When and How Does Leader Humility Lead to Followers’ Passive and Proactive Behavior?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leader humility increasingly appears in the literature as a positive leadership style that fosters positive outcomes in followers, yet recent studies suggest that there are potential negative outcomes on the behavior of followers. This study advances this stream of research by exploring how leader humility shapes individual prosocial behavior (i.e., cooperative silence and pro-group unethical behavior) using two-wave, time-lagged data. Drawing on the social identity theory of leadership, we theorize and find that leader humility relates to both the cooperative silence and pro-group unethical behavior of followers. Consistent with the social identity perspective, these effects were mediated by pride in group membership. Furthermore, in line with impression management theories, we find that the concern of individuals regarding reputation maintenance moderated the overall relationship, such that followers with a greater concern for their reputation were more likely to engage in pro-group unethical behavior or cooperative silence because of their pride in group membership. Keywords: Leader humility, pride in group membership, cooperative silence, pro-group unethical behavior, reputation maintenance concern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".