In the modern office, employees often encounter a confusing variety of leadership styles. Some managers seem aloof and domineering, while others readily admit their mistakes and actively seek advice from their teams. This latter style, known as humble leadership, is increasingly sought after by organizations. Companies want leaders who can listen and learn rather than dictate. However, finding these leaders—or training existing ones to adopt this behavior—remains a challenge. While the benefits of humility are well documented, the reasons why some powerful people exhibit it while others do not remain largely a mystery.
A new investigation published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior seeks to solve this puzzle. The research moves beyond the assumption that power inevitably corrupts or makes leaders arrogant. Instead, it suggests that a leader’s behavior is the result of a complex interplay between how powerful they feel and how connected they feel to their employees. This study, titled “Up Close and Powerful,” examines the specific psychological conditions that allow humility to flourish or fade in the workplace.
Identifying the Roots of Leader Humility
Patrick Liborius, a researcher at the Liechtenstein Business School, led this investigation alongside colleagues Christian Kiewitz and Anna Faber. The team sought to address a significant knowledge gap regarding the antecedents of humble behavior. Previous research has established that when leaders admit their limitations and praise others, their teams perform better. Yet, there is limited guidance on what organizations can do to foster these traits in their management.
The researchers focused on two primary psychological factors: a leader’s “personal sense of power” and their “psychological closeness” to the team. A personal sense of power is distinct from a job title. It refers to an individual’s internal belief that they can influence others. Two managers with the same rank might feel vastly different levels of control over their environments.
Psychological closeness acts as the second variable. This concept measures how much a leader views themselves and their team as interconnected. The researchers hypothesized that power does not operate in a vacuum. Instead, the way a leader uses their power depends heavily on whether they feel distant from or integrated with their subordinates. To test this, they utilized the “agentic-communal model of power.” This theory suggests that having power makes people focus on their own goals (agentic), while lacking power makes people focus on others (communal) to get what they need.
Measuring the Mindset of Management
To observe these dynamics in a real-world setting, the research team designed a multi-source study involving professionals in Germany. The sample included 69 supervisors and 210 of their direct subordinates from a variety of industries, including manufacturing, finance, and health care. This design allowed the researchers to compare what leaders felt internally with how their employees perceived their behavior externally.
The methodology relied on separate surveys for leaders and followers to avoid bias. Supervisors reported their own sense of power and their feelings of closeness. To measure closeness, they used a visual scale featuring Venn diagrams. The diagrams displayed two circles—representing “self” and “team”—with varying degrees of overlap. Supervisors selected the diagram that best matched their relationship with their group.
Meanwhile, subordinates rated their supervisor’s humility. They evaluated how often their boss acknowledged personal limitations, appreciated the strengths of others, and showed a willingness to learn. Subordinates also reported their own levels of job engagement and how much they trusted their supervisor.
The Interaction of Power and Proximity
The analysis revealed a nuanced pattern. It showed that a high sense of power does not automatically lead to arrogance, nor does a low sense of power guarantee humility. The outcome depends entirely on the combination of power and closeness.
For supervisors with a high personal sense of power, their behavior aligned with their feelings toward the team. When these powerful leaders felt psychologically close to their subordinates, they displayed high levels of humility. They likely felt secure enough to be authentic and valued the relationship. However, when powerful leaders felt distant from their team, their humility dropped significantly. In this context, their focus turned inward, and they saw little reason to solicit input or admit faults to people they felt disconnected from.
A surprising trend emerged among supervisors who reported a low personal sense of power. When these leaders felt distant from their team, they actually displayed higher levels of humility. The researchers interpret this as a strategic or tactical move. Leaders who feel they lack influence and are socially disconnected may use humble behaviors—such as asking for help or praising others—as a way to build bridges. They need resources and support from their team, so they use humility to gain access.
Conversely, low-power leaders who already felt close to their team did not show the same high levels of humility. Since they already enjoyed a strong connection, they may not have felt the need to use humility as a tool to gain favor or control.
From Leadership Style to Employee Output
The study did not stop at identifying the causes of humility. The researchers also mapped how these behavioral patterns influenced the employees. The data indicated a clear chain of events. When the specific combination of power and closeness led a supervisor to act humbly, that behavior triggered positive responses in their subordinates.
First, the analysis showed that increased leader humility was linked to higher “job engagement” among employees. Subordinates who worked for humble leaders reported higher levels of physical, cognitive, and emotional investment in their work. They felt safer and more valued, which allowed them to dedicate more energy to their tasks.
Second, the study found a strong connection between humility and trust. When leaders displayed openness and teachability, employees were more willing to be vulnerable and trust their supervisor’s intentions. The analysis confirmed that the interaction between a supervisor’s power and closeness indirectly affected these employee outcomes. The psychological state of the leader shaped their behavior, which in turn shaped the work environment for the team.
Implications for Business Leaders
These findings offer practical insights for organizations struggling with disengaged employees or toxic management cultures. The research suggests that simply promoting people to power or sending them to generic leadership training may not be enough. The internal psychological state of the leader matters.
For confident, high-power leaders, the key to unlocking humility appears to be team building. If an organization can foster a genuine sense of closeness between a powerful manager and their staff, that manager is more likely to use their platform to empower others. Interventions that reduce social distance could be effective for this group.
For leaders who feel less powerful, the dynamic is different. The study highlights that some humility is instrumental—a way to survive and function when one lacks influence. Organizations might need to recognize that a manager asking for help might be doing so because they feel isolated and powerless, not necessarily because they are naturally humble.
New Avenues for Investigation
The study opens several doors for future research. The researchers note that their sample was based in Germany, raising questions about whether these dynamics hold true in different cultural contexts. Additionally, the study utilized a correlational design. While the theory supports the direction of the effects, future studies could use experimental methods to confirm causality.
Another area for exploration involves the source of a leader’s power. Power can be acquired through dominance (intimidation) or prestige (competence). The researchers suggest that future investigations could analyze how these different routes to power interact with psychological closeness. It is possible that a leader who seized power through dominance might react differently to closeness than one who earned power through respect.
By dissecting the interplay between how powerful a leader feels and how close they feel to their followers, this research provides a more sophisticated map of workplace dynamics. It reveals that humility is not just a personality trait. It is a behavior that emerges from the specific social and psychological environment in which a leader operates.
![[Adobe Stock]](https://www.psychologyofselling.pro/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/artificial-intelligence-350x250.jpg)
