Humble Leadership, Leadership Aversion, and Personized Connections
Leadership is already hard. Humble leadership is…harder? I’d compare the kind of leadership described in Humble Leadership, by Edgar H. Schein and Peter A. Schein, to the sort of well-differentiated prowess one needs in order to navigate the intersection of emotionally healthy leadership and the technical expertise required to get the job done. To be able to cut through tribalistic tendencies and unhealthy competition in the workplace, all on a razor’s edge. Schein and Schein highlight this tightrope, stating that “(a) defining skill of Humble Leadership is the ability to manage this balance between being too formal at one extreme and being too intimate at the other.”[1] This balance, which by the way is all about healthy relational connectedness, is what the authors refer to as “Level 2 relationships—relationships that acknowledge the whole person(.)”[2]
“The challenge for Humble Leadership in the average workplace is to build Level 2 trust and openness by becoming more personal, either in what is asked about or in what is revealed, while avoiding both the formality and apathy of Level 1’s professional distance and, at the same time, not pushing for the intimacy associated with Level 3.”[3]
Even with Humble Leadership, there will be challenges. Take tribalism for example.
Even when people demonstrate aspects of “Level 2” in their leadership, as their organizations or companies grow, their blindspots increase, and in the end they can still be fired. Scaling may increase profits, but it can also increase a breakdown in trust among coworkers and teams. How? The authors provide a cautionary tale in the “rise and eventual demise of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC),”[4] a company whose humble co-founder Ken Olson was known for establishing a great degree of trust among his direct reports. However, in the end Mr. Olson was removed by the board and replaced by “a more traditional command-and-control CEO” who eventually “arranged for the sale of DEC to Compaq, which eventually was acquired by Hewlett-Packard.”[5]
What happened? Tribalism[6] emerged as people within the company, even though empowered to function with a great deal of autonomy (thanks to the humble and trusting leadership of the company’s co-founder), began to operate as “leaders of their own mini-organizations, which they then (began to) prioritize over the common goal.”[7]
Tribalism is not unusual. In fact, it’s ubiquitous. We learned from psychiatrist Daniel Lieberman that the human brain is actually wired for tribalism.[8] And thanks to the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, we read that “behind almost every conflict between groups…is part of humanity’s…tendency toward tribalism.”[9]
Leadership aversion
Perhaps this is why small business owners resist the temptation to scale. They know about the challenges that come with humanity’s propensity for megalothymia and groupthink. They know about the mistrust that can arise as numbers of divisions and departments increase. They know how hard it is to maintain quality amidst expansion. Maybe they’ve read Paul Jarvis’s book, Company of One: Why Staying Small is the Next Big Thing for Business. Maybe they believe that the only way to maintain control over their life is to NOT scale. After all, “(a) company of one questions growth first, and then resists it if there’s a better, smarter way forward.”[10]
Maybe yearning to join the C-suite is NOT on the to-do list of every graduate and emerging leader today. Jarvis makes this observation: “Freelancing makes up almost half the jobs being done by younger people, who are choosing to freelance in hopes of gaining more control over their career path.”[11]
Maybe our culture’s stories of leadership failure have fostered leadership aversion among a younger generation. Maybe there’s a belief that the risk is too great. We certainly feel this in the church, as each year it seems harder and harder to identify, recruit, and train healthy leaders who not only check the character-calling-competency boxes but also WANT to plant new churches or pastor existing ones.
And yet…
Many WILL be called to lead, and in some settings, that leadership will be within large organizations, companies, or even churches. In fact, regarding leadership in the church, the apostle Paul says this regarding the office of elder: “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.”[12] And in a letter to the exiles, Peter writes about humility as a pursuit for EVERYONE: “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’”[13]
Whatever the context, the world needs differentiated, healthy, humble leaders, whether they are a company of one or leaders of many.
And for those who do lead, for the authors of Humble Leadership, Level 2 will require that leaders create an environment where workers feel safe[14], and where people have “personized” connections. This is the kind of relationship “in which the parties know each other well enough to have built an open, trusting, collaborative connection with each other.”[15]
Does this mean that leaders establish a context where people at work can have close relationships with their coworkers? Like, can people have best friends at work? Dr. Vivek Murthy, the U.S. Surgeon General, has something to say about this, especially because he sees loneliness as an epidemic right now. In an HBR Ideacast interview, Dr. Murthy states,
“(W)hat we do need at work are people that we can trust, people with whom we can be ourselves. We also need people at work who can see us fully for who we are. Now those people may not rise to the level of intimate friends the way a spouse or a best friend would be, but they can be strong friendships, and they can serve a very important role in that respect as well … .ultimately appreciat(ing us) for who we are.”[16]
Humble leaders will do the hard work of establishing contexts where healthy “personized” relationships can thrive, beyond mere robotic or transactional relationships, and at the same time with limits – “not pushing for the intimacy associated with Level 3.”[17]
[1] Edgar H. Schein and Peter A. Schein, Humble Leadership: The Power of Relationships, Openness, and And Trust, Second Edition, Oakland: Berrett-Koehler, Kindle edition, 42 of 187.
[2] Ibid., 14 of 187.
[3] Ibid., 42 of 187.
[4] Ibid., 50 of 187.
[5] Ibid., 53 of 187.
[6] Tribalism is defined as “tribal consciousness and loyalty, especially: exaltation of the tribe above other groups.” See: Merriam-Webster, accessed July 19, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tribalism.
[7] Schein and Schein, 54 of 187.
[8] From a George Fox Doctor of Leadership cohort Zoom chat with Dr. Daniel Lieberman on Monday, November 27, 2023.
[9] Jonathan Haidt, foreword to The Canceling of the American Mind, by Greg LukianoV and Rikki Schlott (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2023), xi-xiii.
[10] Jarvis, Paul. Company of One: Why Staying Small is the Next Big Thing for Business, New York: First Mariner Books, 2020 edition, Kindle edition, 10 of 251.
[11] Ibid., 16 of 251.
[12] I Timothy 3:1 ESV
[13] I Peter 5:5 ESV
[14] “Leaders need to build personal relationships that will make others feel psychologically safe enough to share their information and insight, in order that they might (1) help refine and clarify what will be new and better and (2) help ensure that the team’s plan can be implemented.” (Schein and Schein, page 25 of 187)
[15] Schein and Schein, 34 of 187.
[16] See: HBR IdeaCast / Episode 737 “Another Workplace Crisis: Loneliness”: https://hbr.org/podcast/2020/04/another-workplace-crisis-loneliness
[17] Schein and Schein, 42 of 187.
About the Author
Travis Vaughn
9 responses to “Humble Leadership, Leadership Aversion, and Personized Connections”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Travis,
Well-articulated! I did not speak to the possible negative outcomes of the Humble Leadership model but can certainly see how tribalism, if unhealthy, can thwart the common goal. I did reference Friedman in that, though there should be humility and care for the person, in the end, the leader needs to lead with strength and vision.
The thought came to mind as to whether Jesus would have been a “Humble Leader.” He did collaborate, but then, again, at times, he didn’t. He knew his purpose and the overall end goal and went forward with little buy in. What are your thoughts on Jesus as a Humble Leader as defined by Schein & Schein?
Thanks, Esther. Great question. Jesus was the most well-differentiated leader of all time. Focused on the mission. Engaged and Empathetic, yet separate and self-aware of the culture’s anxiety swirling about. Quite aware of how his presence was experienced by everyone in the room. He knew how his incarnational presence affected people, and he knew when to ask questions and challenge those who sought to derail the mission.
Also, I don’t think the potential pitfalls (e.g., tribalism) that accompany the authors’ description of humble leadership is unique to that sort of leadership. I think that because humans are seemingly wired for tribalism (because of the fall, humans tend to make good things — like groups and group identity and endeavors — ultimate things), that temptation pops up everywhere and in every model.
As always, Travis, your post is so well constructed critically and conversationally; it’s both easy to read and incredibly deep.
I resonate with the concern about rising leaders. My NPO is all about that. I suggest that one of the reasons is that they have seen how “we” have led unhealthy lives and unhealthy organizations and they really don’t want that.
So humble leadership may be a way to help rising leaders see a different opportunity.
You found the ‘nugget’ in the book with this sentence:
“Humble Leadership is the ability to manage this balance between being too formal at one extreme and being too intimate at the other.”
As I read about level 1, 2 and 3, my question was, where does that line get drawn? Is it different for different generations or workplace cultures?
Finally, what you point out about tribalism direcly deals with something I’m facing in our church org. right now and helpful for me to consider and engage. Thanks.
Tim, I do think Gen Xer’s (of course, I’m speaking here in “general” terms…so some, not all) within the church and church planting world reacted to what they perceived or experienced from the boomers before them. Some of that reaction was unhealthy and resulted in a great deal of burnout, scandal, and more. Millennials and Gen Zer’s observed the outcome of that overreaction and (again, some, not all) have said…that sort of leadership and the positions that accompany it is “not for me.”
Regarding your question about levels 1, 2, and 3 — “where does that line get drawn? Is it different for different generations or workplace cultures? — I think each preceding generation had extremes of level 1 and level 3 (think about the 1990s and 2000s, for example, and the heavy top-down CEO command-and-control structures as well as the over zeolous, frenetic “rah-rah” culture that permeated church leadership — it still does in many ways). We need healthy organizational structures for sure. Rare Leadership, by Warner and Wilder, dealt with this and is a good complement to Schein and Schein’s book, in my opinion.
Hi Travis-
I agree with others who have observed that you have done a good job articulating a component of the riskiness associated with Schein and Schein’s model. In my context, level 2 relationships is not unusual in work teams, but we do struggle with a culture that is hard to shift, and maybe your connection of Humble leadership with tribalism is a contributing factor. Food for thought.
A question for you: Is this proposed shift of building friendships at work one that you welcome, or is it challenging?
Thanks, Jen. And great question. And I’m curious if you mean “you” as in me, personally, in my own work culture relationships, or do you mean “you” as in how I feel about a shift in the culture in general (a culture that would welcome the building of friendships in a workplace context). If it’s the first, then I do welcome the possibility that true — well-differentiated — friendship can be made in my workplace contexts (C.S. Lewis writes about how friendship can be discovered as people realize they have become friends as they journey toward a shared mission — see chapter 4 of The Four Loves). Though, admittedly, I am cautious and sometimes skeptical. That’s probably my Enneagram 5 talking. If you mean the second, then I welcome the shift if it means more “friendships” are made at level 2. That requires a great deal of emotional health (and really, in both cases it requires healthy self-awareness and even rootedness of each party in Simon Walker’s “Other”).
Great leadership connections in this post, Travis. I’m tempted to interact with your last section, which is a helpful (perhaps even clearer than the author’s) re-statement of healthy workplace relationships…but I’m going to go back up to the beginning…the very beginning. You start your post with a question:
Leadership is already hard. Humble leadership is…harder?
Here’s a few of my thoughts…
1. Becoming genuinely humble is hard. Most of us can fake it for a while and be the ‘servant leader’ we know we ought to be…but we’re often motivated by selfish purposes (promotion, affirmation, people pleasing, etc…). That’s the primary issue I have with the book: humility as a utilitarian skill for leaders to become proficient in. Much more difficult is the slow and sometimes painful process of the Spirit confronting us in our pride and arrogance and calling us to quit trying to find our meaning and significance in being ‘great’…and instead rightfully seeing ourselves for who we really are, and others, and God (my working definition of the virtue/character quality of humility). Becoming humble is hard, because becoming like Jesus is hard, and he’s the picture of humility.
2. BUT…as we embrace this way of living and leading….I wonder if leadership actually becomes easier. As a humble leader I
-Don’t have to be the hero with all the answers
-Don’t have to succeed in everything and fear failure
-Don’t have to pretend like I have it all together and I’m free to fail and others I lead know they don’t have to try and hide their own failures
-Am able to invite others into my challenges and limitations
-I genuinely want to hear other’s perspectives and arrive at better conclusions because of it
-I create a culture where people are more prone to be honest and authentic about what they really think and how they are really doing
-I don’t ride the rollercoaster up with success and down with things that don’t work out
-I don’t take myself too seriously so I can work freely and lightly into the things God has asked of me
-I don’t depend on external recognition and validation because I am internally motivated by love
-I maintain strong and healthy relationships with co-workers so when I need to make a tough call on something there is trust/relationship that sustains the decision
While it might be harder to truly become humble…I wonder if being a humble leader is an easier and more enjoyable way to lead?
I’ll end my comments with that question….and let you respond back…
Great post, Travis. There’s a lot to chew on in there. I don’t think this is where you were going in one section, but it did make me think about a few things. You mentioned that level 2 approaches could actually cultivate tribalism. I have seen this happen in real tim in churches. We talk about small groups being a great place to connect. When it happens the people within that group trust one another, support each other, and feel close. Then ,it is hard for NEW people to enter into their tribe without feeling like an outsider.
I’ve seen this happen on close-knit teams as well. Level 2 relationships are established which takes time, and then new people can have a hard time being part of the group because of the friendships and history that have taken place. This is something your post prompted me to think about as we intentionally change the paradigm of closer relationships on teams and finding the right balance. Great seeing you in Nashville the other day!
” Humble leaders will do the hard work of establishing contexts where healthy “personized” relationships can thrive, beyond mere robotic or transactional relationships, and at the same time with limits – “not pushing for the intimacy associated with Level 3.”
I like how you summed up this thought! It gives me hope for the future of work culture if we can find good ways to do this and still have safety. It seems like this is a tricky place to navigate pastor hood? Can you lead a church and have healthy personalization? I am not sure you can with everyone? What do you think?