Ask someone to describe the characteristics of an effective business leader and you are likely to receive an answer that includes self-confidence, dominance, toughness, decisiveness, fearlessness, drive, and accomplishment. In fact, many executive recruiters look for these characteristics when selecting leaders for all levels of their organizations. But do these behaviors make for a more effective leader? Do these behaviors positively impact team performance? A study conducted this past year suggests that an unlikely leader behavior may yield better team and organizational outcomes: that behavior is humility.

 Humility is a misunderstood trait often associated with weakness in the United States. Psychology, however, defines humility as an attribute that occurs in a social context, and it is characterized by a willingness to view one’s own strengths and weaknesses accurately and to judge others’ strengths and shortcomings accurately as well. Being humble also means being teachable and open to growth experiences.[i]

 A leader who demonstrates humility will draw focus to others’ strengths, encourage others to share their perspectives, possess a willingness to acknowledge his/her own limitations, and support others’ growth and achievement. Furthermore, a humble leader will inspire follower loyalty and commitment,[ii] reinforce job satisfaction, work engagement, and employee retention,[iii] and counter the negative effects of leader narcissism, leading to more positive follower outcomes.[iv]

A non-humble or authoritarian leader, in contrast, will avoid all appearances of being weak. He/she will be over-confident and self-righteous, will not publicly acknowledge mistakes, and will seek personal status above the status of his/her team. These behaviors are contagious and will create teams of competitive individuals vying for individual status instead of focusing on achieving the goals of the team.[v] How does this leader behavior impact team performance?
​
 Last year, a study examining the effects of leader humility on team performance was conducted by Bradley Owens and David Hekman.[vi] Using data from 607 subjects organized into 161 teams, this study induced humility in a laboratory setting, in a longitudinal lab study across six weeks, and in a field study completed in a health services context. Participants in all three studies completed tasks and then rated the humility of their leaders, their teams, or both. The results of this research showed that leaders’ humble behaviors were contagious and that leaders modeling humility inspired team members to be humble as well. In the end, the teams led by the humble leader performed better on all their respective tasks. It is tempting to view these results as representing a best-case scenario that can only exist in rare settings; but the results of each of the three studies augmented one another to demonstrate that these results are consistent across different types of settings and across different spans of time.

Humble leaders, then, contribute to better team performance. This is not a surprise, but how do they do this? Previous research on leadership identified that leaders influence team member social behaviors by modelling the very social behaviors they hope to instill.[vii] Because followers often imitate their leader’s behaviors, a humble leader is more likely to develop humble followers. Thus, when leaders admit their own limitations and mistakes, allow themselves to be taught rather than do most of the teaching, and draw attention to others’ contributions and strengths, they reinforce a cooperative, others-oriented norm of team interaction and they emphasize the value of collective striving over personal status seeking. Furthermore, the norm of reciprocity infers that when a person receives positive feedback about her strengths or when she is being listened to, she would be more likely to respond in the same way.[viii]

While similar concepts, humility differs from transformational leadership. The main difference between the two is that humility can be imitated by followers, whereas critical dimensions of transformational leadership such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation cannot. Leader humility’s main influence is through the spread of the behaviors themselves, as teams will emulate the leader’s cooperative behaviors and place the goal of the group over self-promotion. Transformational leadership, however, succeeds most when a new compelling vision is needed, or when “extreme challenge, stress, and uncertainty” arise.[ix] Leader humility, in contrast, may be more beneficial to team effectiveness during everyday challenges when the team is faced with moderate amounts of challenge, stress, pressure, or threat.
​
The good news for leaders and organizations is that humble behaviors can be developed through training and practice. In addition, humility can be used as a selection criteria for hiring leaders or employees at any level within the organization. Developing humble leaders begins with organizations adopting the value of humility and exhibiting that value within their corporate culture. Leaders should focus on cooperative rather than competitive interactions with their team members. Leaders should also emphasize the performance of the team over and above his/her own performance. In adopting the value of humility, companies will be able to attract and retain humble leaders. Furthermore, overall employee retention will improve because technically savvy leaders who are not great with people will no longer drive the best employees away.​

​Companies are looking for ways of implementing popular technology to aid them in the employee selection process. One popular trend is to use social media sites (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter) as a tool for attracting and researching potential candidates. A senior manager for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the United States reported that approximately 75% of recruiters across multiple industries are required by their firms to conduct online research of job candidates, and more than 70% of recruiters state that they have rejected candidates based on the material found on social media websites.[i] A study of 2,600 hiring managers conducted in the United States found that 45% of them searched social media sites for information on job applicants.[ii] Frequent updates to user privacy settings on social media platforms (especially on Facebook) have made gaining access to candidates’ personal information much easier for prospective employers. This ease of access and ubiquity of use on the part of recruiters makes an applicant’s ability to promote himself/herself well on social media “a new job hurdle.”[iii]

Besides posing potential problems for job applicants, searching a candidate’s social media profile presents organizations with potentially damaging consequences. First, much of the information uncovered by recruiters from looking at social media profiles is not job-related. For example, one’s age, hobbies, interests, affiliations, religious views, political leanings, and marital/relationship status all appear on one’s Facebook profile, but have very little to do with a person’s ability to perform most jobs. Using much of the above information for employee selection is considered illegal in most states.

Next, using Facebook and other social media sites to predict job performance doesn’t work. Last year, a group of industrial-organizational psychologists conducted a study in which they had staffing specialists and hiring managers from multiple organizations view and rate Facebook profiles of potential applicants to their respective organizations.[i] The ratings of these recruitment professionals were then compared to performance evaluations of each applicant completed by each applicant’s current supervisor to determine if there was a correlation between an applicant’s predicted and actual performance. The overall finding of this study was that recruiters’ ratings of applicants were not related to supervisors’ ratings of applicants and thus did not predict applicant job performance. What’s more, recruiters tended to prefer White females above all other subgroups, posing serious legal and ethical problems for organizations. Until additional research can be conducted on ways to effectively use social media in the selection process, organizations should discontinue using sites such as Facebook to search for information on job candidates.

Malala Yousafsai recently received the Nobel Peace Prize at the young age of 19 year for standing up against the Taliban and promoting education of girls and children. What can we learn about corporate leadership from Malala’s approach? In this blog post, HCG President and Founder, Dr. Shreya Sarkar-Barney shares a brief analysis.
This week we saw examples of great leadership recognized with well deserved awards.  Malala Yousafsai, who was shot by the Taliban for promoting education for girls, has been outspoken about the right of women and young girls.  Last week she received the Nobel Peace Prize at the young age of 19 year for standing up against the Taliban and promoting education of girls and children.
Despite continued threats to her life, she has eloquently shared the plight of the lesser sex in eminent forums like the UN.   Her efforts have drawn world-wide attention and support.  For someone who grew up in a remote region of Muslim fundamentalist controlled Pakistan, it is remarkable to see such unusual display of courage, fortitude and leadership. What about Malala and her situation enable her to display such extraordinary leadership?  Are there lessons for employees in organizations?

Here’s three lessons on leadership from Malala:

• When there is a choice to do nothing or speak up against injustice, we need to be able to conceptualize the upside and find the courage to speak up against the wrong doings toward the voiceless.
• We need to reflect on what we care about the most (our platform) and stand for the rights of others in similar situation, who do not have the right or the freedom.
• Many incorrectly assume that next steps are clear to those who care.  Incorrect. Create a rallying force for change and have a clear call to action.

Follow these links to listen to Malala’s eloquent speeches