Humble Leaders in Turbulent Times

• In Event: Humility + Compassion = More Impactful Leadership for Turbulent Times

Short Description

Interviews with a cross-section of humble leaders established some unique mechanisms by which their approach to challenges may differ from their less humble peers. The presentation will highlight several key commonalities between how each of these humble leaders approaches their staff, their roles, and the challenges they face.

Detailed Abstract

Humility has often been overlooked as a key personality trait among successful leaders because relatively few leaders possess it (Owens & Hekman, 2012). Collins (2005) created a groundswell for humility as a leadership trait when he described extraordinary leaders as those who paradoxically possessed personal humility and coupled it with great professional will to succeed. Prior to that, humility had often been combined with modesty, which did not fully capture the underlying value of humility’s ability to open up a leader’s perspective to outside views and experiences (Tangney, 2000; Nielsen, Marrone, & Slay, 2010). Research has consistently demonstrated that those rare leaders who possess humility, seek advice from broader circles, are more open to learning from others, and as a result consistently outperform their peers (McDonald, Khanna, Westphal, 2008; de Bruin, 2013).

Although the study of humility has greatly expanded since the beginning of the century, little research has looked at how humility is cultivated in leaders, how it plays out in their professional lives, and how it changes their behavior, ultimately leading to improved performance (Tangney, 2000; Argandona, 2015; Collins, 2005; deBruin, 2013). Interviews with a cross-section of leaders who were identified as humble by their colleagues and peers established some unique mechanisms by which their approach to challenges may differ from their less humble peers. The sample included c-level and VP-level leaders from a cross-section of functions, including sales, development, operations, technology, HR and strategy. They held roles leaders worked at a wide variety of organizations including an investment bank, a major software company, an innovative pharmaceutical company, a leading us bank, and a software and service provider. The findings highlight several key commonalities between how each of these humble leaders approach their staff, their roles, and the challenges they face.

As described originally by Collins (2005), humble leaders possessed a clear understanding of their own capabilities, both their strengths and its limits (Owens & Hekman, 2012; Nielsen, Marrone & Slay, 2009). Each of the leaders in this study clearly understood their own strengths and weakness as well as that of their staff, and actively sought ways to compensate for their own weakness by augmenting their team with skills they did not possess or adjusting their functional mandate to better suit their skills. In additition, they were extraordinarily transparent with their teams about these weaknesses and used that knowledge to create systems and processes that compensated for them. These individuals departed from the normal hiring bias and instead chose candidates different from themselves who could compensate for their weaknesses or augment their strengths.

These leaders also maintained an open mind, and frequently sought ways to demonstrate their value for opinions that differed from their own. Each mentioned the need to have a team working with them that understood how much they valued their input, and created opportunities to get conflicting feedback. One CTO explicity asks team members to weigh in with alternate approaches, and another CEO regularly asks leaders for their opinions in large meetings, and then acts on many of the suggestions. Most can be found stopping by the desks of others to ask for input on any variety of business-related topics. Furthermore, some leaders go as far as cultivating external peer relationships with those who are likely to have different or contrasting perspectives and encourage their staff to do so as well. This departure from the norm of insular executive behavior (Nielsen, Marrone, & Slay, 2009) serves as an ongoing example to followers and colleagues.

In addition to making better operational decisions as a result of richer inputs (Owens & Hekman, 2012), these executives think more strategically about their own development as well as their staff’s. Being humble enough to understand thier own strengths and weaknesses allows them to make better decisions about how to assign projects, program training, and plan development initiatives (Ou et al., 2014; Owens & Hekman, 2012). These leaders understand not only their own needs, but also those of their staff and organizations. As a result, they can adjust standard company programs to better fit everyone’s needs. When turbulent times throw curveballs their way, they are able to think on their feet and adjust better than their less humble peers (Nielsen, Marrone & Slay, 2010), and as a result they are likely to be more successful as leaders in this new century (Fernández-Aráoz, 2014).

Participant

• Melissa Norcross, Ontario Systems