Episode 054 -"The Humble CEO Paradox: Why the Best Leaders Don't Act Like They're the Best"

"The Humble CEO Paradox: Why the Best Leaders Don't Act Like They're the Best"

Welcome to PsychChat, where we dig into the psychology behind what really works at work. I'm Dr. Austin Tay, and today we're talking about something that's going to flip everything you think you know about leadership upside down.

Picture this: It's Monday morning, and your CEO walks into the all-hands meeting. The company just hit record profits. But instead of taking a victory lap, she starts by thanking the night shift custodial team for keeping the offices clean during crunch time. Then she admits she made a mistake on the quarterly forecast and explains what she learned from it.

Your first thought? Either "Wow, what a leader" or "Is she seriously apologizing right now?"

Here's what's wild: depending on your answer, you might be looking at either the most effective type of leader... or someone who's about to get eaten alive in the corporate world.

Today we're diving into what researchers call "the humble leadership paradox" - and why the leaders who seem the least power-hungry might actually be the most powerful of all.

THE PARADOX EXPLAINED

Let’s imagine two scenarios

CEO #1 walks into every room like he owns it. Takes credit for wins. Dominates meetings. Classic alpha leader, right? His team delivers results, but here's the thing - they're constantly looking for the exit. Turnover is brutal.

CEO #2? She asks more questions than she answers. Gives credit away like candy. Admits when she doesn't know something. And her team? They'd walk through fire for her. Engagement scores through the roof.

So what's going on here?

It turns out there's this fascinating thing called servant leadership that researcher Robert Greenleaf figured out back in the 1970s. While everyone else was studying "how do you get people to do what you want," Greenleaf flipped the question: "how do you serve the people you're leading?"

Sounds soft and fluffy, right? Here's the kicker - it works better than the traditional approach. But not for the reasons you think.

See, servant leadership isn't about being a pushover. It's actually got two sides that seem like they should contradict each other, but somehow work together like magic.
On one side, you've got humility. These leaders put their teams first, admit their mistakes, and don't need to be the most intelligent person in the room.

On the other side? They're incredibly action-oriented. They hold people accountable, they empower their teams to make decisions, and they're crystal clear about the bigger purpose everyone's working toward.

It's like being a supportive coach who also doesn't let you skip practice.

WHY THIS MATTERS NOW

Remember the corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom? Yes, those were led by the "I'm the smartest guy in the room" types. In my consulting career, I have also witnessed many leaders who believe they know everything but, in reality, suffer from disillusionment. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Often, such leaders are not very skilled at what they do but have been promoted to their position because they know how to navigate the corporate environment. One other thing I realised is that this type of leader is often afraid to be challenged and will resort to methods to silence their critics.

So the question here is, “ Is there a better form of leadership?” Today I am going to talk about humble leadership. Let’s be clear that humble leadership is not just about being nice. It's about being effective in a completely different way.

Think about it: when your boss admits they don't know something, what happens? You probably respect them more, not less. When they give you credit for a win, how does that make you feel? When they're clear about what they expect from you but also give you the freedom to figure out how to get there?

You actually want to work harder for them.

But - and this is where it gets really interesting - this whole humble leadership thing works differently depending on how high up the ladder you are.

THE HIERARCHY TWIST

So researchers decided to investigate this further. They examined hundreds of leaders across various levels - from frontline managers to board members. And what they discovered will surprise you.

First finding: Humble leaders foster more engaged teams. End of story. It doesn't matter what level they are at.

But here's where it gets strange.
If you're a frontline manager or team lead, and humility doesn't come naturally to you? No problem. You can make up for it by being really strong on the action side - empowering your people, holding them accountable, giving them clear direction. Your team will still be engaged.

But - and this is the big but - the higher up you go in the organization, the more humility becomes absolutely critical.

Picture a frontline manager who's not particularly humble but gets stuff done. Their team might be fine with that. Now picture a CEO with the same approach. How's that going to land?

The research shows that for senior executives, humility doesn't just help - it becomes the thing that makes all their other leadership skills actually work.
It's like humility is the secret sauce that makes power palatable.

Let me ask you something. Think about the best leader you've ever worked for. I'm willing to bet they had both sides of this equation figured out. They probably made you feel heard and valued, but they also pushed you to be better than you thought you could be.

Now think about the worst leader you've had. I'm guessing they either micromanaged you to death, or they were so hands-off you felt abandoned. Or maybe they took all the credit and never gave you any real responsibility.
Am I right?

WHAT THIS ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE

So what does humble leadership actually look like in practice? Let me paint you some pictures.

The Humility Side:

Remember that CEO who thanked the custodial staff? That's what we're talking about. It's seeing the whole ecosystem that makes success possible, not just your part in it.

I remember the early part of my consulting work, when I had to assess a leader based in Hong Kong. During the debrief of the assessment, he was surprised that my observations were accurate. He then shared his frustrations with his team, all based in the region. Some of his frustrations included the lack of response, the lack of creativity, and the constant waiting to be told what to do. He mentioned that he knows he will always be the person to provide solutions, or that the solutions offered by the team will not be satisfactory. I asked him what he would like to see changed. He said he just wanted his team to take risks, be vocal, and not be afraid to challenge him or his ideas. We then discussed how he could achieve that. I suggested he review how he runs his meetings with the team—being open and asking himself what he might be missing, and understanding the perspectives others have that he has overlooked. He should withhold judgments and listen.
Another executive I know has this rule: if something goes well, he ensures that credit is given to those who deserve it. If something goes wrong, he takes responsibility first, then figures out what happened.

The Action Side:

But here's the thing - these same leaders don't mess around when it comes to performance.

The same frustrated leader? He is crystal clear about what success looks like. He gives his people absolute decision-making authority, but also checks in regularly and isn't afraid to course-correct when needed.

The executive who takes responsibility? He creates systems where everyone knows what they're accountable for. No one's confused about expectations.
It's not "be humble" OR "get stuff done." It's "be humble" AND "get stuff done."

THE POWER PARADOX

Here's what's really fascinating about all this. We have this cultural narrative that power corrupts, right? That the higher you climb, the more you need to project dominance and authority.

But this research suggests the opposite. The more power you have, the more humility becomes your superpower.

Think about it from your team's perspective. When someone with a lot of power chooses to be humble, it's striking. It gets attention. It builds trust in a way that humility from someone with less power might not.

It's like - if the person who could fire everyone chooses to ask for your opinion instead of just telling you what to do, that means something.

But if someone who's already seen as less powerful acts humble, it might just confirm what people already think about their status.

The paradox is that humble leadership might actually be the most sophisticated use of power there is.

HOW TO ACTUALLY DO THIS

Alright, so how do you actually develop this balanced approach?

If you're early in your leadership journey:
Don't worry if humility doesn't feel natural yet. Focus on the action side. Get really good at empowering your people, setting clear expectations, and connecting their work to something meaningful.

Ask yourself: "Am I giving my team real authority to make decisions? Do they know exactly what success looks like? Do they understand why their work matters?"
If you're moving up the ranks:

Start practicing humility before you think you need it. Because by the time you're at senior levels, it becomes make-or-break.

Try this: Once a week, admit to your team that you don't know something. Ask for their input on a decision you're facing. Thank someone publicly for something specific they did.

If you're already a senior leader:
Your humility isn't just nice to have - it's what makes your authority effective instead of oppressive.

Here's a simple test: When you walk into a room, do people lean in or lean back? If they're leaning back, you might be leading with authority when you should be leading with curiosity.

Look, I get it. This whole humble leadership thing can feel risky. What if people see it as weakness? What if competitors take advantage? What if you lose respect?
Here's the thing though - the research shows the opposite happens. People don't lose respect for humble leaders. They gain it.

And here's why: humility paired with action shows confidence, not weakness. It says "I'm so secure in my abilities that I don't need to prove I'm the smartest person in the room."

The leaders who are constantly proving themselves? That actually signals insecurity.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

This isn't just about being a better boss. This is about what kind of workplace culture we're creating.

When leaders model humility and action together, it gives everyone permission to do the same. People feel safer admitting mistakes, asking for help, and trying new things. But they also feel more accountable to deliver results.

It creates what researchers call "psychological safety" - but with teeth. It's not just "everyone be nice to each other." It's "everyone challenge each other to be better."
And in a world where innovation and adaptation are everything, that kind of culture is a massive competitive advantage.

Here's what I want you to try this week:

Pick one person you lead or influence. Instead of telling them what to do, ask them what they think should be done. Listen to their answer. Then either go with their idea or explain why you're choosing a different path.

If you don't lead anyone yet, try this with a peer or even your own boss. Instead of waiting for direction, come with a recommendation and ask for their thoughts.
Notice what happens. My guess? You'll get better ideas and stronger buy-in than if you'd just issued orders or waited to be told what to do.

The humble leadership paradox isn't really a paradox at all. It just looks like one because we've been thinking about power all wrong.

We think power means having all the answers. But maybe real power means asking better questions.

We think authority means being the smartest person in the room. But maybe true authority means making everyone else smarter.

The leaders who figure this out? They don't just get better results. They create the kind of workplace where people actually want to show up and do their best work.
And in the end, isn't that what leadership is really about?

Thanks for listening to PsychChat. If this resonated with you, share it with someone who needs to hear it. And I'll see you next time when we dig into another piece of workplace psychology that might just change how you think about your career.

Until then, stay curious.

[REFERENCES]
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189-206.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 67-76.

Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26, 600-615.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495-513.

Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. (2000). Defining and measuring empowering leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 301-313.

Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323-1350.

Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., & Slay, H. S. (2010). A new look at humility: Exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 17(1), 33-43.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.

Sousa, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2017). Servant leadership and the effect of the interaction between humility, action, and hierarchical power on follower engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 13-25.

Steinbauer, R., Renn, R. W., Taylor, R. R., & Njoroge, P. K. (2014). Ethical leadership and followers' moral judgment: The role of followers' perceived accountability and self-leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 381-392.

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.

van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249-267.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-1286.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183-200.