Intellectual Humility in the Workplace

Definition

Intellectual humility (IH), defined as the extent to which one is aware of one’s own intellectual limitations, is an understudied construct in organizational research. As a moral virtue, IH has been studied in philosophy and religion for decades. As a psychological and behavioral tendency construct, IH has gained significant attention among psychology researchers over the past decade due to rising extremism regarding social and political issues in the US and around the world. One reason for the increased research interest in IH includes the potential benefits from IH in terms of reducing social and political polarization and reducing stress and anxiety, which may improve individual overall well-being. This article provides an overview of IH as a multi-dimensional construct, its psychometric properties and nomological network, and its potential benefits in organizations and employee well-being. The article concludes with a call for more interdisciplinary research on improving our knowledge and theories of IH as well as its construct measurement considering the recent coming-of-age adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) models to harness the power of IH in sustaining individual well-being.

1. Introduction

As technologies continue to transform the labor market, the fear of jobs being replaced by AI has grown significantly, compounded by social and environmental pressures. According to the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report released in May 2023, there is expected to be a net loss of 14 million jobs due to AI ([1] www.weforum.org (accessed on 8 August 2024)). The proportion of working adults in the US reportedly feeling anxious has grown from 32% in 2022 to 37% in 2023 to 43% in 2024 based on the most recent annual survey conducted by the American Psychiatry Association ([2] psychiatry.org (accessed on 8 August 2024)). Social media have been viewed as creating echo chambers (e.g., [3]), spreading online misinformation while reinforcing individual beliefs even though they might be inaccurate (e.g., [4]), resulting in social and political polarization. Against this backdrop, the latest survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) showed that 53% of surveyed US workers deemed society to be uncivil [5]. Because workplace incivility and politics can be a type of chronic stress [6], it is important to cultivate and sustain employee well-being.

In this article, I present intellectual humility (IH) as an antidote to social and political acrimony as well as a potential tonic to individual well-being. Although IH has been studied in religion and philosophy for decades, this construct has only been systematically examined in psychology within the past ten years [7]. To this end, the article starts with the definition of IH, followed by a review of this concept’s psychometric properties, its place within extant nomological network, and its outcome prediction. The article concludes with suggestions for future directions in organizational and management research.

2. Intellectual Humility—A Definition and Nomological Network

Broadly defined as the extent to which one is aware of their own intellectual limitations, intellectual humility (IH) is an individual difference in terms of cognitive and behavioral tendency. Although IH has been studied for decades in theology, philosophy, and religion, a consensus is lacking regarding what exactly IH is. According to a recent comprehensive review, there are eighteen definitions of IH [7]. IH has long been studied as a moral virtue, a golden mean between the two extremes of intellectual arrogance and intellectual diffidence [8]. IH has also been conceptualized as a personality trait (e.g., [9]) and a state and a trait quality (e.g., [10]). IH has been conceptualized differently depending on how IH is manifested: internally, externally, or both. Specifically, IH varies along the self or internal spectrum, including awareness of one’s intellectual limitations (e.g., I accept that my beliefs and attitudes may be wrong, Leary et al., 2017 [11]), and redressing one’s intellectual limitations (e.g., I am willing to change my position on an important issue in the face of good reasons, Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse, 2016 [12]). IH also varies along the other or expressed spectrum, including an appreciation or awareness of others’ intellectual strengths (e.g., I recognize the value in opinions that are different from my own, Leary et al., 2017 [11]) and openness to corrective feedback (e.g., I don’t like it when someone points out an intellectual mistake that I made, Porter and Schumann, 2018 [10]).

Table 1. A conceptual framework of intellectual humility (adapted from [7]).

	Self or Intrapersonal Spectrum		Expressed or Interpersonal Spectrum
Dimension	Awareness of one’s intellectual limitations	Redressing one’s intellectual limitations	Awareness of value in others’ intellect	Openness to corrective feedback
Sample item	“I accept that my beliefs and attitudes may be wrong” (Leary et al., 2017 [11])	“I am willing to change my position on an important issue in the face of good reasons” (Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse, 2016 [12])	“I recognize the value in opinions that are different from my own” (Leary et al., 2017 [11])	“I don’t like it when someone points out an intellectual mistake that I made”—reversed scoring (Porter and Schumann, 2018 [10]).

provides a conceptualization of intellectual humility as a multi-dimensional construct.

The variety of definitions of IH have led to different measures of IH, with domain-general and domain-specific scales. The domain-general scales include those measuring IH as a unidimensional construct (e.g., the six-item General IH scale developed by Leary et al., 2017 [11]) or as a higher-order construct of inter-related subscales (e.g., the Comprehensive IH scale of 22 items developed by Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse, 2016 [12]; the Limitations-Owning IH scale of 12 items developed by Haggard et al., 2018 [8]; the IH scale developed by Alfano et al., 2017 [13]). The domain-specific scales are those measuring IH with reference to specific topics or domains (e.g., [14,15]).

Much of the research to date has relied on self-report data to measure IH both in terms of its general construct and domain-specific scales. Meagher (2022) [16] reported weak correlations between self- and other ratings of IH (average correlation coefficient of 0.19 across three different IH scales, with a minimum of 0.09 and maximum of 0.32). There is also evidence of socially desirable responding and common method variance in IH data from a single source (e.g., [17,18]). For example, using a bifactor modeling approach to partial out the common method variance in the Leary et al. (2017) [11] self-report measure of IH, this variable became non-significant in explaining sustainable tourism support. IH was also found to positively correlate with measures of socially desirable responding (e.g., [18]). It is recommended, therefore, to statistically control for common method bias in IH data when such data come from a single source, such as self- or other reports.

Based on the Self–Other Knowledge Asymmetry (SOKA) model [19], self-report data regarding IH are more accurate than other-report data of IH depending on how observable the specific dimension of IH is to the self vs. others. For example, self-report data are more accurate to measure the intrapersonal dimension of intellectual humility where it is not easily observable to others and most associated with cognitive biases, such as redressing one’s intellectual limitations. Other report data are more accurate to assess the interpersonal dimension of IH, such as awareness of value in others’ intellect [16].

It is important to note that the IH construct is conceptually different from other related constructs in the extant literature. For example, although positively correlated with general humility conceptualized as a personality trait of honesty–humility based on the HEXACO framework [20], the correlation is often small to medium in terms of effect size, making IH a distinct construct from honesty–humility (e.g., [17,21]). In organizational research, the construct of leader humility [22] is overlapped with IH in terms of its external or interpersonal manifestation such that leader humility refers to the extent to which the leader is viewed by their followers as (a) willing to view themselves accurately; (b) appreciative of others’ strengths; and (c) open to new ideas and feedback [22]. However, the leader humility construct does not include the internal or intrapersonal dimension of IH. For example, leader humility does not include calibrating one’s intellectual limitations to achieve epistemic truth rather than looking humble [23].

As a personality trait, IH is positively related to the Big Five personality traits [24], with the largest correlations with openness to experience, agreeableness, and emotional stability [16]. Cannon and colleagues (2020) [25] found IH to be inversely related to the Dark Triad traits (i.e., Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). As an intellectual virtue, IH is positively related to other intellectual virtues, such as open-minded thinking and intellectual openness/curiosity, and negatively related to narrow-mindedness and dogmatism [11,26]. As a moral virtue, IH has been qualitatively shown to be instrumental in virtue-based allyship development, a four-stage career model, to sustain equity and inclusion in organizations [27]. In this model, IH was postulated to be at Stage 2, where practical wisdom could be built to establish an allyship within an organization. IH was found to play a role in shaping individual career choices such that those scoring low in IH would likely pursue a career in business [25]. Kross and Grossman (2012) [28] conducted two experiments in which IH was examined in relation to its motivated reasoning conceptualized as psychological distance (i.e., immersive or from a distance). The results revealed that cueing people to reason about important issues such as career prospects during unemployment from a distance was more effective at building IH than from being immersed in it.

IH’s relation to cognitive ability has been mixed [18], with some studies reporting a positive relation (e.g., [29]) and others reporting no correlation (e.g., [30]). Using a large sample of college students in the UK, IH was found to be positively related to academic performance [25]. IH’s social correlates include positive relations with prosocial values such as empathy, forgiveness of others, general humility, seeking compromise, emotional diversity, perspective taking, and prosocial behavior [18]. IH as a state is positively related to attitudes such as need for cognition and need for closure. It should be noted that IH’s positive association with self-esteem serves as a rebuttal to the notion that IH can be viewed as a lack of confidence, which is a weakness [18].

Table 2. Intellectual humility and its nomological network.

Correlates of Intellectual Humility (Adapted from [18])
Personal		Social	Political/Cultural
General Humility (+)	The Dark Triad traits (−)	Empathy (+)	Cultural humility (+)
Leader Humility (+)	Dogmatism (−)	Forgiveness (+)	Inter-cultural Tolerance (+)
Honesty–Humility (HEXACO) (+)	Prejudice (−)	Perspective taking (+)	Form of government (+/−)
Openness to Experience (+)	Ideology adherence (−)	Prosocial behavior (+)	Trust in science
Emotional stability (+)	Belief superiority (−)	Seeking compromise (+)
Agreeableness (+)	Need for closure (−)	Tolerance (+)
Cognitive ability (+)	Openmindedness (−)	Myside bias (−)
Cognitive flexibility (+)	Stress (−)	Misinformation (−)
Growth mindset (+)	Anxiety (−)
Self-esteem (+)	Depression (−)

The + symbol denotes a positive relation while a (−) sign denotes a negative relation with intellectual humility.

presents a summary of the nomological network that IH is mapped onto.

The systematic reviews conducted by references [7] and [18] formed the basis of the literature review on intellectual humility. Additional articles were retrieved and included using both backward and forward citation searches. The scope of the review included studies investigating IH on samples of adults (i.e., 18 years and older); therefore, children were excluded from the review reported herein of the research on intellectual humility (IH), which shows that IH has many benefits across disciplines and analytical levels. At the individual level, IH was found to contribute to tolerance for diverse perspectives and was positively related to prosocial values such as empathy, gratitude, benevolence, and universalism [31]. Individuals scoring high in IH were found to be more likely to be friends with their political opponents than those scoring low in IH [32]. IH was found to predict knowledge acquisition (e.g., [30]), which makes it a desirable solution to bridge the political divide and partisanship. Indeed, both the domain-general and domain-specific forms of IH were found to reduce political hostility and/or affective polarization ([26,33]). This suggests that IH can be leveraged and/or fostered through interventions to reduce affective and ideological polarization and improve or sustain individual well-being (e.g., [34]). Increasing IH has been found to provide additional benefits to individuals, such as earning more trust and respect, making better decisions, having more satisfying relationships with friends and family, being better liked, being viewed as more attractive, and being happier in relationships (e.g., [35,36,37]).

As a behavioral tendency in intellectual discourse, IH is viewed as important in promoting employees’ voice in the workplace and society, which is crucial in achieving and sustaining diversity, equity, and inclusion in society. Leader humility, a positive correlate of IH, has been found to predict innovation based on a recent meta-analysis [38], although such research examining the role of IH is lacking. Individuals who express high levels of IH were found to better cope with stress and anxiety (e.g., [39]). Despite the many benefits of IH as discussed, concerns have been raised about the potential drawbacks from expressing too much IH (i.e., intellectual servility) such that minorities were found to experience increased levels of stress and anxiety when expressing intellectual servility [9]. As noted earlier, many scholars (e.g., [18]) viewed IH as an antidote to political acrimony because of its independence from political extremism (i.e., strength of political beliefs). However, IH’s relation with political orientation remains mixed, with some studies reporting no correlation (e.g., [40]) and a recent study reporting that those expressing high levels of IH were reliably more liberal in political orientation [41].

At the group level, emerging evidence from empirical research on new venture teams showed that, when groups shared a high level of IH, they reported fewer within-team conflicts as well as inter-group conflicts in addition to improved information sharing [42]. At the organizational level, IH has been proposed to improve an organization’s culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion (e.g., [43]). At the societal level, IH was found to temper conflicts or disagreements stemming from different political affiliations, religions, and lifestyles. For example, people scoring high in IH were found to be less likely to derogate those whom they disagreed with (e.g., [10]), more likely to support COVID-19 vaccination, and less likely to be influenced by misinformation and health claims lacking scientific or evidentiary bases (e.g., [44]). Taken together, IH should be leveraged and/or cultivated through interventions (e.g., constructive dialogue as a metacognitive intervention, as proposed in [18,45]) to serve as an antidote to social and political acrimony as well as the rising workplace incivility.

Figure 1 shows a graphic representation of a multi-level interdisciplinary approach to studying IH. As shown in the figure, the diversity of approaches to the study of intellectual humility (IH) reviewed in this section illustrates that IH is a complex phenomenon encapsulating both cognitive and behavioral tendencies, including intrapersonal and interpersonal behaviors. In addition, IH manifests itself at the personal level, which is the most studied level to date in the literature, while also affecting and being influenced by higher-level factors such as social/group/organizations as well as culture, politics, and society. Specifically, simply recognizing and/or valuing others’ intellect (shown in the figure as the expressed and other quadrants) is insufficient to be intellectually humble. Rather, to be fully intellectually humble, one must overcome motivated reasoning or confirmation bias to acknowledge one’s limitations [18] in the quest for epistemic truth and foster understanding of truth in oneself and others (the internal/self/other quadrants).

3. Future Research Directions

As an understudied construct in organizational and management research, IH provides ample opportunities for interdisciplinary research in terms of further study. As noted earlier, research examining the role of IH in organizational leadership is lacking. For example, it is reasonable to expect that a business whose CEO and top management team implicitly or explicitly acknowledge the limits of their knowledge will be likely to innovate, or leverage opportunities to innovate better than those who fail at their fallibility awareness. However, the above statement has yet to be empirically tested. From the perspective of employees and their career development, the question of whether and to what extent there are differences in IH of employees in different job roles should be examined in future research.

Additionally, research is lacking in examining the IH–employee well-being or health hypothesis. Little is known concerning whether employees who are intellectually humble experience more work satisfaction, are healthier, and thrive at work more so than others who are intellectually diffident or arrogant. Although many studies have documented the positive relationship between leader humility and workplace outcomes such as employee performance and satisfaction [38], leader humility and IH are two distinct constructs, although they share some overlap in content, as discussed previously. Additionally, because IH has been shown to be positively related to psychological well-being, such as fewer depressive effects, anxiety, and/or stress (e.g., [16,34,37]), it is reasonable to expect a positive IH–employee health linkage. Indeed, the intrapersonal dimension of IH has been proposed as having a stronger relation to individual health than does general humility [46].

Coupled with the recent coming-of-age of technological breakthroughs in generative artificial intelligence (AI), future IH research will benefit from technology in advancing our knowledge of IH in terms of theory and construct measurement. First, the theoretical approach to studying IH can be broadened to include new perspectives from across disciplines such as the political, psychological, and organizational sciences. For example, the multi-dimensional framework of intellectual honesty shares some overlap with IH [47]. In fact, it was proposed that IH was an antecedent of intellectually honest behavior. Therefore, more studies on IH can benefit from this interdisciplinary approach to examine the mechanism and process of IH as it manifests within and between individuals. Second, the state or trait conceptualization of IH can benefit from applying a dynamic personality framework [48]. Third, the measurement of IH will benefit from more replication and validation studies to validate the various IH scales reviewed in this entry. For example, the General Intellectual Humility Scale [11] has recently been validated and its relations replicated in a French sample [49]. More replication studies from other countries are needed. Fourth, the construct measurement of IH as a virtue will benefit from a longitudinal or time series design to facilitate the assessment of the golden mean or the right amount of IH [7]. In addition, latent profile analysis of IH based on an experience sampling method will capture the within- and between-person variability in profiles of IH as a state across situations because expression of IH can be situation or context specific [50]. In terms of the reliability and validity of IH as a construct, future research may integrate advanced statistical techniques (e.g., bifactor confirmatory factor analytic models) and/or use sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) models (e.g., machine learning, deep learning, or large language models) to reduce response bias. IH is currently mostly measured using the survey/questionnaire method from self-report and/or other report data. Future research may integrate wearable technologies into measuring IH to achieve better and more precise measurement, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of IH as an antidote to social and political ills and a tonic to achieve employee well-being.

4. Conclusions

This article provides an overview of intellectual humility (IH) as an understudied and underutilized construct in organizational and management research. Considering the potential benefits that IH might provide to employees in the workplace, it is time for more research to be conducted to explore how and to what extent IH can improve and sustain employee well-being. Empirical research and review studies were integrated from across different disciplines to provide the readers with an interdisciplinary yet balanced view of this construct with respect to its conceptual framework, measurement, and outcome prediction. The article serves as a starting point for readers to evaluate this construct and unlock its potential as a core value to be fostered and appreciated in the future of work and workplace.