Humble Leadership and Leadership Flexibility (My NPO)
In Humble Leadership,[1] Edgar and Peter Schein challenge one of the most ingrained assumptions in modern organisational life: that leadership is primarily about roles, hierarchy, and transactions. They argue that leadership at its most transformative emerges not through authority or position but through what they call “Level 2 relationships.”[2] This idea serves as a reorientation of how leaders should engage with those they serve. The authors are well qualified. Edgar H. Schein, often regarded as the father of organisational culture, spent decades at MIT Sloan School of Management shaping the study of leadership, culture, and organisational psychology. His son, Peter, builds on that legacy as a consultant and cofounder of the Organisational Culture and Leadership Institute, bringing practical experience in Silicon Valley to their joint work on Humble Leadership.
Many models of leadership, whether transactional, bureaucratic, and charismatic, to name a few, often risk reducing human interaction to role-based exchanges, ie, I’m the leader, you’re the follower. I cast the vision, you implement. While roles are important for focus, they can easily become barriers to authentic relationships, which, the Authors suggest, is a priority. In fact, in the preface, they state, “Leadership is always a relationship.”[3] In ministry or organisational life, a lack of relationship creates distance, reinforcing power dynamics rather than trust. The Schein’s suggest that genuine leadership flourishes when we shift toward relationships built on openness, trust, and vulnerability. They call these Level 2 relationships: bonds not defined merely by function but by mutual respect and authentic connection.
One of the most challenging aspects of Level 2 leadership is vulnerability. To lead humbly is to resist the temptation to have all the answers. Leaders, especially in church, often feel the weight of expectation: If I don’t project strength, won’t I lose credibility? Yet humility, Schein argues, doesn’t weaken leadership; it strengthens it.[4] A posture of humility invites collaboration, releases creativity, and fosters resilience. This resonates with Jim Collins’s “Level 5 leader” who embodies humility and fierce resolve,[5] and with Patrick Lencioni’s insistence that organisational health depends on trust and honest relationships.[6]
In my doctoral studies on leadership flexibility, I’ve seen a similar theme. Leaders who cling rigidly to one leadership style often struggle when the seasons in life, leadership and ministry shift. But leaders who flex, who read the moment and adjust, nearly always demonstrate humility at the core. Flexibility requires the humility to admit: My default is not enough for this season. I must adapt. Carl Jung’s concept of the “shadow” reminds us that every leadership strength carries a corresponding weakness.[7] An autocratic leader may provide clarity in a crisis but risks isolation if they fail to listen. A transformational leader may inspire but drift into manipulation if unchecked. Humility enables leaders to acknowledge these shadows, remain self-aware, and invite accountability.
The Schein’s highlight Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety[8] in Level 2 relationships Her studies show that high-performing teams are not those with the smartest individuals but those where people feel safe to take risks and admit mistakes. For church leaders, this is crucial. If ministry teams feel honesty will be punished, authentic discipleship is stunted. But when leaders embody humility, listening first, admitting mistakes, and seeking counsel, trust grows. And with trust comes creativity and the willingness to follow into uncharted territory.
The Schein’s rightly acknowledge a key tension: scaling Level 2 relationships. In a small team, it’s possible to build trust personally. But what about in a multi-site church or global movement? Here again, leadership flexibility matters. A humble leader recognises they cannot personally embody Level 2 relationships with thousands of people. Instead, they shape a culture where these relationships are modelled and multiplied. Humble leadership is not about one heroic figure but about seeding a way of being that cascades through layers of leadership. Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline supports this. “Leaders shape culture through systems thinking, embedding relational practices into organizational processes.”[9] Scaling humility requires embedding it in structures, language, and accountability.
Perhaps the most radical implication of Humble Leadership is its reframing of success. Traditional measures, numbers, growth, and reputation often overshadow relational quality. But what if the true test of leadership is not only what we accomplish but how we journey together? Carol Dweck’s Mindset reinforces this shift. Success is not static but dynamic, not a final destination but a continual process of learning and adapting.[10] Humble leaders (pastors), open to feedback and failure, foster cultures of growth where leaders and teams continually develop. This success reframing aligns with the gospel vision of leadership. Jesus led not through coercion but through presence, humility, and authentic relationships. He modelled what the Schein’s are writing about, knowing and being known, serving rather than being served, and building trust that could withstand failure and betrayal.
In essence, to lead humbly is to prioritise relationship over role, authenticity over authority, and trust over control. It demands vulnerability, flexibility, and the willingness to let go of the illusion of control. As I continue my studies and practice of leadership, I see humility not as a soft option but as one of the hardest disciplines. To lead humbly is to resist ego, embrace learning, and create cultures where people flourish not as functions but as fellow travellers. And perhaps, in a world obsessed with leaders who are loud and unyielding, humble leadership may be the most revolutionary leadership of all.
[1] Edgar H Schein and Peter A. Schein. 2023. Humble Leadership: The Power of Relationships, Openness, and Trust. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
[2] Ibid, 15.
[3] Ibid, ix.
[4] Ibid, 43.
[5] Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 21.
[6] Patrick Lencioni, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012), 35.
[7] Carl Jung, Psychological Types, trans. H. Godwyn Baynes (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1923), 112.
[8] Amy Edmondson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth (Hoboken: Wiley, 2019), 58.
[9] Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 131.
[10] Carol S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (New York: Random House, 2006), 46.
About the Author
Glyn Barrett
I am the founding & lead Pastor of !Audacious Church in Manchester, England. I was born in Manchester, but moved to Australia at the age of two. My wife and I were married in Australia and began married and ministry life in England 29 years ago. After serving as youth pastors for 12 years, we moved to Manchester to pioneer !Audacious Church. As a church we now have 7 locations. 3 in Manchester, Chester, Cardiff (Wales), Sheffield, and Geneva (Switzerland). In 2019 I became the National Leader of Assemblies of God in Great Britain. We have over 650 churches in our movement and have planted 98 new churches since May 2022 with a goal of planting 400 new churches between May 2022 and May 2028. I am the Global Chair for Church planting for Assemblies of God which currently has 420,000 churches and also chair Empowered21 Europe. I'm happily married to Sophia, with two children, one dog and two motorbikes. I love Golf, coffee and spending time with friends. I love to laugh, make friends and create memories!10 responses to “Humble Leadership and Leadership Flexibility (My NPO)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Glyn,
Great reading your post.
In what ways does leadership flexibility, grounded in humility and self-awareness, empower leaders to navigate shifting seasons of ministry without compromising authenticity or relational depth?
Shela, thanks for engaging with the post. I’ve found that leadership flexibility, when grounded in humility and self-awareness, acts almost like a compass in shifting ministry seasons. Without humility, flexibility becomes pragmatism or compromise; with humility, it becomes attentiveness to God, to people, and to context. The self-aware leader can say, “My natural style won’t serve here. I need to adapt.” But humility ensures the adaptation is not about performance or self-preservation, but about faithfully serving others. In practice, this means holding to authenticity, not putting on a mask to “fit” a season, but being willing to change posture and approach while keeping relational trust intact. Flexibility without humility risks manipulation, but flexibility with humility allows leaders to navigate change without losing their integrity or depth of relationship.
Great post Glyn and I appreciate your image of humble leadership cascading through layers of leaders. What are some things you intentionally do (or don’t do) in your smaller teams that you’ve seen play out in the larger groups you lead?
Ryan, great question. In smaller teams, I intentionally try to prioritise listening and vulnerability, admitting when I don’t have the answer, asking questions before offering solutions, and making space for others’ voices. I also try to avoid rushing to fill silence, because that pause often draws out honest contributions. What I’ve seen is that these practices ripple outward. When smaller teams model this kind of culture, it scales into the wider organisation. For example, in our multi-site church, I can’t personally build Level 2 relationships with everyone, but when my immediate team embodies them, those relationships cascade. Conversely, I’ve noticed that if I become overly directive in a small team, that tone multiplies too, so what I don’t do is just as important as what I do.
Glyn,
Welcome to your first attempt at your third year. I look forward to reading next years blogs of your as well as these. 🙂
In all honesty, I do wonder how you might measure results in a relational type setting. It is easy to measure tangible things, attendance, baptisms, etc but how might you measure output with team members when their work is more relationship based?
Haha thanks mate. Adam, I love this question because it hits the tension between measurable outcomes and relational leadership. Baptisms and attendance are easy to count, but trust, growth, and authenticity are harder to quantify. One way I’ve tried to develop this is by looking for “proxy indicators” of relational health: are team members willing to give honest feedback? Are mistakes admitted quickly or hidden? Are people inviting each other into decision-making or siloing? Another approach is 360-degree feedback, where peers, team members, and leaders give their perspectives on relational trust and humility (ouch, that one hurts). It’s not perfect, but it provides windows into relational output. Ultimately, though, I think part of humble leadership is accepting that some of the most important fruit, deeper trust, resilience, unity, resists tidy measurement. which is hard for us Pentecostals. It’s less about numbers and more about long-term legacy.
Glyn, great post on leadership.
I completely agree with the idea that a leader doesn’t have to have all the answers or be the most charismatic person in the room. However, I have found in church circles, that unless a leader has certain qualities, they are often perceived as not being a leader or being a weak leader. How do we help flip the script on leadership in cultures that have been entrenched in a more heroic model and even built their polity around this model?
Graham, thanks for this question. You’ve definitely put your finger on one of the toughest cultural challenges in leadership today, especially in church life. Many congregations (and even entire denominations) have been formed around the “heroic leader” model. It’s not surprising that humility and vulnerability can be misinterpreted as weakness in those settings. Flipping the script, I think, requires both modelling and teaching. On the modelling side, when leaders consistently embody humble leadership, admitting mistakes, elevating others and leading collaboratively over time, it begins to reshape expectations. People start to see that strength is not only found in certainty but also in integrity and trustworthiness. On the teaching side, we need to ground humility in theology: pointing to Jesus’ leadership as the pattern, not the exception.
The shift is slow, especially in systems built around the heroic leader, but when humility is fruitful, when it produces healthier teams, resilient ministries, and deeper discipleship, people begin to reimagine what leadership can look like. It’s not abandoning strength, it’s redefining it.
Hi Glyn, in your experience, what practices help leaders consistently embody humility and authenticity, especially when leading larger teams or organizations? I find that it’s easier to shift the culture of a small team, but I know you have a large leadership responsibility, so I would love to hear any advice you have.
Hi Christy. Great question, thank you. For me, a few practices are an ongoing work.
First, I start with rhythm. I intentionally create space in my diary to be with smaller teams and try to listen before I lead. That keeps a leader grounded and stops drifting into “broadcast mode.”
Second, practice visible vulnerability. I often speak publicly about my failures, (learning to laugh at myself). That signals to others that authenticity isn’t just for the small team room; it’s the expectation across the board.
Third, multiplying culture carriers. I can’t embody Level 2 relationships with hundreds of leaders, but I can pour into a few who then pour into others. When they model humility and authenticity, it cascades through the system.
Finally, I try to hold onto a simple discipline: Lead by example. That consistency keeps authenticity from slipping into performance.