ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 30 June 2017

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01115

Leader Humility and Team

Innovation: Investigating the
Substituting Role of Task
Interdependence and the Mediating
Role of Team Voice Climate
Wenxing Liu 1 , Jianghua Mao 1* and Xiao Chen 2
1
School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China, 2 School of Management,
Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

Leadership has been found to be linked with team innovation. Based on social
information processing theory and substitutes for leadership theory, this paper examines
the influence of leader humility on team innovation. Results from 90 teams showed
that leader humility will enhance team innovation by fostering team voice climate.
Further, task interdependence substitutes the effect of leader humility on team innovation
through an indirect way via team voice climate. This study discussed the theoretical and
practical implementations of these observations.
Edited by:
Ronald H. Humphrey, Keywords: leader humility, voice climate, task interdependence, team innovation
Lancaster University, United Kingdom
Reviewed by:
Philipp W. Lichtenthaler, INTRODUCTION
German Police University, Germany
Stephanie R. Seitz, The link between leadership and team innovation has received much attention in literature.
California State University, East Bay,
There is much evidence to show that team innovation can be evoked by a range of leadership
United States
approaches, such as transformational leadership (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Dong et al., 2016;
*Correspondence:
Jiang and Chen, 2016), charismatic leadership (Paulsen et al., 2009), empowering leadership
Jianghua Mao
[email protected]
(Burpitt and Bigoness, 1997), ambidextrous leadership (Zacher and Rosing, 2015), and shared
leadership (Hoch, 2013). However, knowledge about the leadership–team innovation relationship
Specialty section: is still incomplete from several perspectives. First, most previous studies focused on the relationship
This article was submitted to between top-down leadership approaches and team innovation, while, with very few exceptions
Organizational Psychology, (e.g., Hoch, 2013), whether and how bottom-up leadership styles affect team innovation remains
a section of the journal underexplored. For example, we still lack information on whether and how leader humility, one
Frontiers in Psychology of the bottom-up leadership styles (Owens and Hekman, 2012; Chiu et al., 2016), affects team
Received: 24 March 2017 innovation. Distinct from shared leadership, leader humility is a vertical style which conveys
Accepted: 16 June 2017 social signals of admitting personal limitations, publicly praising followers, and displaying a high
Published: 30 June 2017 willingness to learn from others (Owens and Hekman, 2012). Although some theorists (Owens and
Citation: Hekman, 2012; Nielsen et al., 2013) have called for research to investigate the relationship between
Liu W, Mao J and Chen X (2017) leader humility and team innovation, as far as we know, no study has empirically explored this
Leader Humility and Team Innovation:
relationship. Thus, it is necessary to investigate the effect of leader humility on team innovation to
Investigating the Substituting Role
of Task Interdependence
reach a better understanding about leadership–team innovation relationship.
and the Mediating Role of Team Voice Secondly, although we can easily reach the conclusion that leadership makes a difference to
Climate. Front. Psychol. 8:1115. innovation, drawing on substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier, 1978), we cannot
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01115 exclude the possibility that the influence of leadership on team innovation could be substituted

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

(Mumford and Licuanan, 2004). Although scholars have tried to THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
explore how leadership affects team innovation under varying
work conditions (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Rank et al., 2009), Leader Humility
it is still not enough to reach a conclusion. Since bottom-up Leader humility is defined as an interpersonal characteristic
leadership approaches (e.g., leader humility) value much about that helps leaders to better cope with social interactions
the needs of team members (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Owens and by expressing a willingness to view oneself accurately, a
Hekman, 2012), one may arrive at inconsistent results by displayed appreciation of others and their teachability (Owens
focusing on a specific kind of bottom-up leadership style. From et al., 2013). Conceptualized as an interpersonal characteristic,
this perspective, it should be useful to explore whether work leader humility is behavior recognized by followers during
conditions could act as a substitute for the influence of leader social interactions. Previous research has identified several
humility on team innovation. behavioral traits of humble leaders, such as expressing a
This paper seeks to address those theoretical gaps. We use willingness to evaluate oneself without negative or positive
social information processing theory (SIP, Salancik and Pfeffer, exaggeration demonstrating that the leader has an accurate,
1978) and propose that leader humility positively influences non-defensive, objective self-view (Tangney, 2000; Exline et al.,
team innovation by shaping a voice climate. As SIP theory 2004). Humble leaders appreciate the value and contributions
posits that individuals’ attitudes and behaviors can be shaped of others (Tangney, 2002), and acknowledge the strengths of
by environmental information cues (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), others without feeling threatened (Exline et al., 2004). Besides,
we believe that leader humility can enhance team innovation by they are open to new ideas, advice, and information while
fostering a shared belief that speaking up is safe and efficient expressing a high interest in learning from others (Tangney,
(i.e., team voice climate). We focus on voice climate because 2000).
humble leaders make team members feel safe and confident to Several studies have investigated the positive effects of
speak up, which may foster team innovation by encouraging leader humility across multiple levels (Owens et al., 2013,
communication about new ideas. West and Farr (1990) has 2015; Ou et al., 2014, 2017b; Rego et al., 2017). For example,
identified team climate as a crucial factor influencing team leader humility can promote followers’ job satisfaction (Owens
innovation (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008). Meanwhile, Rego et al. (2017) et al., 2013; Ou et al., 2017a) and thus enhance their job
has suggested future research to investigate the impact of leader engagement and performance (Owens et al., 2013). It also benefits
humility on team effectiveness through a climate mechanism, team effectiveness by fostering collective humility (Owens and
such as a climate characterized by speaking up. By encouraging Hekman, 2016), increasing collective team psychological capital
being open to new ideas, willing to learn from others and (Rego et al., 2017), and provoking team integration collaboration
appreciating others’ strengths, leader humility can foster a voice (Ou et al., 2014). Besides, the positive link between humble CEOs
climate that benefits team innovation (Frazier and Bowler, 2015). and firm performance and firm innovation has also been revealed
Furthermore, drawing on substitutes for leadership in several recent studies (e.g., Ou et al., 2017b; Zhang et al., 2017).
theory (Howell and Dorfman, 1981), we propose that task Recognized as a kind of bottom-up leadership, leader
interdependence would alter the influence of leader humility on humility is distinct from other leadership approaches, such
team innovation. Task interdependence is defined as the extent to as developmental leadership, servant leadership, participant
which team members depend on each other to carry out work leadership, and shared leadership (Owens and Hekman, 2012).
effectively (Bachrach et al., 2006). Previous research has noted For instance, in contrast to developmental leadership, which
that task characteristics, such as task interdependence (Villa focuses exclusively on career-oriented advancement, leader
et al., 2003), plays a significant role in the influence process of humility demonstrates a transparency and mutual developmental
leadership (Kerr and Jermier, 1978; Deanne and Hartog, 2001). process with followers involving many psychological aspects
Since task interdependence fosters self-management teams (c.f., (Rafferty and Griffin, 2006). Although leader humility and
Langfred, 2007), we believe that the impact of leader humility servant leadership share some similarities, they are conceptually
on team innovation via voice climate can be substituted by task different in that humility could help initiate leader–follower
interdependence. role reversals, whereas servant leaders still play their leadership
Our research aims to contribute to the literature on humility, role to serve followers (Owens and Hekman, 2012). Leader
leadership and team innovation in multiple ways. First, our humility differs from participative leadership in that it
research is the first to examine the relationship between leader adopts specific interpersonal behaviors to promote followers’
humility and team innovation. By doing so, our knowledge about development, whereas participative leadership emphasizes
the relationship between bottom-up leadership approaches and joint decision-making processes. Finally, shared leadership is a
team innovation will be increased. Second, our research clarifies horizontal style that occurs when team members are all engaged
how leader humility affects team innovation by revealing the in team leadership (Pearce, 2004), while leader humility is a
mediation role of team voice climate. Third, by examining the vertical style that displays much greater care for the development
substituting role of task interdependence on relationship between of followers (Owens and Hekman, 2012).
leader humility and team innovation, our research contributes
to leadership literature by indicating that the effect of leadership Leader Humility and Team Voice Climate
on team innovation could be substituted. The overall theoretical Team voice climate is conceptualized as team members’
model is presented in Figure 1. shared beliefs about whether speaking up is effective and safe

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

FIGURE 1 | Theoretical model.

(Morrison et al., 2011). It captures employees’ understanding at each dimension of leader humility. First, humble leaders’
about their own social environment and work characteristics. transparent admissions about their respective weaknesses and
For example, employees’ shared voice belief reflects their limitations indicate a strong willingness of leaders to accept
interpretations about whether their work conditions will punish new suggestions and implement improvement advices from
them for raising inadequacy issues (Detert and Burris, 2007) and employees (Owens and Hekman, 2012), which should reinforce
whether their teams are effective enough in implementing the a shared belief that speaking up is safe and necessary. Second,
ideas proposed (Gibson and Earley, 2007). Several studies have by appreciating team members’ strengths and contributions,
provided support for the construct validity of team voice climate humble leaders legitimize the unique strengths and expertise of
by revealing its vital predictive role for both employee voice team members, thus leading to a highlighted collective ability to
behavior (Morrison et al., 2011) and team voice behavior (Frazier implement useful ideas. Moreover, humble leaders also legitimize
and Bowler, 2015). uncertainty and appreciate team members’ effort in speaking up
Schneider and Reichers (1983) argued that group climate about new ideas and changes. This makes the team members feel
originates from a process of collective sense-making by safe enough about sharing personally meaningful and even risky
interacting and exchanging information with each other. information (Nielsen et al., 2013; Chiu et al., 2016). Third, by
More recent works on climate highlighted the importance of being open to new ideas and suggestions and actively seeking
day-to-day social interaction for the development of shared feedback to improve work procedures or products (Owens et al.,
beliefs and perceptions (Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008). Thus, 2013), humble leaders can shape a shared belief that their work
leadership style and leader behavior, which send strong signals environment is safe enough to be able to speak up about new
to employee every day, play important roles in developing ideas and be efficient at implementing good suggestions. These
the climate (Detert and Treviño, 2010; Morrison et al., 2011). three behavioral tendencies of humility enacted by team leaders
For example, Frazier and Bowler (2015) found that group will (1) look for, (2) recognize, (3) appreciate, and (4) implement
perceptions of supervisor undermining negatively impact group the best ideas or suggestions, which can shape the outspoken
voice climate. behavior of team members. Furthermore, previous research has
Similarly, as SIP theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) posits, also indicated the positive effect of leader humility on employees’
individual perceptions, attitudes and behaviors can be shaped by communication and interaction about information and ideas
information cues, such as work requirements and expectations (e.g., Owens et al., 2013; Rego et al., 2017). Taking these
from the social environment (Bhave et al., 2010), while the considerations together, we propose:
leaders are regarded as vital sources of social information
due to their direct interactions and strong influences (e.g., Hypothesis 1: Leader humility is positively related to team
Boekhorst, 2015). Thus, based on SIP theory and previous voice climate.
group climate literatures (e.g., Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008;
Detert and Treviño, 2010), we propose that leader humility Leader Humility and Team Innovation
shapes team members’ perceptions about speaking up as humble Team innovation refers to the intentional introduction and
leaders express a strong willingness to be open to new ideas application of new and useful ideas, products, processes, or
and learn from others (Owens et al., 2013; Ou et al., 2017a). procedures within a team (West and Farr, 1990). Multiple
Generally speaking, a connection between leader humility and studies have already illuminated the vital role of team
team voice climate is reasonable because humble leaders trigger innovation in generating new products (Lovelace et al., 2001),
team members’ beliefs which will enable them to characterize improving work procedures (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011),
their work group as a safe and efficient environment to speak eventually increasing competition, and fostering sustainability of
up by underscoring continuous delivery of the legitimacy of free organizations (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013). Considering
communication (Owens and Hekman, 2012). the importance of team innovation in organizations, scholars
However, the unique cues for leader humility to facilitate a have paid much attention to how one could foster it (Hülsheger
team voice climate can also be found if we look more specifically et al., 2009). For example, leaders, who exert direct influence

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

on teams, have been regarded as a key factor contributing to up, which leads in time to more team innovation. Schein
team innovation (West et al., 2003; Mumford and Licuanan, (1985) argued that leaders strive to embed their values, beliefs
2004). For example, several empirical studies have found that and assumptions into member’s shared understandings, which
both leader characteristics and leader behaviors have effect on is also called “embedding mechanisms.” Through embedding
team innovation (e.g., West et al., 2003; Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; mechanisms, such as control, role modeling, coaching, workflow
Paulsen et al., 2009). designs and formal statements, team members are expected to
Seeing it as a positive leadership approach, we propose be able to shape a shared, team-level belief which, in time, will
that leader humility can foster team innovation (Owens and affect their attitudes and behaviors. Following these mechanisms,
Hekman, 2012). Owens and Hekman (2012) highlighted that a leader who expresses humility will send a signal that he/she is
humble leaders reinforce the development of themselves, their emphasizing new and useful ideas and suggestions (Owens and
followers and teams by both setting learning or supporting Hekman, 2012; Owens et al., 2013), which will become a shared
programs and transparently exemplifying their developing team-level belief that voice is safe in this team. By realizing that
journey through showing honesty about their own limitations team voice safety climate is high, team members will come up
and encouraging innovative ideas. Accordingly, we propose that with more useful ideas, which will increase the idea generation by
humble leaders can promote team innovation by (1) directly the team (Yoshida et al., 2014). Moreover, as mentioned above, a
launching innovation programs and (2) implicitly cultivating humble leader is likely to foster the team voice climate in team, as
team members’ willingness to generate and implement new ideas. team members believe that their new and useful ideas can be put
Specifically, being open to new ideas, suggestions, and solutions, into use. Thus they will have a greater motivation to carry out new
humble leaders inspire team members to generate and speak plans as their own achievement, which in turn, should promote
up about new ideas. The teachability of humble leadership can the idea implementation at the team level. Similarly, Yoshida et al.
increase the idea generation in teams by shaping a climate (2014) found that servant leaders promote team innovation by
of voice safety and effectiveness (Pine and Gilmore, 2014). By caring about team interests and development. Thus, we expected
displaying a clear awareness of their own strengths and weakness, that:
humble leaders know better about team’s goal, team members’
characteristics and team processes, which would benefit the Hypothesis 3: Team voice climate mediates the relationship
implementation of news ideas and procedures. Previous studies between leader humility and team innovation.
have drawn attention to the potential positive relationship
between leader humility and team innovation. For example, The Moderating Role of Task
Owens et al. (2013) found that leader humility is positively related Interdependence
to team learning orientation, which has been recognized as a vital Task interdependence is conceptualized as the extent to which
predictor of team innovation (Hirst et al., 2009). Therefore, we employees depend on other team members to carry out their own
propose the following hypothesis: work effectively (Van der Vegt and Janssen, 2003; Bachrach et al.,
2006). Task interdependence is one of the primary structural
Hypothesis 2: Leader humility is positively related to team factors of teams (Campion et al., 1993; Langfred, 2007). Many
innovation. researches have revealed that, when a team enjoys a high level
of task interdependence, team members will be more likely to
Leader Humility, Voice Climate, and cooperate, communicate (Bachrach et al., 2006), share knowledge
Team Innovation with others (Crawford and Haaland, 1972), and display more
Several leadership researchers have suggested that, apart from organizational citizen behavior (Bachrach et al., 2006). However,
the direct effect of leadership on team processes and outcomes, Langfred (2007) noted that a team’s particular structure or task
leadership can also influence teams in a variety of indirect ways design forced by certain tasks or technologies may limit the team’s
(Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Mehra et al., 2006). For example, ability, indicating that task interdependence can mitigate the
leaders can demonstrate influence over teams by shaping a influence of other team factors.
specific team climate (e.g., Schaubroeck et al., 2012). Although Besides, drawing on substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr
team voice climate has been conceptualized as a specific climate and Jermier, 1978), leadership behaviors can be enhanced,
(Schneider, 1975; Schneider et al., 1998) with support to speaking neutralized or substituted by different situational factors (Avolio
up, several research findings suggest that team voice climate may et al., 2009). Subsequent researchers have found that a variety
have broader influence on team work outcomes. For example, of factors can make leadership unnecessary for followers or
Frazier and Bowler (2015) found that beyond its impact on reduce the extent to which followers rely on their leaders, in
team voice, team voice climate also has influence on team another word, the effect of leadership could be substituted by
performance. Likewise, Frazier and Fainshmidt (2012) found certain contextual factors (Schriesheim, 1997). For example, it
that team voice climate has a positive effect on customer has been found that unambiguous and routine task (Deanne
service performance by strengthening employees’ perceptions of and Hartog, 2001), task with feedback (Kerr and Jermier, 1978),
psychological empowerment. and task interdependence (Villa et al., 2003) are the key factors
Based on SIP theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), we propose weakening leaders’ influences. Jermier and Kerr (1997) argued
that by sending massages of being open and teachable, humble that except for reflecting strictly a moderated phenomenon,
leaders enhance team members’ shared belief in speaking substitutes for leadership can also be introduced as a generic

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

term to investigate its potential moderation, mediating, or main building (Bachrach et al., 2006; Owens and Hekman, 2016).
effect (Dionne et al., 2002). According to one basic premise Under this circumstance, employees are more willing to speak up.
of substitutes for leadership theory, when certain contextual Based on above statements, we believe that task interdependence
factors have meaningful positive impact on employees’ behavioral will substitute the positive effect of leader humility on voice
outcome, these contextual factors will easily substitute the effect climate. Taking these considerations together, we propose:
of leadership (Howell et al., 1986). According to literature of
leader humility and task interdependence, we believe that task Hypothesis 4: Task interdependence moderates the
interdependence would temper the effect of leader humility on relationship between leader humility and team voice
the team voice climate because they both have important effects climate such that leader humility has positive effect on team
on employee voice behavior. voice climate only when task interdependence is low.
Viewed as a bottom-up leadership approach, humble leaders We further believe that such that task interdependence could
demonstrate soft power (e.g., evaluating whether an approach substitute the impact of leader humility on team innovation via
is appropriate) to manage their teams rather than hard power team voice climate. Besides, for the reason that the influence
(e.g., making hard decisions and being forceful when necessary, of leader humility could easily become a substitute for task
Owens and Hekman, 2012). Thus, unlike traditional, top-down interdependence, we think that, under a high level of task
leadership approaches, such as transformational leadership interdependence, humble leaders have limited influence on team
(Eisenbeiss et al., 2008), humble leaders may choose not to voice climate, which thereupon decreases team innovation. By
exert their influence when it is not a necessity in the situation. contrast, when task interdependence is low, team voice climate
Thus, the influence of leader humility can be substituted more could be easily shaped by leader humility, leading to more team
easily by other factors due to the voluntary decision of humble innovation. Thus, taking hypothesis 3 and hypothesis 4 together,
leaders (Owens et al., 2015). Moreover, Manz and Sims (1980) we propose:
argue that self-management is a salient substitute for leadership
because self-management triggers employees to instrumentally Hypothesis 5: Task interdependence moderates the mediation
specify contingencies of self-reinforcement. These and other effect of team voice climate pertaining to the relationship
studies proved that high levels of task interdependence foster between leader humility and team innovation, such that the
cooperation among team members (Podsakoff et al., 2000) and mediation effect is higher when task interdependence is low.
facilitate team self-management (c.f., Langfred, 2007). Thus,
drawing from Manz and Sims (1980)’s theory, it is possible that
a high level of task interdependence substitutes leadership by MATERIALS AND METHODS
promoting self-management teams.
Several reasons could be found in supporting that task Sample and Procedure
interdependence exerts similar effect on team voice climate as There were no unethical behaviors in the research process,
leader humility does, therefore substitutes the role of leader because the study did not involve human clinical trials or
humility. First, from the perspective that employees should animal experiments, therefore, we were exempt from further
speak up, both task interdependence and leader humility will ethics board approval. Ethical approval was not required for this
encourage team information exchange (Chan, 2014). To be study in accordance with the recommendations of the Science &
specific, by adoring balanced information processing, humble Technology Research Office of Huazhong University of Science
leaders will analyze information objectively and explore other and Technology. Data was collected from 97 teams located in
people’s opinions before making decisions, which will largely mainland China. We first contacted the team leaders and asked
encourage information exchange (or voice behavior) between for their permission from a training project conducted by the
employees (Rego and Simpson, 2016). Task interdependence local government. We assured them anonymous and strictly
will also facilitate information exchange because interdependent confidential data treatment. After securing the team leaders’
working tasks require employees to exchange information and agreement for participation, we gave each leader a specific code
communicate on work issues (De Dreu, 2007). Second, from the used to make sure that the leaders and the members belong to
perspective that employees will be able to speak up (Edmondson, the same team. Then, we coded the team members and asked
2003), both leader humility and task interdependent will leaders to distribute the sealed member questionnaires to all their
foster formation of shared leadership, which in turn allow members. We asked the managers to convey our purpose to their
team members to share influence and have sense of power members that it is just a voluntary and academic research. After
to speak up. Specifically, leader humility conveys leaders’ receiving team members’ questionnaires, we asked each leader to
behavioral tendencies for better leader–follower interaction, fill in the leader questionnaire. We sent out 97 questionnaires,
which therefore legitimizes and reinforces the specific relational from which 90 were returned (a response rate of 92.78%). Leader
dynamics inherent in the formation of shared leadership (Chiu humility, team voice climate and task interdependence were
et al., 2016). Task interdependence will also work as a team evaluated on the basis of the responses. Team innovation was
structural factor that nurtures the formation of shared leadership measured on the basis of responses from team leaders.
(Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014). Third, from the perspective that Among 90 teams, there are 36 R&D teams (40%), 24
employees are willing to speak up, leader humility and task production teams (27%), 18 sales team (20%), and 12 functional
interdependence will also be beneficial for cooperative climate departments (13%). The average team member engaged in this

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

research was 3.41, which makes a total of 90 team leaders and “male.” For team types, we set three dummy variables to measure
307 team members participated in the study. For team leaders, four kinds of team types (i.e., R&D team, production team, sales
53% were male, with an average age of 35.41 (SD = 6.17) team, and functional team).
and an average work experience in present team for 6.05 years
(SD = 4.37). For team members, 73.6% were male, with an Analyses
average age of 30.89 (SD = 6.05) and an average work experience We first calculated the inter-rater agreement and ICC values
in present team of 5.54 years (SD = 5.66). to make sure the variables could be aggregated to team level.
The median rwg for leader humility was 0.84, with ICC(1) and
Measurement ICC(2) values were 0.52 and 0.78, respectively. The median
Leader Humility rwg for team voice climate was 0.75, with ICC(1) and ICC(2)
We measured leader humility by using a 9-item scale developed values were 0.51 and 0.78, respectively. The median rwg for task
by Owens et al. (2013). This scale is the most common interdependence was 0.72, with ICC(1) and ICC(2) values were
measurement of leader humility (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92). Items 0.33 and 0.63, respectively. Following the recommendation of
were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to James et al. (1984) and Schneider et al. (1998), we then aggregated
5 (totally agree). Sample items include “My leader actively seeks leader humility, team voice climate and task interdependence to
feedback, even if it is critical.” team level. Since our model did not indicate cross level effect, we
used linear regression to test our model. To test the indirect effect
Team Voice Climate (hypothesis 3) and conditional indirect effect (hypothesis 5), we
We measured team voice climate using a 12-item scale developed performed bootstrapping analyses, following the suggestion of
by Morrison et al. (2011). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale Preacher and Hayes (2004).
is 0.92. Respondents were asked to report the extent to which Since we adopted the same self-report method to measure
members of their team feel they are capable of effectively the independent variable and the mediator, the correlation
(or safety) to do voice behaviors proposed by Van Dyne and between these two variables may owe to common method bias
LePine (1998) (e.g., “develop and make recommendations (Dooley and Fryxell, 1999; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Thus, we
concerning issues that affect the team”). Items were rated on a then assessed the potential impact of common method bias with
5-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). two additional analyses. We first conducted the confirmatory
factor analysis with method factor following Widaman (1985)’s
Task Interdependence recommendation. Items were allowed to load both on theoretical
We measured task interdependence by using a 4-item scale from constructs and on a latent common methods variance factor.
Van Der Vegt et al. (2000) (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80). This scale Results showed that the method factor did improve model fit,
has been widely used in previous studies (Pearce and Gregersen, however, it accounted for only a small portion (15%) of the
1991). Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (totally total variance, which is almost the same or even less than
disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Sample items include “I depend on the amount of method variance observed by previous studies
my colleagues for the completion of my work.” (e.g., 27%, Williams et al., 1989; 16%, Carlson and Perrewé,
1999; 11%, Carlson and Kacmar, 2000). This result suggests
Team Innovation that common method variance is not a pervasive problem in
We measured team innovation through using a 4-item scale this study. And then we conducted the split-sample analysis,
from Drach-Zahavy and Somech (2001), which was originally which has been suggested as one way to deal with potential
developed by West and Wallace (1991). Team leaders had to team-level common method variance (Dooley and Fryxell, 1999).
indicate the extent to which the team had initiated innovations Then we randomly split our sample in half for each team and
from 1 (hardly ever) to 5 (very much). Sample items include “The used one half values of the team to measure the independent
team initiated new procedures and methods.” The Cronbach’s variable and the other half to measure the mediator (Dooley
alpha is 0.91. and Fryxell, 1999). Results showed that the relationship between
leader humility and team voice climate was still significant
Control Variable (β = 0.36, p < 0.01). Taken together, those analyses suggested that
We introduced several control variables into our analysis to common method variance was not a serious threat to invalidate
minimize the effects of other exogenous variables. First, we our findings.
controlled team size and team types since previous studies have
found their effects on team innovation-based team processes
and team innovation (see a meta-analysis from Hülsheger et al., RESULTS
2009; also see Curral et al., 2001; Gajendran and Joshi, 2012).
Beside, Owens and Hekman (2012) indicated that the effect of Descriptive Analysis
leader humility may vary across different leader gender or leader The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables
age. Thus, we controlled leader gender and leader age to better are shown in Table 1. Leader humility was significantly related
examine the effect of leader humility on team process and team to team voice climate (r = 0.54, p < 0.001) and team innovation
innovation. Leader gender and team types were set as the dummy (r = 0.33, p < 0.01). Team voice climate was significantly related
variable. To leader gender, “1” refers to “female,” and “0” refers to to team innovation (r = 0.34, p < 0.01).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

TABLE 1 | Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Leader gender 0.47 0.50

2. Leader age 35.54 5.61 −0.10
3. Team size 3.41 0.63 −0.05 0.23∗
4. R&D 0.50 0.50 −0.18 0.24∗ 0.65∗∗∗
5. Production 0.36 0.48 0.25∗ −0.19 −0.37∗∗∗ −0.74∗∗∗
6. Sales 0.09 0.29 −0.05 −0.11 −0.26∗ −0.31∗∗ −0.24∗
7. Leader humility 3.77 0.71 −0.02 0.15 0.05 −0.07 0.11 −0.18
8. Voice climate 3.73 0.70 −0.01 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.09 −0.21∗ 0.54∗∗∗
9. Task interdependence 3.55 0.58 0.05 −0.01 0.04 −0.15 0.17 −0.10 0.37∗∗∗ 0.42∗∗∗
10. Team innovation 3.86 0.85 0.15 0.05 −0.07 −0.05 0.26∗ −0.09 0.33∗∗ 0.34∗∗ 0.21∗
∗p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

TABLE 2 | Confirmatory factor analyses.

Models χ2 df χ2 /df TLI CFI RMSEA 1χ2 1df p

Four-factor Model (LH; VL; TI; TIV) 809.04 371 2.18 0.90 0.91 0.06
Three-factor Model (LH; VL; TI+TIV) 1047.99 374 2.80 0.84 0.86 0.08 238.95 3 <0.001
Two-factor Model (LH; VL+TI+TIV) 1668.80 376 4.44 0.69 0.74 0.11 620.81 5 <0.001
One-factor Model (LH+VL+TI+TIV) 2106.07 377 5.58 0.60 0.65 0.12 437.27 6 <0.001

LH refers to leader humility; VL refers to team voice climate; TI refers to task interdependence; TIV refers to team innovation.

Measurement Model recommendation to use bootstrapping method. Results from

We first used AMOS 22.0 to perform confirmatory factor analysis 2000 times bootstrapping showed than the indirect from leader
to verify discriminant validity of the constructs (see Table 2). humility to team innovation via team voice climate was
The measurement model contained four concepts (i.e., leader 0.15, (95% confidence interval = [0.0036, 0.3817]), supporting
humility, team voice climate, task interdependence, and team hypothesis 3.
innovation) and 29 items. Results showed that the four-factor To test moderation effect (hypothesis 4 and 5), we first
model fit the data best (χ2 = 809.04, df = 371, χ2 /df = 2.18, conducted linear regression analysis. Results from Model 1c
CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.06) than three-factor model showed that the interaction between leader humility and task
(χ2 = 1047.99, df = 374, χ2 /df = 2.80, CFI = 0.86, TLI = 0.84, interdependence was significantly related to team voice climate
RMSEA = 0.08; 1χ2 = 238.95, p < 0.001), two-factor model (β = −0.24, p < 0.05). We then plotted the interaction
(χ2 = 1668.80, df = 376, χ2 /df = 4.44, CFI = 0.74, TLI = 0.69, effect and conducted the simple slope analysis (see Figure 2).
RMSEA = 0.11; 1χ2 = 620.81, p < 0.001) and one-factor model Results showed that under low level of teak interdependence
(χ2 = 2106.07, df = 377, χ2 /df = 5.58, CFI = 0.65, TLI = 0.60, leader humility had positive effect on team voice climate
RMSEA = 0.12; 1χ2 = 437.27, p < 0.001), confirming the (r = 0.39, t = 5.10, p < 0.001), while under high level of task
discriminant validity of these constructs in our model. interdependence the relationship between leader humility and
team voice climate was not significant (r = 0.15, t = 1.91,
Hypothesis Testing ns.), supporting hypothesis 4. We followed Preacher and
We conducted a series of linear regression models to test our Hayes (2004) recommendation to test the conditional indirect
hypotheses (see Table 3). We first entered all control variables effect (hypothesis 5). When testing conditional indirect effect,
into the model (Model 1a) and then added leader humility into we controlled conditional effect of task interdependence on
the model (Model 1b). Results showed that after controlling relationship between leader humility and team innovation
leader gender, leader age, team size and team types, leader (Preacher and Hayes, 2004; Muller et al., 2005). Results from
humility was significantly related to team voice climate (β = 0.54, 5000 times bootstrapping showed that the conditional direct
p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis 1. Similarly, after controlling effect is −0.39, (95% confidence interval = [−0.7291, −0.0565]).
leader gender, leader age, team size and team types, leader Specifically, when task interdependence is low, the indirect
humility was significantly related to team innovation (β = 0.40, effect was 0.61, (95% confidence interval = [0.2583, 0.9629]),
p < 0.001, Model 2b), supporting hypothesis 2. Meanwhile, while when task interdependence is high, the indirect effect
results also showed that team voice climate was significantly was not significant (indirect effect = 0.15, 95% confidence
related to team innovation after controlling several controls interval = [−0.1724, 0.4737]). Meanwhile, results showed that
(β = 0.32, p < 0.01, Model 2c). In order to test the indirect the moderated mediation effect (i.e., conditional indirect effect)
effect of leader humility on team innovation through team voice is −0.05, (95% confidence interval = [−0.1520, −0.0003]).
climate (hypothesis 3), we followed Preacher and Hayes (2004) Specifically, when task interdependence is low, the indirect

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

TABLE 3 | Test of overall model.

Variable Team voice climate Team innovation

Model 1a Model 1b Model 1c Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c

Leader gender −0.05 −0.02 0.04 0.10 0.12 0.11

Leader age 0.05 −0.04 −0.02 0.10 0.04 0.08
Team size 0.07 −0.04 −0.17 −0.17 −0.25 −0.19
R&D −0.17 0.17 0.33 0.75∗∗ 0.99∗∗∗ 0.80∗∗
Production −0.02 0.14 0.18 0.83∗∗∗ 0.95∗∗∗ 0.84∗∗∗
Sales −0.24 −0.04 0.05 0.31∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.39∗
Leader humility 0.54∗∗∗ 0.45∗∗∗ 0.40∗∗∗
Task interdependence 0.21∗
Leader humility ∗ Task interdependence −0.24∗
Team voice climate 0.32∗∗
F 0.82 5.28∗∗∗ 6.10∗∗∗ 2.85∗ 5.19∗∗∗ 4.31∗∗∗
R2 0.06 0.32 0.41 0.18 0.31 0.27
Adjusted R2 0.01 0.26 0.35 0.11 0.25 0.21
1 R2a 0.26∗∗∗ 0.35∗∗ 0.14∗∗∗ 0.10∗∗
∗p < 0.05, < 0.01,
∗∗ p < 0.001. All regression coefficients are standard regression coefficients. a, Model 1b and 1c was compared with Model 1a; Model 2b and
∗∗∗ p

2c was compared with Model 2a.

Theoretical Implications
Our research has contributed to the literature in multiple ways.
We have shown that leader humility has a significantly positive
effect on team innovation by fostering a team voice climate, which
increases our knowledge about the relationship between bottom-
up leadership approaches and team innovation. Indeed, the term
“humility” comes from Latin humus, which means “on the earth,”
and thus leader humility means “leading from the ground” or
“bottom-up leadership” (Owens and Hekman, 2012). Several
studies have examined the bottom-up nature of leader humility
by revealing its effect on initiating leader–follower role reversal
(Owens and Hekman, 2012) and fostering self-management
FIGURE 2 | Moderating effect of task interdependence on relationship teams (Chiu et al., 2016). Similar with our finding that
between leader humility and team voice climate. leader humility can foster team innovation, previous studies
have also found that shared leadership, another bottom-
up leadership style, is positively associated with team level’s
effect was 0.11, (95% confidence interval = [0.0182, 0.2505]), innovative behavior. Meanwhile, except bottom-up leadership
while when task interdependence is high, the indirect effect approaches, the relationship between top-down leadership
was not significant (indirect effect = 0.02, 95% confidence styles and team innovation has also been investigated. For
interval = [−0.1053, 0.1167]), supporting hypothesis 5. example, transformational leadership (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008)
and charismatic leadership (Paulsen et al., 2009) are found to
be linked with team innovation. Thus, although several scholars
DISCUSSION have distinguished between top-down and bottom-up leadership
styles from multiple viewpoints, such as the source of legitimacy
The present study investigates how leader humility improves (Owens and Hekman, 2012) and the influence tactics (Marion
team innovation through cultivating team voice climate. and Uhl-Bien, 2002; Day and Harrison, 2007), it seems that the
In the event, we found that leader humility fosters voice leadership–team innovation relation is relatively stable across
climate among team members and then promotes team different leadership styles. Thus, our research contributes to
innovation. Furthermore, we found that task interdependence leadership literature by increasing our understanding about the
substitutes the effect of leader humility on team innovation relationship between leadership and team innovation.
via team voice climate. As our results showed, only under Our research has also contributed to leader humility
conditions of low level of task interdependence, leader literature by answering the calls for examining how leader
humility will enhance team voice climate and then foster humility influences team outcomes and by clarifying the
team innovation. team-level mechanisms related to voice climate underlying

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

the relationship between leader humility and team innovation. influence of leader humility on team innovation via team
Although the significant effect of leadership on team innovation voice climate. The results of our research show that when
has been examined, different leadership styles emphasize task interdependence is high, the positive influence of leader
different influence tactics on team innovation. For example, humility on team innovation will be substituted. Thus, our
transformational leadership fosters team innovation by sharing research provides new knowledge for leader humility literature
the same vision and goal with team members (Dong et al., 2016; by examining the specific condition in which leader humility is
Li et al., 2016). Paulsen et al. (2009) found that charismatic effective.
leaders promote team innovation by supporting a sense of team
identity and commitment, and encouraging team members to Limitations and Future Research
cooperate through idea articulation. However, our study showed Some limitations of our research are worth emphasizing. First,
that, without shaping a shared vision, leader humility would this research was conducted in China, so one cannot be
have a significant effect on team innovation by fostering team sure whether the findings can be generalized to Western and
voice climate. Thus, our research provides evidence for DeRue’s other cultures. For instance, in low power distance cultures
(2011) argument about shaping a vision or a collective goal is not (Hofstede, 1984), employees may have different understanding
necessary for leadership. Moreover, although voice behavior has about leader humility and the influence of leader humility
been receiving much attention over the last few decades (Detert will be different. Future researchers could test our theoretical
and Burris, 2007; Ng and Feldman, 2013), it is not long before model in different cultures to achieve a more comprehensive
voice climate is regarded as a kind of team climate (Morrison understanding about leader humility. Second, our measure of
et al., 2011). Although Morrison et al. (2011) proposed the team innovation is essentially subjective, so future researchers
concept of team voice climate and pointed to its unique value in may use objective measurement, like numbers of patents, to
team, how to foster team voice climate is still under discovered. measure team innovation. Third, part of our research conclusion
Extending their work, we have explored the antecedents of team is made based on cross-sectional data—although we have
voice climate to uncover its mediating role in the relationship excluded the potential effect of common method bias—it is
between leader humility and team innovation. Thus, our research still hard for us to infer the causal relationships. Future
both contributes to leader humility literature by revealing its researchers could use a longitudinal or experimental design
team-level mechanism and expands the work of West and to test the causal relationships between leader humility and
Wallace (1991) about the important role of team climate on team team voice climate. Moreover, although leader humility can
outcomes. interact with task interdependence to impact teams, results
Further, our research has essentially answered the question also showed that leader humility is significantly related to
whether the influence of leadership (i.e., leader humility) on task interdependence. This may raise an interesting question
teams can be substituted, which provides further empirical for future research to explore whether leader humility has
evidence for leadership substitute theory. Kerr and Jermier direct effect on team members’ shared perception of task
(1978) identified 13 characteristics that could act as a substitute interdependence.
of leadership, including closely knit, cohesive, interdependent
work groups. Similarly, previous research also found that Managerial Implications
self-management teams can substitute the influence of leadership In the past, a leader was perceived to be a strong-willed
on teams (Manz and Sims, 1980). Further, our research found that individual with the personality characteristics of dominance,
task interdependence substitutes the effect of leader humility on ascendancy, and aggressiveness. By contrast, our research has
team voice climate as well as the subsequent team innovation, found that leader humility positively impacts team climate
which provides evidence for leadership substitute theory. Taken and team innovation. Therefore, leaders should foster their
those conclusions together, it seems that when team’s social humility to direct their organizations in increasingly dynamic and
connection between team members is strong, the influence of turbulent environment. Nielsen et al. (2013) have pointed out
leader on team will decrease (Kerr and Jermier, 1978). Thus, same exercises for leaders to cultivate humble leadership, such as
other team characteristics reflecting the strength of connection embracing a vision larger than oneself, adopting a humble stance,
among team members, such as the density of team social keeping a learning diary, and practicing self-sacrifice. Following
interaction or informal social network, may also act as substitutes Nielsen et al. (2013)’s suggestions, companies can train leaders
of leadership. to express humility in focused training programs and leaders
Besides, our research also contributes to leader humility themselves should learn how to express humility. Through much
by casting light on whether leader humility is effective across effort, organizations should be able to benefit from high-quality
different work conditions. Previous scholars of leader humility innovations.
have emphasized the importance of specific conditions in Although our results have shown that leader humility
leader humility process (Owens and Hekman, 2012; Ou et al., is positively related to team innovation, this relationship
2014). However, up to now, little research has explored may vary in different work conditions. Our research has
the conditions under which condition the effect of leader found that task interdependence can act as a substitute
humility will be strengthened or weakened (Ou et al., 2017a). for humble leaders’ positive effect on team climate and
Based on substitutes for leadership theory, our research has team innovation. Thus, organizations may arrange humble
found that task interdependence can be substituted for the leaders with some specific teams. For example, organizations

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

may choose humble leaders to manage teams of low task interdependence can act as a substitute for leader humility in
interdependence in order to foster team voice climate and team fostering team voice climate and team innovation.
innovation. Meanwhile, our results also act as a reminder to
leaders that humility may not always produce positive effects.
Under some specific conditions (i.e., high task interdependence), AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
the positive effect of leader humility on some team outcomes
(e.g., team innovation) may disappear. JM and WL designed and adopted the study, wrote the paper; XC
wrote the paper.
CONCLUSION
The relationship between leadership and team innovation has FUNDING
received much attention in literature. Our findings increase
our understanding about how leader humility affects team This research was funded by The National Natural Science
innovation. Specifically, we have found that leader humility Foundation of China: No. 71502175; No. 71402190 and The
would enhance team innovation by fostering a voice climate. Task National Social Science Foundation of China: No. 14BGL199.

REFERENCES Deanne, N., and Hartog, D. (2001). “Leadership in organizations,” in Handbook

of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Organizational Psychology,
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., and Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: current Vol. 2, eds N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, C. Viswesvaran, and H. K. Sinangil
theories, research, and future directions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 421–449. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 DeRue, D. S. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: leading and following as a
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., and Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of complex adaptive process. Res. Organ. Behav. 31, 125–150. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.
task interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group 2011.09.007
performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 1396–1405. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1396 Detert, J. R., and Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice:
Bhave, D. P., Kramer, A., and Glomb, T. M. (2010). Work–family conflict in work is the door really open? Acad. Manag. J. 50, 869–884. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.
groups: social information processing, support, and demographic dissimilarity. 26279183
J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 145–158. doi: 10.1037/a0017885 Detert, J. R., and Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: how supervisors
Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organ. Sci. 21, 249–270.
inclusion: a social information processing perspective. Hum. Resour. Manag. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0405
54, 241–264. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21669 Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., and James, L. R. (2002). Neutralizing
Burpitt, W. J., and Bigoness, W. J. (1997). Leadership and innovation among substitutes for leadership theory: leadership effects and common-source bias.
teams: the impact of empowerment. Small Group Res. 28, 414–423. doi: 10.1177/ J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 454–463. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.454
1046496497283005 Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., and Li, C. (2016). Enhancing employee
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., and Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing:
group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. J. Organ. Behav. 38,
work groups. Pers. Psychol. 46, 823–847. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993. 439–458. doi: 10.1002/job.2134
tb01571.x Dooley, R. S., and Fryxell, G. E. (1999). Attaining decision quality and commitment
Carlson, D. S., and Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work–family conflict in the organization: from dissent: the moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic
do life role values make a difference? J. Manag. 26, 1031–1054. doi: 10.1177/ decision-making teams. Acad. Manag. J. 42, 389–402. doi: 10.2307/257010
014920630002600502 Drach-Zahavy, A., and Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: the
Carlson, D. S., and Perrewé, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the role of team processes and structures. Group. Dyn. Theor. Res. 5, 111–123.
stressor-strain relationship: an examination of work-family conflict. J. Manag. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.5.2.111
25, 513–540. doi: 10.1177/014920639902500403 Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: how team leaders
Chan, S. C. (2014). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: does information promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. J. Manage. Stud. 40,
sharing matter? Hum. Relat. 67, 667–693. doi: 10.1177/0018726713503022 1419–1452. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00386
Chiu, C. Y. C., Owens, B. P., and Tesluk, P. E. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., and Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational
leadership in teams: the role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate principles. J. Appl.
team performance capability. J. Appl. Psychol. 101, 1705–1720. doi: 10.1037/ Psychol. 93, 1438–1446. doi: 10.1037/a0012716
apl0000159 Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., and Finkel, E. J.
Crawford, J. L., and Haaland, G. A. (1972). Predecisional information seeking and (2004). Too proud to let go: narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness.
subsequent conformity in the social influence process. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 23, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87, 894–912. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.894
112–119. doi: 10.1037/h0032870 Frazier, M. L., and Bowler, W. M. (2015). Voice climate, supervisor undermining,
Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., and West, M. A. (2001). It’s what and work outcomes: a group-level examination. J. Manag. 41, 841–863.
you do and the way that you do it: team task, team size, and innovation- doi: 10.1177/0149206311434533
related group processes. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 10, 187–204. doi: 10.1080/ Frazier, M. L., and Fainshmidt, S. (2012). Voice climate, work outcomes, and the
13594320143000627 mediating role of psychological empowerment: a multilevel examination. Group
Day, D. V., and Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to Organ. Manag. 37, 691–715. doi: 10.1177/1059601112463960
leadership development. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 17, 360–373. doi: 10.1016/ Gajendran, R. S., and Joshi, A. (2012). Innovation in globally distributed teams:
j.hrmr.2007.08.007 the role of LMX, communication frequency, and member influence on team
De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 97, 1252–1261. doi: 10.1037/a0028958
team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. J. Appl. Gibson, C. B., and Earley, P. C. (2007). Collective cognition in action:
Psychol. 92, 628–638. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.628 accumulation, interaction, examination, and accommodation in the

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Ng, T. W., and Feldman, D. C. (2013). Changes in perceived supervisor
Acad. Manage. Rev. 32, 438–458. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.24351397 embeddedness: effects on employees’ embeddedness, organizational trust, and
Graen, G. B., and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: voice behavior. Pers. Psychol. 66, 645–685. doi: 10.1111/peps.12025
development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., and Ferraro, H. S. (2013). Leading with Humility.
years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 6, 219–247. New York, NY: Routledge.
doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 Ou, A. Y., Seo, J. J., Choi, D., and Hom, P. (2017a). When can humble top
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., and Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on executives retain middle managers? The moderating role of top management
employee creativity: goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual team faultlines. Acad. Manag. J. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.1072 [Epub ahead of
creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 280–293. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308035 print].
Hoch, J. E. (2013). Shared leadership and innovation: the role of vertical leadership Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., and Song,
and employee integrity. J. Bus. Psychol. 28, 159–174. doi: 10.1007/s10869-012- L. J. (2014). Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management
9273-6 team integration and middle managers’ responses. Adm. Sci. Q. 59, 34–72.
Hoch, J. E., and Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: hierarchical doi: 10.1177/0001839213520131
leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., and Peterson, S. J. (2017b). Do humble CEOs matter?
390–403. doi: 10.1037/a0030264 An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. J. Manag. doi: 10.1177/
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work- 0149206315604187 [Epub ahead of print].
Related Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Owens, B. P., and Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: an inductive
Howell, J. P., and Dorfman, P. W. (1981). Substitutes for leadership: test of a examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Acad.
construct. Acad. Manag. J. 24, 714–728. doi: 10.2307/256171 Manag. J. 55, 787–818. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0441
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., and Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in Owens, B. P., and Hekman, D. R. (2016). How does leader humility influence
leadership research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 11, 88–102. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1986. team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective
4282632 promotion focus. Acad. Manag. J. 59, 1088–1111. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., and Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of 0660
innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., and Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in
research. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1128–1145. doi: 10.1037/a0015978 organizations: implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organ. Sci.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., and Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group 24, 1517–1538. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0795
interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 69, 85–98. Owens, B. P., Walker, A. S., and Waldman, D. A. (2015). Leader narcissism and
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 follower outcomes: the counterbalancing effect of leader humility. J. Appl.
Jermier, J. M., and Kerr, S. (1997). “Substitutes for leadership: their meaning Psychol. 100, 1203–1213. doi: 10.1037/a0038698
and measurement” — Contextual recollections and current observations. Paulsen, N., Maldonado, D., Callan, V. J., and Ayoko, O. (2009). Charismatic
Leadersh. Q. 8, 95–101. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90008-4 leadership, change and innovation in an R&D organization. J. Organ. Change
Jiang, Y., and Chen, C. C. (2016). Integrating knowledge activities for team Manag. 22, 511–523. doi: 10.1108/09534810910983479
innovation: effects of transformational leadership. J. Manag. doi: 10.1177/ Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared
0149206316628641 [Epub ahead of print]. leadership to transform knowledge work. Acad. Manage. Exec. 18, 47–57.
Kerr, S., and Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and doi: 10.5465/AME.2004.12690298
measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 22, 375–403. doi: 10.1016/ Pearce, J. L., and Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extra role
0030-5073(78)90023-5 behavior: a test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. J. Appl. Psychol.
Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: a longitudinal study 76, 838–844. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.838
of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in Pine, B. J., and Gilmore, H. J. (2014). A leader’s guide to innovation in the
self-managing teams. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 885–900. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007. experience economy. Strategy Leadersh. 42, 24–29. doi: 10.1108/SL-09-2013-
26279196 0073
Li, V., Mitchell, R., and Boyle, B. (2016). The divergent effects of transformational Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
leadership on individual and team innovation. Group Organ. Manag. 41, 66–97. method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
doi: 10.1177/1059601115573792 recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., and Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross- 88.5.879
functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., and Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
a conflict communications perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 779–793. Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and
doi: 10.2307/3069415 empirical literature and suggestions for future research. J. Manag. 26, 513–563.
Manz, C. C., and Sims, H. P. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: doi: 10.1177/014920630002600307
a social learning theory perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 5, 361–367. doi: 10.5465/ Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating
AMR.1980.4288845 indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods 36, 717–731.
Marion, R., and Uhl-Bien, M. (2002). Leadership in complex organizations. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553
Leadersh. Q. 12, 389–418. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00092-3 Rafferty, A. E., and Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration:
Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., and Robertson, B. (2006). The social network distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. J. Occup.
ties of group leaders: implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organ. Psychol. 79, 37–61. doi: 10.1348/096317905X36731
Organ. Sci. 17, 64–79. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0158 Rank, J., Nelson, N. E., Allen, T. D., and Xu, X. (2009). Leadership predictors
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., and Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and of innovation and task performance: subordinates’ self-esteem and self-
attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: reconciling the innovation presentation as moderators. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82, 465–489. doi: 10.1348/
paradox. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 740–760. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870100 096317908X371547
Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., and Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in Rego, A., Owens, B., Yam, K. C., Bluhm, D., Cunha, M. P. E., Silard, A., et al. (2017).
groups: a cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, Leader humility and team performance: exploring the mediating mechanisms
183–191. doi: 10.1037/a0020744 of team psycap and task allocation effectiveness. J. Manag. doi: 10.1177/
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., and Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated 0149206316688941 [Epub ahead of print].
and mediation is moderated. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 852–863. doi: 10.1037/ Rego, A., and Simpson, A. V. (2016). The perceived impact of leaders’ humility on
0022-3514.89.6.852 team effectiveness: an empirical study. J. Bus. Ethics doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-
Mumford, M. D., and Licuanan, B. (2004). Leading for innovation: conclusions, 3008-3 [Epub ahead of print].
issues, and directions. Leadersh. Q. 15, 163–171. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003. Salancik, G. R., and Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to
12.010 job attitudes and task design. Adm. Sci. Q. 23, 224–253. doi: 10.2307/2392563

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115

Liu et al. Leader Humility and Team Innovation

Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W., Lord, R. G., West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A., and
Treviño, L. K., et al. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across Haward, B. (2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care.
organization levels. Acad. Manag. J. 55, 1053–1078. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0064 Leadersh. Q. 14, 393–410.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: West, M. A., and Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological
Jossey-Bass. and Organizational Strategies. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: an essay. Pers. Psychol. 28, 447–479. West, M. A., and Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in health care teams. Eur. J. Soc.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01386.x Psychol. 21, 303–315. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420210404
Schneider, B., and Reichers, A. (1983). On the etiology of climate. Pers. Psychol. 36, Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for
19–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb00500.x multitrait-multimethod data. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 9, 1–26. doi: 10.1177/
Schneider, B., White, S. S., and Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and 014662168500900101
customer perceptions of service quality: tests of a causal model. J. Appl. Psychol. Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., and Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in
83, 150–163. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.150 self-reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact? J. Appl. Psychol.
Schriesheim, C. A. (1997). Substitutes-for-leadership theory: development and 74, 462–468. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.462
basic concepts. Leadersh. Q. 8, 103–108. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90009-6 Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., and Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant
Somech, A., and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of
innovation implementation: the role of team composition and climate for identification and prototypicality. J. Bus. Res. 67, 1395–1404. doi: 10.1016/j.
innovation. J. Manag. 39, 684–708. doi: 10.1177/0149206310394187 jbusres.2013.08.013
Tangney, J. P. (2000). Humility: theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and Zacher, H., and Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team
directions for future research. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19, 70–82. doi: 10.1521/jscp. innovation. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 36, 54–68. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-
2000.19.1.70 0141
Tangney, J. P. (2002). “Humility,” in Handbook of Positive Psychology, eds C. R. Zhang, H., Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., and Wang, H. (2017). CEO humility, narcissism
Snyder and S. J. Lopez (New York, NY: Oxford University Press). and firm innovation: a paradox perspective on CEO traits. Leadersh. Q.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.003 [Epub ahead of print].
leadership and organizing. Leadersh. Q. 17, 654–676. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006. Zohar, D., and Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group
10.007 interaction as climate antecedents: a social network analysis. J. Appl. Psychol.
Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., and Van De Vliert, E. (2000). Team members’ affective 93, 744–757. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.744
responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity.
J. Manag. 26, 633–655. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600403 Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
Van der Vegt, G. S., and Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
group diversity on innovation. J. Manag. 29, 729–751. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2063- be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
03-00033-3
Van Dyne, L., and LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Copyright © 2017 Liu, Mao and Chen. This is an open-access article distributed
evidence of construct and predictive validity. Acad. Manag. J. 41, 108–119. under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
doi: 10.2307/256902 distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
Villa, J. R., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., and Daniel, D. L. (2003). Problems author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal
with detecting moderators in leadership research using moderated multiple is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
regression. Leadersh. Q. 14, 3–23. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00184-4 reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 June 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1115