Humility has taken its place in the pantheon of critical military leadership qualities in recent years. The highest praise of a senior leader often is that they accomplish great goals through their units – with a sense of humility. Toxic work environments, operational failures, and personal indiscretions all appear to stem, in part, from an underlying lack of leader humility. The challenge for military leaders is that humility exists on a continuum, and too much humility can lead to passivity and indecision. Also, attempts to demonstrate humility through statements and acts can give off an aura of disingenuousness. Given the amorphous and contradictory nature of humility in military leadership, the concept may provide little functional utility for officers. The following narrative attempts to give a brief framework of the factors that allow officers to lead in the optimal zone of humility.
Army leadership doctrine frames humility as the lack of its antonym – arrogance. More specifically, a leader operating in the optimal zone of humility exhibits a willingness to learn, seek and accept advice, and maintain “accurate self-awareness.” While military leadership doctrine effectively synthesizes much of the academic literature on humility, there remains a tension between these descriptions and the requirement for bold leadership. For example, psychological research indicates an uncomfortable relationship where effective leaders require a baseline of narcissism — tempered by appropriate humility — for better organizational outcomes. In sum, humility is more complex than a leader’s propensity to engage in public acts of self-deprecation.
When considering the modern leader cases in The Savior Generals, the scope of the present challenge becomes evident. Generals Sherman, Ridgeway, and Petraeus did not exhibit public signs of excessive humility. They all have reputations, however, as independent critical thinkers that often strove against conventional thought. Each had detractors in their service, but they drove to understand how best to confront the exigent challenge of warfare through innovation. The generals noted above exhibited a great willingness to learn and to seek advice. Their collective propensity to maintain “accurate self-awareness,” however, appears to vary within individual careers.
Learning. A leader that exists in the optimal zone of humility never stops learning. A study of top global leaders from industry and international organizations finds a causal link between learning, humility, and effective leadership. The lack of a drive to learn can be a form of arrogance in itself. The lack of will to learn indicates a self-perception that a leader already has sufficient knowledge and experience for the full set of challenges before their organization. Leaders that learn foment a healthy decision-making process, avoid overestimation of their abilities, and increase the likelihood of mission success.
General William Sherman had relatively poor showings in the First Battle of Bull Run and Shiloh. He learned rapidly and became one of the most capable commanders in the Civil War. For example, he learned from his failure to use active defense and reconnaissance on the first day of Shiloh. He also studied his military adversary and their political masters. As General Sherman describes in Volume 4 of his memoirs, he learned through an ongoing study about the tendencies of his adversary and their center of gravity. Famously, he understood the importance of taking Atlanta for the Lincoln re-election. He demurred at those that framed the march to the sea as a great strategic stroke, by noting it was a simple movement of troops from one location to another with a series of tasks between the two points.
Seeking Advice. Seeking advice not only allows the leader to gain from the knowledge, judgment, and experience of others; it can also enhance feelings of power in those that give advice. Recent academic studies find individuals that provide advice feel more powerful, even if that advice is not followed. The challenge for leaders in positions of power is the tendency for individuals with feelings of power to discount advice. Studies also find that leaders in positions of relative power can mitigate this impact by increasing levels of cooperation with those that provide advice. Accordingly, the process of empowering staffs and creating essential relationships includes the routine of seeking advice from individuals with expertise the leader does not possess, regardless of positional power.
Although the case of General Petraeus remains salient for the nature of his exit from public life, his willingness to seek advice serves to provide a cogent example. General Petraeus attained a level of intellectual development and academic credentials that placed him in a position where he would have been hard-pressed to enter a room with more than a couple of people that matched his counterinsurgency expertise. Still, he strove for constant collaboration and advice. For example, he gathered a group nicknamed the “Petraeus guys” to provide him with counsel in the conduct of wartime operations. His collaboration and willingness to forgo a service-centric stamp on Field Manual 3-24 Counterinsurgency led to a fruitful exchange of Marine Corps lessons learned led by then Lieutenant General James Mattis.
Self-awareness. The ability of a leader to achieve accurate self-awareness nests with learning and the routine act of seeking and taking advice. Research finds that leaders that overestimate their abilities have less productive workers than those that work for leaders that have greater self-awareness. Of course, self-awareness includes more than just checking an inflated sense of self. Leaders that routinely treat individuals of similar characteristics, such as race, gender, and sexual orientation, lack self-awareness of how that behavior, whether subconscious or not, can impact morale and productivity. Finally, self-aware leaders understand the limits of what they can accomplish through force of will and orders.
An example of the role of self-awareness comes from General Matthew Ridgway’s leadership of the Eighth Army during the Korean War. Ridgway entered command in late 1950 with the war effort in dire straits. After taking a short amount of time to gain an understanding of how his staff and commanders saw the challenge, he understood he could not change the tide of the war through strategy or force of personal will alone. He found that he needed to increase morale and replace tired commanders before his forces would have any chance of success. He led by example by increasing the time he and his commanders spent with front-line forces. General Ridgway remained aware of how his actions and words impacted all echelons of his command, and that his forces in Korea required a different leadership style.
The intent of the brief framework above is to help those interested in leadership get beyond their uneasy relationship with the contradictory concept of humility. Leaders approach the optimal zone of humility when they actively pursue learning, seek advice, and strive to gain an accurate self-awareness. While no leader is perfect, a severe deficiency in these three areas will lead to a deficit in humility. The necessary, but not sufficient, warning remains for leaders. When coupled with leadership attributes and competencies, however, leaders can avoid the danger of too much humility and passivity.
Subscribe to The Field Grade Leader!
LTC Kopp recently completed a Ph.D. in Political Science and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. A Foreign Area Officer, his field grade assignments include EOD Battalion XO, Assistant Section Chief US Embassy Guatemala, POL-MIL Desk Officer and Division Chief US SOUTHCOM, Field Grade Assignments Officer HRC, and SAMS Goodpaster Scholar at the University of Georgia.