Chapter II
Review of Related Literature
This chapter presents and discusses the information from different articles, books, and research paper
that has some similarities to serve in supporting our research and these information will be used as
references related to our research.
Honesty-humility
Humility is a very complex phenomenon, without a single and satisfactory definition. Its definition can
be traced back to the ancient literature. Molyneaux (2003) finds definition f.e. in the New Testament,
where “meek” does not require withdrawal, unthinking compliance or lack of power - rather it instructs
on the active exercise of the powers of ownership and leadership. Modern definition of humility in the
managerial context is provided as follows Dusey and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) came up with their own
model of six key concepts of humility in the learning organization: (a) openness to a new paradigm, (b)
eagerness to learn from others, (c) acceptance of own limitations and ability to correct it, (d) Being
realistic in acceptance of failure, (e) ability to ask for advice, (f) development of others. Thanks to the
application of the key humility concepts of a learning organization, the company should achieve a high
performance based on instant innovations.
It is important to provide grounding on ‘what humility is’ before analysing its components. In the
organizational literature, Ou et al. (2014, p. 37) defined humility to be a stable trait that remains in a
self‐view that something greater than the person exists’). This quotation captures an essence that we
find present within many of the proposed scholarly definitions and elements emergent in our review
below. For example, humble individuals do not have strong needs to self‐enhance or to dominate others
(Peterson and Seligman 2004). Humble individuals understand their own strengths and limitations
accurately (e.g. Tangney 2000) and possess an openness that appreciates the views and contributions of
others (e.g. Owens and Hekman 2012). Humble individuals are not self‐deprecating; they recognize their
strengths, admit their mistakes and weaknesses (see Exline and Geyer 2004), and assume their role with
others in a broader community (e.g. Nielsen et al. 2010).
Humility is often used along with modesty or is defined as the opposite of arrogance or narcissism;
however, the relevant research is unclear. Woodcock (2008) defined modesty as the quality of being
unassuming or otherwise having a moderate estimation of oneself. In showing modesty, people do not
often show their own positive traits, contributions and expectations (Cialdini and de Nicholas 1989).
Such modesty would not equate to humility, as defined by humility scholars, because humble persons
hold a balanced perspective that acknowledges both strengths and limitations and does not seek to
under‐ or over‐represent the self (Morris et al. 2005). Additionally, as Tangney (2000) and others (e.g.
Zhang et al. 2017) have noted, a lack of arrogance or narcissism does not equate to the presence of
humility. Narcissists display patterns of grandiosity, a strong need for admiration and a lack of empathy
(American Psychiatric Association 2013). However, the opposite of narcissism does not necessarily
include a view that something greater than the self exists.
Theories of positive leadership, such as authentic and servant leadership, suggest that leaders are
described as humble. We briefly review some conceptual differences among authentic leaders, servant
leaders and humble leaders to help clarify the content domain of humility. Servant leaders
(Greenleaf 1977) convert their followers into leaders, prioritize the needs of their followers, and are
particularly concerned about followers with less power or greater need for help (Bass and Bass 2008).
However, humble leaders do not necessarily place the needs of others ahead of themselves
(Nielsen et al. 2010, 2014). Such leaders are supportive of followers, but are ‘more likely to adopt a
stance of egalitarianism rather than superiority or servility in their communications with others’
(Morris et al. 2005, p. 1341). Authentic leaders have been characterized as having integrity and a
profound sense of self‐awareness of their strengths, knowledge and morals (Avolio and Gardner 2005),
yet this view does not necessarily indicate a proper perspective of the self or suggest a model for
growth. True leadership will emphasize values and self‐expression, on the other hand humble leadership
focuses on the leader's transcendent self‐view that something greater than the self exists
(Ou et al. 2014; Rego et al. 2017b), which includes not only self‐awareness, but also an appreciation of
others and an openness to feedback and growth. Despite some overlaps, other positive leadership
theories ‘focus only on limited aspects of humility’ (Ou et al. 2014, p. 37).
REFERENCES:
Business Economics and Management 2015 Conference, BEM2015. Humility and Self-esteem as Key
Predictors of Ethical Attitude in Leadership
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313400640_Humility_and_Self-
esteem_as_Key_Predictors_of_Ethical_Attitude_in_Leadership
Nielsen, Rob & A. Marrone, Jennifer. (2018). Humility: Our Current Understanding of the Construct
and its Role in Organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews. 20. 10.1111/ijmr.12160.
