Humility: Our Current Understanding of the Construct and its Role in Organizations

• Author: Jennifer A. Marrone,Rob Nielsen
• Published date: 01 October 2018
• Date: 01 October 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12160

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20, 805–824 (2018)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12160

Humility: Our Current Understanding of

the Construct and its Role in Organizations

Rob Nielsen and Jennifer A. Marrone1

JLL, 601 Union Street, Suite 2800, Seattle, WA98101, USA, and 1Department of Management, Albers School of

Business and Economics, Seattle University, 901 12th Avenue, PO Box 222000, Seattle, WA 98122-1090, USA

Corresponding author email: marronej@seattleu.edu

Since 2000, researchers and practitioners have shown increased interest in humility.

This construct has been studied in disciplines ranging from organizational behaviourto

positivepsychology, culminating in a wealth of information that can nowbe analysed and

reviewed throughthe lens of humility in organizations. This review begins by reflecting

on existing conceptualizations of humility and presenting a summary of findings that

reflects a greater consensus in definitional work than some researchers may realize. It

then considers the progressthat has been made in measuring humility by specifying key

measurement strategies. It next synthesizes existing empirical findings on humility to

illuminate the uniqueness of the construct. It also shows that researchers have focused

on studying dependent variables that exist at multiple organizational levels and that

largely comprise pro-socialand relational variables, emotional well-being, and learning

and performance outcomes. The paper concludes with recommendations for future

researc h.

Introduction

A great deal of research and popular press attention

has been devoted to the role of humility in organiza-

tions since 2000. Humility has recently been defined

as a dispositional quality of a person – whether that

person is a leader or an employee – that reflects ‘a

self-view that something greater than the self exists’

(Ou et al. 2014, p. 37). Humble persons possess a

self-regulatory capacity that guards against excess

and fosters pro-social tendencies (Jankowski et al.

2013; Owens et al. 2013), which mitigate common

human vices that lead to dysfunction over the long

term, such as hubris, self-aggrandizement and pride

(Peterson and Seligman 2004). Rather than having

an excessive focus on oneself and one’s positive

qualities, humble individuals acknowledge their

limitations alongside their strengths, seek diverse

feedback and appreciate contributions from others

Both authors contributed equally to this paper.

without experiencing significant ego threat (e.g.

Owens and Hekman 2012; Tangney 2000).

Understanding humility is important for organiza-

tional scholars because it underlies the choice and

capacity to approach one’s work (and life) from a

larger, interdependent perspective that is productive,

relational and sustainable. Humility is generally con-

sidered a character strength that is deeply aligned

with and uniquely representative of the interdepen-

dent nature of today’s organizations and marketplaces

(Frostenson 2016). Indeed, the more recent empha-

sis on flatter organizations and bottom-up commu-

nication (Groysberg and Slind 2012) may be di-

rectly spurring interest in developing virtues such

as humility throughout organizations (Owens and

Hekman 2012). This interest is arising in part be-

cause humility fosters a broader understanding of ‘the

small role that one plays in a vast universe’ (Morris

et al. 2005, p. 1331), and humility brings a pro-

relational perspective that is increasingly necessary

for collaboration with diverse parties within and ac-

ross organizational boundaries. Additionally, humble

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which

permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no

modifications or adaptations are made.

C2018 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academyof Management and John

Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,

Malden, MA 02148, USA

806 R. Nielsen and J.A. Marrone

organizational leaders model a productive response

to today’s dynamic work environments featuring

growth and continual learning. By encouraging

‘teachability’, wherein human fallibility and depen-

dence are accepted and met with empathy, these

leaders increase the psychological freedom and em-

powerment of employees and spur organizational

progress and innovation (Owens and Hekman 2012).

In a conceptual paper published more than a decade

ago, Veraand Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) discussed hu-

mility as a source of competitive advantage for in-

dividuals, leaders and organizations. Since that time,

the burgeoning empirical research has supported this

contention.

Discussions of humility as a human virtue have

had a long history within philosophy and religion.

Human virtues are those core characteristics of per-

sons – or predispositions to act in certain ways – that

lead to human excellence and flourishing (Peterson

and Seligman 2004; Yearley 1990). Thus, interest in

humility has necessarily been intertwined with ques-

tions of morality,such as what makes a person ‘good’

or what are the right waysto act. However, as Frosten-

son (2016, p. 92) noted, ‘a historical account of the

virtue of humility is somewhat problematic .. . Dif-

fering worldviews generate conflicting conceptual-

izations of what humility is and when, howand why it

should be exercised’. For instance, humility has been

reflected in Christianity as man’s relegation of him-

self below God, whilemoral philosophers have taken

a different and more secular stance, pointing to humil-

ity as the recognition of one’s dependence on others.

Others, such as Nietzsche, have rejected the utility of

humility or regarded it as a vice instead of a virtue.

Detailed historical accounts have been provided in

other papers. The scope of our paper is to review

the scholarly attention given to humility since 2000

within and relevant to the organizational domain.

Gaps in the literature on the role of humility in

organizations provide fertile ground for this review.

If not adequately examined, questions regarding the

definition, measurement and applicability of humility

to organizational performance may stymie research

progress. Furthermore, a large number of research

findings have nowemerged, with few attempts to coa-

lesce around common themes and conclusions. In this

paper, we comprehensively review the extant humil-

ity research from disparate fields. We seek to answer

three specific research questions, each with unique

contributions to organizational research. First, does

conceptual and empirical research to date now of-

fer a coherent, compelling picture of what humility

is? Many scholars have noted a lack of established

consensus on the key components of humility. In re-

sponse, we offer a detailed analysis of the theorized

components of humility and uncover important areas

of consensus. In so doing, we move beyond recent

studies in the organizational domain that review the

humility concept (e.g. Ou et al. 2014; Owens et al.

2013). Second, how has humility research evolved

in developing measurement strategies, and what are

the implications when interpreting or designing re-

search? Because the humility construct has proved

challenging to measure, given the relatively high po-

tential for biased self-reports (Davis et al. 2010), re-

viewing this domain provides necessary insights for

organizational scholars wishing to include humility

in future research. Third, can extant empirical find-

ings emerging across various fields be organized into

meaningful categories of outcomes that are of value

to work organizations? Here, we contribute by syn-

thesizing the diverse array of variables considered

with humility, placing intentional emphasis on how

findings further inform key goals relevant to organi-

zational scholarship. We believe that such synthesis

is necessary for clarifying the unique predictive va-

lidity of humility for organizational outcomes and for

encouraging its inclusion into broader management

and organizational studies.

To select articles, we conducted keyword searches

for the term ‘humility’ in online databases (e.g.

EBSCO, ProQuest, JSTOR). Our search included

literature since 2000, and uncovered humility studies

primarily in organizational behaviour (including

management and leadership), positive psychology

and religion. Using Google Scholar, wealso searched

for articles that cited prominent published humility

articles. We focused our review on those studies most

relevant to organizational settings; studies focusing

solely on children, for example, were excluded.

A summary of the reviewed studies is found in

Appendix S1 in the Supporting information.

Our review should appeal to a variety of organi-

zational scholars interested in the flourishing of em-

ployees, teams and their leaders. First,at micro-levels

in organizations, scholars seeking to understand how

employees initiate and maintain productive interper-

sonal relationships at work are likely to be interested

in the strong relationships between humility and help-

fulness, learning and performance, even after Big 5

personality traits, self-esteem, impression manage-

ment and others are controlled (e.g. Exline and Hill

2012; Owenset al. 2013). Additionally, our reviewad-

dresses increasing calls for greater consideration of

C2018 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John

Wiley & Sons Ltd.