The leadership circle profile: Breakthrough leadership assessment technology. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(4), 175–184.
Anderson, R. J., & Adams, W. A. (2015). Mastering leadership: An integrated framework for breakthrough performance and extraordinary business results. John Wiley & Sons.
Arnold, M. M., Chisholm, L. M., & Prike, T. (2016). No pain no gain: The positive impact of punishment on the strategic regulation of accuracy. Memory, 24(2), 146–153.
Atkins, P. W. B., Wilson, D. S., & Hayes, S. C. (2019). Prosocial: Using evolutionary science to build productive, equitable, and collaborative groups. New Harbinger Publications.
Bąk, W., Wójtowicz, B., & Kutnik, J. (2022). Intellectual humility: An old problem in a new psychological perspective. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 10(2), 85.
Bazerman, M. H. (2014, August). Becoming a first-class noticer. Harvard Business Review.
Beinhocker, E. D. (1999). Robust adaptive strategies. MIT Sloan Management Review.
Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Geeks and geezers: How era, values, and defining moments shape leaders. Harvard Business School Press.
Bohns, V. (2021). You Have More Influence Than You Think: How We Underestimate Our Power of Persuasion, and why it Matters. WW Norton & Company.
Bowes, S. M., & Tasimi, A. (2022). Clarifying the relations between intellectual humility and pseudoscience beliefs, conspiratorial ideation, and susceptibility to fake news. Journal of Research in Personality, 98, 104220.
Doorley, J. D., Goodman, F. R., Kelso, K. C., & Kashdan, T. B. (2020). Psychological flexibility: What we know, what we do not know, and what we think we know. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(12), 1–11.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Edmondson, A. (2024, May 1). Right kind of wrong: Coaching in an uncertain world. Institute of Coaching, LinkedIn Event.
El-Samad, H. (2021). Biological feedback control—Respect the loops. Cell Systems, 12(6), 477–487.
Fox, E. (2022a). Switchcraft: How agile thinking can help you adapt and thrive. Hachette UK.
Fox, E. (2022b, July 22). Why intellectual humility matters. The Psychologist.
Gilkey, C. (2023, April 14). Does your team really need a daily stand-up meeting? Better Team Habits.
Harris, R. (2006). Embracing your demons: An overview of acceptance and commitment therapy. Psychotherapy in Australia, 12(4), 70–76.
Harris, R. (2008). The happiness trap: How to stop struggling and start living. A guide to ACT. Shambhala Publications.
Harris, R. (2019). Values conflicts and how to resolve them: Tips for ACT practitioners.
Haslam, S. A., Alvesson, M., & Reicher, S. D. (2024). Zombie leadership: Dead ideas that still walk among us. The Leadership Quarterly, 101770.
Hayes, S. C. (2011, March 14). Mindfulness and acceptance in evidence-based psychotherapy. Psychology Today.
Hayes, S. C. (2015, September 15). Committed action: The key to human liberation. New Harbinger Quick Tips for Therapists.
Hayes, S. C. (2019). A liberated mind: The essential guide to ACT. Random House.
Hayes, S. C., Ciarrochi, J., Hofmann, S. G., Chin, F., & Sahdra, B. (2022). Evolving an idionomic approach to processes of change: Towards a unified personalized science of human improvement. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 156, 104155.
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1–25.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., Bunting, K., Twohig, M., & Wilson, K. G. (2004). What Is Acceptance and Commitment Therapy? In A Practical Guide to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (pp. 3–29). Springer US.
Howard, M. C., & Cogswell, J. E. (2018). The "other" relationships of self-assessed intelligence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 77, 31–46.
Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865–878.
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., Haggard, M. C., LaBouff, J. P., & Rowatt, W. C. (2020). Links between intellectual humility and acquiring knowledge. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(2), 155–170.
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Rowatt, W. C. (2023). Humility in novice leaders: Links to servant leadership and followers' satisfaction with leadership. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(1), 154–166.
Laker, B., Pereira, V., Malik, A., & Soga, L. (2022, March 9). Dear manager, you're holding too many meetings. Harvard Business Review.
Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T., Deffler, S. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 793–813.
Lei, X., Liu, W., Su, T., & Shan, Z. (2022). Humble leadership and team innovation: The mediating role of team reflexivity and the moderating role of expertise diversity in teams. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
Linley, A. (2008). Average to A+: Realising strengths in yourself and others. ICON Group International.
Loncar, T. (2016, July 26). The dark side of managing up: Kiss up, kick down. The Australian Financial Review.
Lorenz, E. (2022). How to bridge the generational gap in recognition. Gallup Workplace.
Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2018). Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1147–1173.
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.
Porter, T., Elnakouri, A., Meyers, E. A., Shibayama, T., Jayawickreme, E., & Grossmann, I. (2022). Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility. Nature Reviews Psychology 2022 1:9, 1(9), 524–536.
Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018). Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self and Identity, 17(2), 139–162.
Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. Values and Knowledge, 103, 135.
Smith, G. (2023). You know you're right: How intellectual humility decreases political hostility. Political Psychology, 44(6), 1319–1335.
Stanford Seed. (2022, April 12). The psychology of power and influence. Insights by Stanford Business.
Toegel, G., & Barsoux, J.-L. (2016). Three situations where cross-cultural communication breaks down. Harvard Business Review.
Torralba, K. D., Jose, D., & Byrne, J. (2020). Psychological safety, the hidden curriculum, and ambiguity in medicine. Clinical Rheumatology, 39(3), 667–671.
SOURCE:
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/helping-leaders-harness-humility(accessed 13.09.24)
