CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and LeadershipForgiveness and Related Behaviors

Humble leadership and its outcomes: A meta-analysis

Open access
Luo, Yifei, Zhang, Zeyu, Chen, Qishu, Zhang, Kairui, Wang, Yijiang, Peng, Jianfeng·2022·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980322PMC PMC9811147
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The importance of humble leadership has garnered attention from both researchers and practitioners. Unfortunately, despite the accumulation of recent findings on the effects of leader humility, a quantitative review remains scant. In addressing this void, this study is among the first to conduct a meta-analytic review of humble leadership and its outcomes. Eighty-four correlations (N = 16,534) from 53 independent studies are synthesized. The authors found that: (a) humble leadership is positively related to affective commitment (ρ = 0.56), affective trust (ρ = 0.62), creativity (ρ = 0.39), engagement (ρ = 0.40), leader–member exchange (LMX) (ρ = 0.58), job satisfaction (ρ = 0.51), organizational identification (ρ = 0.48), psychological empowerment (ρ = 0.33), self-efficacy (ρ = 0.24), task performance (ρ = 0.33), and voice (ρ = 0.34); and that (b) humble leadership contributes a significant incremental variance beyond transformational, servant, and ethical leadership in several crucial criterion variables, providing solid evidence for the construct's uniqueness. However, humble leadership does not explain incremental variance in some criterion variables, indicating that future studies should control for the influence of some positive leadership (e.g., transformational and servant leadership). Age, gender, study design, country, and year partially moderate the correlations of interest. We discuss our findings with caution and propose future research directions.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This first meta-analysis of humble leadership synthesizes 84 correlations (N = 16,534) from 53 independent studies and finds positive links with many employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance outcomes. Humble leadership also shows incremental validity beyond transformational, servant, and ethical leadership for some criteria, while age, gender, study design, country, and year partially moderate the relationships.

Key findings

  • Corrected correlations were positive for affective commitment (ρ = 0.56), affective trust (ρ = 0.62), creativity (ρ = 0.39 in Table 4/abstract; the Results narrative lists 0.35), engagement (ρ = 0.40), job satisfaction (ρ = 0.51), LMX (ρ = 0.58), organizational identification (ρ = 0.48), psychological empowerment (ρ = 0.33), self-efficacy (ρ = 0.24), task performance (ρ = 0.33), and voice (ρ = 0.34).
  • Relationships were insignificant (95% CI includes zero) for OCB, psychological safety, negative affect, turnover intention, and voluntary turnover.
  • After controlling transformational, servant, and ethical leadership, humble leadership contributed incremental variance for affective commitment (ΔR² = 0.108; 30.51%), creativity (ΔR² = 0.004; 2.41%), task performance (ΔR² = 0.03; 26.32%), and voice (ΔR² = 0.014; 10.69%), but not for affective trust, engagement, job satisfaction, or LMX.
  • Moderators were mixed: age moderated creativity negatively and task performance positively; gender (% female) moderated organizational identification negatively; study design moderated creativity and engagement in opposite directions; country moderated LMX (smaller in eastern than western countries); year moderated task performance positively.

Methods

  • Meta-analysis of 84 correlations (N = 16,534) from 53 independent studies; literature searched in Web of Science and Google Scholar up to April 2022, including empirical English-language individual-level studies reporting needed correlations.
  • Hunter-Schmidt random-effects meta-analysis in the psychmeta R package, correcting for measurement error with Cronbach’s alpha; publication bias assessed with Trim-and-Fill and Egger’s regression; moderators tested with random-effects meta-regression using REML in metafor.
  • Incremental variance analysis used Mplus and harmonic-mean correlations, adding humble leadership after transformational, servant, and ethical leadership.

Limitations

  • Stated by the authors: only English-language studies were collected; mediating effects were not evaluated; unpublished data were not included.
  • Evident from the text: several outcomes have very small k (e.g., job satisfaction k = 2, negative affect k = 2, voluntary turnover k = 2, affective commitment k = 3, psychological empowerment k = 3, psychological safety k = 3, turnover intention k = 3), producing wide confidence intervals.
  • Evident from the text: all humble leadership measures were follower-rated; humble leadership correlated highly with transformational (ρ = 0.80), servant (ρ = 0.81), and ethical leadership (ρ = 0.79), and the authors note possible valence-based conflation, so incremental-validity results should be interpreted cautiously.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980322

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

5 of 35 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    Humble leadership is negatively related to voluntary turnover.

    “However, humble leadership is negatively related to turnover intention (Li et al., 2016; Liborius and Kiewitz, 2022), voluntary turnover (Owens et al., 2013; Liborius and Kiewitz, 2022), and negative affect (Basford et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Owens et al., 2013 source
    • cites Liborius and Kiewitz, 2022 source
  • Premisecitation

    Humble leadership is negatively related to turnover intention.

    “However, humble leadership is negatively related to turnover intention (Li et al., 2016; Liborius and Kiewitz, 2022), voluntary turnover (Owens et al., 2013; Liborius and Kiewitz, 2022), and negative affect (Basford et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Li et al., 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Liborius and Kiewitz, 2022 source
  • Premisecitation

    Many studies did not control any positive leadership when studying the effect of humble leadership.

    “many studies (e.g., Yang et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020) did not control any positive leadership (e.g., transformational leadership).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Yang et al., 2019 source
    • cites Nguyen et al., 2020 source
  • Findingown data

    Age partially moderates the correlations between humble leadership and its outcomes.

    “Age, gender, study design, country, and year partially moderate the correlations of interest.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Humble leadership is positively related to engagement (ρ = 0.40).

    “The authors found that: (a) humble leadership is positively related to affective commitment (ρ = 0.56), affective trust (ρ = 0.62), creativity (ρ = 0.39), engagement (ρ = 0.40), leader–member exchange (LMX) (ρ = 0.58), job satisfaction (ρ = 0.51), organizational identification (ρ = 0.48), psychological empowerment (ρ = 0.33), self-efficacy (ρ = 0.24), task performance (ρ = 0.33), and voice (ρ = 0.”
    • Also stated in: § Meta-analytical procedures · plain
      “| Engagement | 7 | 2,432 | 0.37 | 0.4 | 0.14 | [0.26, 0.54] | [0.19, 0.61] |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • May combine two claims. 7
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Xue et al. (2022) found that the correlation between servant leadership (ethical leadership) and intrinsic motivation increases as the year increases.

    “Interestingly, Xue et al. (2022) also found the correlation between servant leadership (ethical leadership) and intrinsic motivation increases, as the year increases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Xue et al. (2022) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Humble leadership is not significantly related to OCB (95% CI includes zero).

    “| OCB | 6 | 1,491 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.19 | [−0.05, 0.37] | [−0.12, 0.43] |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Humble leadership is not significantly related to psychological safety (95% CI includes zero).

    “| Psychological safety | 3 | 732 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.14 | [−0.08, 0.71] | [0.04, 0.59] |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Humble leadership is not significantly related to turnover intention (95% CI includes zero).

    “| Turnover intention | 3 | 669 | −0.57 | −0.65 | 0.29 | [−1.38, 0.08] | [−1.20, −0.11] |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    In the major primary studies, followers rated leaders' humble leadership.

    “For humble leadership, in the major primary studies, followers rated leaders' humble leadership.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When controlling transformational, servant, and ethical leadership, humble leadership explains considerable incremental variance in many criterion variables, but not all.

    “When controlling transformational, servant, and ethical leadership, humble leadership explains considerable incremental variance in many criterion variables, but not all”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    For performance (task performance and OCB), some primary studies used employee-reported designs whereas some used leader-reported designs.

    “However, for performance (i.e., task performance and OCB), some studies used employee-reported designs whereas some used leader-reported designs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Negative affect mediates the link between supervisor-employee congruence in humility and employee OCB.

    “Qin et al. (2019) found that negative affect mediates the links between supervisor-employee congruence in humility and employee OCB.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Qin et al., 2019 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The current study does not include sufficient primary studies to cover team-level meta-analysis, so the meta-analysis is at the individual level.

    “The current study does not include sufficient primary studies to cover team-level meta-analysis, therefore, this meta-analysis locates at the individual level.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Two authors discussed inconsistent coding results until they reached an agreement.

    “Two authors discussed the inconsistent results in the coding process until they reached an agreement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study employed the Trim-and-Fill method and Egger's regression to detect potential publication bias.

    “we employed the Trim-and-Fill method (Duval and Tweedie, 2000) and Eggs' regression (Egger et al., 1997) to detect potential publication bias”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Duval and Tweedie, 2000 source
    • cites Egger et al., 1997 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Humble leadership may trigger negative affect in some situations.

    “humble leadership may trigger negative affect in some situations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The study responds to the research suggestions by Kelemen et al. (2022) to establish where humble leadership rests within the nexus of different leadership behaviors.

    “Our studies also respond to the research suggestions by Kelemen et al. (2022), as they recommended establishing where humble leadership rests within the nexus of different leadership behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kelemen et al. (2022) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The influence of humble leadership on turnover intention and voluntary turnover may be dependent on boundary conditions.

    “the influence of humble leadership on turnover intention and voluntary turnover may be dependent on boundary conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study extends the boundaries of previous research on the leadership field and eliminates concerns about the conceptual redundancy of humble leadership to some extent.

    “Our study extends the boundaries of previous research on the leadership field and eliminates concerns about the conceptual redundancy of humble leadership to some extent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study used multiple ways to detect potential publication bias.

    “we used multiple ways to detect potential publication bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Engagement may not be caused by humble leadership but by other forms of positive leadership.

    “perhaps engagement is not caused by humble leadership but by other forms of positive leadership (e.g., transformational leadership).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The insignificant relationship between humble leadership and psychological safety may be due to the small sample size (k = 2) causing a wide confidence interval that includes zero.

    “due to the small sample size (k = 2), the confidence interval could be too wide to include zero.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Humble leadership is highly correlated (r > 0.7) with transformational, servant, and ethical leadership.

    “Previous studies revealed that humble leadership was highly correlated (r > 0.7) with the transformational, servant, and ethical leadership (Lee et al., 2020a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lee et al., 2020a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These findings may challenge some existing results.

    “These findings may challenge some of the existing results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Two authors independently coded the bibliographic references, sample description, research design/sampling strategy, effect sizes, and reliabilities.

    “Two authors independently coded the following information: bibliographic references (authors and publication year), sample description (sample size and country), research design/sampling strategy, effect sizes (correlations), and the reliabilities of all scales.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Scholars have tried to demonstrate incremental predictive validity of expressed humility over some personality traits.

    “Scholars tried to demonstrate incremental predictive validity of expressed humility over some personality traits (e.g., generalized self-efficacy and conscientiousness; Owens et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Owens et al., 2013 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Women are more modest than men.

    “One possible explanation is that female is more modest than male (Fang et al., 2019) so they may report a lower level of organizational commitment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fang et al., 2019 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The lower organizational commitment among women may be explained by women being more modest than men.

    “One possible explanation is that female is more modest than male (Fang et al., 2019) so they may report a lower level of organizational commitment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Sturman (2003) found that age has a curvilinear relationship with job performance.

    “For example, Sturman (2003) found age has a curve relationship with job performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sturman (2003) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Conceptual overlaps between these leadership styles might be a reason for the high correlations.

    “conceptual overlaps between these leadership styles might be a reason.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Publication year may relate to a series of factors (e.g., management level and economic condition), so year moderation findings should be interpreted carefully.

    “However, these findings should be understood carefully, as publication year may relate to a series of factors (e.g., management level and economic condition).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Followers' characteristics influence the perception of leadership and thereby influence rating results.

    “Wang et al. (2019) found the followers' characteristics (e.g., gender, personality) will influence the perception of leadership and thereby influence rating results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al., 2019 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The meta-analysis did not evaluate mediating effects between humble leadership and its outcomes.

    “Second, this study does not evaluate the mediating effect between humble leadership and its outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Wang et al. (2019) suggested that employees' characteristics should be controlled.

    “Wang et al. (2019) suggested that employees' characteristics (e.g., personality) should be controlled.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al., 2019 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Such errors may not be easily addressed with current measurement.

    “such errors may not be easily addressed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The meta-analysis did not include unpublished data.

    “Finally, this study does not include unpublished data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
32 of 32

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    This study is the first meta-analytic review of humble leadership literature.

    “This study provides the first meta-analytic review of humble leadership literature.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A qualitative review of humble leadership is lacking, which limits the continuous development of the humble leadership literature.

    “However, a qualitative review is still lacking in this field, limiting the continuous development of humble leadership literature.”
2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Publication-bias summary overlooks a p-value below 0.05

    Minor

    The Results say all Egger-regression p-values exceed 0.05, but Table 2 reports p = 0.017 for turnover intention.

  • Conclusion denies an earlier-cited qualitative review

    Minor

    The conclusion says a qualitative review is lacking, although the Introduction explicitly identifies one.

  • Psychological safety study count differs from the table

    Minor

    The Discussion attributes the psychological-safety result to k = 2, but Table 4 lists k = 3.

  • Creativity's corrected correlation differs from the table

    Minor

    The Results and Discussion give the humble leadership-creativity corrected correlation as 0.35, whereas Table 4 reports ρ = 0.39; 0.35 is the table's uncorrected r.

  • Affective trust coefficient is attributed to affective commitment

    Minor

    The −0.704 coefficient belongs to affective trust in Table 6. For affective commitment, Table 6 instead reports a positive humble-leadership coefficient of 0.858.

  • Trim-and-Fill summary omits imputed voice effect

    Minor

    The Results identify affective trust and task performance as the only exceptions to zero imputed effects, but Table 2 also lists one imputed effect for voice.

6 of 6

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Luo, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, Q., Zhang, K., Wang, Y., & Peng, J.
Affiliations
Renmin University of China (CN)
Corresponding author
Luo, Yifei
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-12-21
Volume
13
Pages
980322-980322
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980322
PMC
PMC9811147
OpenAlex
W4313465482
Semantic Scholar
aa8f20fc04d8a1712c6f3a41ffa4b8d55d1f6626
Cited by
66
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 4
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
Keywords
humble leadership, leader humility, affective commitment, affective trust, creativity, employee engagement, leader-member exchange, job satisfaction, organizational identification, psychological empowerment, self-efficacy, task performance, employee voice, transformational leadership, servant leadership, ethical leadership, positive leadership, moderating effect

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-17.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-17.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review