The Case for Leaders Who Can Say 'I Was Wrong'

Organizations that promote leaders who project certainty then wonder why those leaders ignore disconfirming evidence and resist adaptation. A meta-analysis of 53 studies found humble leadership correlates with followers’ affective trust at ρ = .62 and affective commitment at ρ = .56 (Luo et al., 2022), though each figure rests on three or four studies. The problem may not be that leaders lack humility. It may be that organizations structurally punish it.

What Is Ontological Humility

Ontological humility is the recognition that your perspective represents one interpretation of reality, not reality itself (Kofman, 2006). The term comes from ontology — the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of being. In a business context, it means something specific: admitting that your mental model of a situation is incomplete, and that the people who disagree with you may be seeing something you cannot.

Fred Kofman drew a sharp line between two types of leaders. Controllers assume their view is correct. Learners accept that others may perceive what they miss. Ontological humility does not mean abandoning conviction. A leader can hold a strong position while acknowledging that position is partial. The distinction matters because confidence is easily mistaken for competence — and the two are not the same construct.

A related concept, intellectual humility, operates at a different level. Porter et al. (2022), reviewing the research, found that its many definitions share one core: a metacognitive ability to recognize the limits of your own beliefs and knowledge. The studies they review find that intellectually humbler people are better at telling strong arguments from weak ones, even when the arguments go against what they already believe, and are more likely to scrutinize misinformation. Much of that evidence is correlational. Ontological humility goes further. Where intellectual humility questions specific beliefs, ontological humility questions the lens through which you form beliefs in the first place.

Why It Matters — The Meta-Analytic Evidence

The business case for humble leadership is not theoretical. Luo et al. (2022) pooled 53 studies and 16,534 participants on humble leadership and its outcomes. The largest correlations were with affective trust (ρ = .62), affective commitment (ρ = .56) and job satisfaction (ρ = .51) — but each of those rests on two to four studies and fewer than 1,500 people. The outcomes with the most studies behind them show smaller correlations: creativity (ρ = .39, 15 studies) and voice, or speaking up (ρ = .34, 13 studies).

Key Research Finding: In a meta-analysis of 53 studies, leader humility correlated with followers’ affective trust at ρ = .62 — a figure drawn from four of those studies and 999 people (Luo et al., 2022). On trust, the authors found humility explained no meaningful variance beyond transformational, servant and ethical leadership.

Owens and Hekman (2012), interviewing 55 leaders, identified how this works in practice. Humble leaders do three things: they admit their own mistakes and limitations, they spotlight follower strengths rather than their own, and they demonstrate teachability — a visible willingness to learn from others. The mechanism matters. When a leader models growth by saying “I was wrong about that,” they signal that developmental journeys and uncertainty are legitimate. In the leaders’ accounts, followers felt freer to be themselves and more engaged, and organizations moved more easily to new ways of working.

This is not soft leadership. It is, this piece argues, structurally smarter leadership. A leader who cannot say “I don’t know” cannot learn what they need to know.

How Ontological Arrogance Creates Organizational Blind Spots

Cognitive Dissonance as a Leadership Trap

Cognitive dissonance — the discomfort of holding contradictory beliefs — is one of the most enduring theories in social psychology (Festinger, 1957). When a leader commits to a strategy and then encounters evidence that the strategy is failing, dissonance creates pressure to defend the original decision rather than update it. Cooper (2019), looking back over six decades of research, describes the model he built with Fazio: dissonance arises when people feel responsible for an unwanted consequence of what they chose to do. One early experiment he reports found that people who argued against their own view changed their attitude only when they were publicly committed to what they had said. The more publicly a leader has committed, the harder reversing course is likely to be.

This is not a character flaw. It is a cognitive mechanism. But organizations that reward decisive public commitment and penalize course corrections amplify this mechanism into a structural trap.

Business Models as Cognitive Schemas

Egfjord and Sund (2020a) documented a specific version of this problem in a study of business model innovation. A business model, they note, can be studied as a kind of schema of how a firm creates value, and they suggest that differences in how people inside a firm identify and interpret strategic issues help explain the cognitive barriers to new business models. When a new model does not fit the “dominant logic” of the core business, there is a risk the idea is discarded (Egfjord & Sund, 2020b).

Their most striking finding, in a leading Nordic insurer: the innovation department perceived industry trends much as outside experts did, while core-business managers named a set of trends the other two groups did not. Two groups within the same organization were seeing different realities. The authors speculate that this comes from where each group sits — the innovation department’s job is to watch the environment; the core business runs daily operations — and suggest the disagreement helps explain why internal innovators find it hard to “sell” radically new business models to the core business.

Key Research Finding: In one Nordic insurance firm, “We find considerable disagreement between members of the innovation department and the core business” (Egfjord & Sund, 2020a). The innovation department saw industry trends much as outside experts did; core-business managers named a set of trends the other two groups did not (Egfjord & Sund, 2020b).

The Controller-Learner Split

Kofman (2006) named this dynamic precisely. Controllers believe their opinion constitutes objective truth. They process information through a filter that confirms what they already believe and discards the rest. Learners accept that their perspective is limited and actively seek what they cannot see on their own.

The problem is structural, not individual. Where organizations select for controllers and reward controlling behaviour — promotion criteria that favour decisiveness, certainty and confidence; performance reviews that penalize “I don’t know” — the likely result is a leadership pipeline that filters out the learner’s orientation.

Building Epistemic Capacity

Measure the Conditions That Enable Humility

You are unlikely to build ontological humility in a culture that punishes vulnerability. The first step is measurement — not of individual leader traits, but of the structural conditions that make humility possible or impossible.

Team-level psychological safety assessment can surface the blind spots that ontological arrogance creates. A leader who believes their team is fine cannot see what a team-level measure reveals. When the data shows that a team does not feel safe to disagree, to report mistakes, or to challenge the status quo, the leader confronts evidence that cannot be explained away by individual performance problems. That confrontation is the starting point of ontological humility — not a workshop, not a personality assessment, but measurement that makes the invisible visible.

Train for Epistemic Wisdom, Not Just “Leadership Skills”

Murray (2008) defined epistemic wisdom as the set of cognitive and emotional skills needed for working within uncertainty at advanced levels. The concept goes beyond ontological humility. Murray put it directly: “Acknowledging that the model or theory… is not the whole truth, shows ontological humility. But it often does not go far enough. Applying a deeper epistemic wisdom would involve being specific about the limitations of the model” (p. 11).

Murray identified seven component skills: cognitive empathy and perspective-taking, dialectical thinking, social and emotional intelligence, metacognition, meta-dialog, systems thinking, and epistemological skill. These are not abstract competencies. Dialectical thinking, which Basseches (2005) describes as a form of adult intellectual development, means recognizing the limits of closed-system analysis and integrating dimensions of contradiction and change. Metacognition — monitoring your own thinking processes — parallels the critical thinking skill Facione (1990) called self-regulation, which applies the other skills to one’s own thinking.

A program built on communication techniques and decision frameworks does not, by itself, teach leaders how to sit with uncertainty, hold competing interpretations without forcing premature resolution, or recognize when their own cognitive schema is filtering out information they need.

Build Systems That Reward Learning Over Certainty

Individual training is unlikely to hold without structural reinforcement. Leaders interviewed by Owens and Hekman (2012) said that modelling teachability worked better in an organizational culture that encouraged and reinforced learning, and that humility “would clash more with a command-and-control type culture.” Murray (2008) makes the same point about epistemic wisdom: groups may fail to exhibit it “because the organizational culture does not provide enough psycho/social safety, incentives, or role models to do so.”

This means redesigning the structures that currently select for arrogance: promotion criteria that value learning alongside decisiveness, performance reviews that assess how well leaders incorporate disconfirming evidence, recognition systems that reward the team members who surface problems early rather than the ones who project confidence regardless of outcomes. Without these structural changes, even leaders who develop ontological humility are likely to find it extinguished by the culture they operate in.

The Critical Thinking Connection

Paul and Elder (2006) list intellectual humility first among the intellectual traits in their critical thinking framework. Not analytical skill. Not logical reasoning. Humility — the willingness to admit the limits of your own understanding. For a leader, it is the place to start.

Facione (1990), reporting an expert consensus study for the American Philosophical Association, defined critical thinking as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment” and identified six core skills: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation. The framework establishes that critical thinking requires both cognitive skills and affective dispositions — among them open-mindedness, fair-mindedness and honesty in facing one’s own biases.

Ontological humility and epistemic wisdom map onto this dual structure. Ontological humility builds the dispositional foundation — the open-mindedness and willingness to reconsider that make rigorous analysis possible. Without it, a leader is likely to apply analytical tools only to confirm existing beliefs. Kofman (2006) named this exactly: the controller mindset. Epistemic wisdom builds the cognitive and metacognitive capacity — Murray’s (2008) metacognition component parallels Facione’s self-regulation; dialectical thinking supports the intellectual standards Paul and Elder identified.

The implication for organizations is direct. Critical thinking is hard to train in isolation. A leader who attends a critical thinking workshop and returns to an organization that punishes uncertainty is likely to default to defending positions rather than examining them. The training is likely to decay because the structure does not support it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is ontological humility in leadership?

Ontological humility is the recognition that your perspective is one interpretation of reality, not reality itself. In leadership, it means actively seeking disconfirming evidence and admitting your view of a situation may be incomplete (Kofman, 2006).

How does leader humility relate to followers’ performance?

A meta-analysis of 53 studies found leader humility correlates with followers’ task performance (ρ = .33, seven studies) and, in smaller sets of studies, with affective trust (ρ = .62), affective commitment (ρ = .56) and job satisfaction (ρ = .51) (Luo et al., 2022). Humble leaders model growth by admitting mistakes and spotlighting follower strengths (Owens & Hekman, 2012).

What is the difference between ontological humility and intellectual humility?

Intellectual humility means recognizing the limits of your knowledge. Ontological humility goes further — it questions the lens through which you perceive reality. Research on intellectual humility links it to telling strong arguments from weak ones and to scrutinizing misinformation (Porter et al., 2022); those findings are about intellectual humility, not ontological humility.

Why do confident leaders resist feedback?

Cognitive dissonance creates pressure to defend existing positions rather than update them (Festinger, 1957). Organizations that reward public commitment and penalize course corrections can amplify this, making feedback structurally threatening.

Can leader humility be developed through training alone?

Probably not on its own. Leaders interviewed by Owens and Hekman (2012) said humble behaviour worked better in a culture that encouraged learning and clashed with command-and-control cultures. A review of intellectual humility research reaches a similar view: interventions “might also need to incorporate social-contextual elements, such as changing organizational cultures” (Porter et al., 2022).

From Individual Virtue to Structural Condition

The standard framing treats humility as a personality trait — something to screen for in hiring or develop through coaching. That framing misses the point. Ontological humility is a structural condition. It is likely to survive or die on whether the organization rewards learning or rewards certainty.

A leader who admits “I was wrong” in a culture that punishes uncertainty is unlikely to admit it twice. A leader who surfaces a blind spot in an organization that promotes confidence over competence is likely to learn to stop surfacing blind spots. The individual virtue is unlikely to survive without the structural support.

The evidence points one way. Humble leadership goes with more trust, commitment and satisfaction, and in leaders’ own accounts, easier adaptation. The organizations that need these outcomes most may be the ones most structurally hostile to the leadership orientation associated with them.

The fix is not another leadership workshop. The fix is building the measurement, training, and systems infrastructure that makes humility possible — and sustainable.

References

Basseches M. The development of dialectical thinking as an approach to integration. Integral Review. 2005;1:47-63.

Cooper J. Cognitive dissonance: where we’ve been and where we’re going. International Review of Social Psychology. 2019;32(1):7. doi:10.5334/irsp.277

Egfjord KFH, Sund KJ. Do you see what I see? How differing perceptions of the environment can hinder radical business model innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020;150:119787. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119787 (2020a)

Egfjord KFH, Sund KJ. A modified Delphi method to elicit and compare perceptions of industry trends. MethodsX. 2020;7:101081. doi:10.1016/j.mex.2020.101081 (2020b)

Facione PA. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations. American Philosophical Association; 1990. ERIC ED315423.

Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press; 1957.

Kofman F. Conscious Business: How to Build Value Through Values. Sounds True; 2006.

Luo Y, Zhang Z, Chen Q, et al. Humble leadership and its outcomes: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:980322. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980322

Murray T. Exploring epistemic wisdom: ethical and practical implications of integral theory and methodological pluralism for collaboration and knowledge-building. Paper presented at: Integral Theory Conference; August 2008; John F. Kennedy University, Pleasant Hill, CA.

Owens BP, Hekman DR. Modeling how to grow: an inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal. 2012;55(4):787-818. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0441

Paul R, Elder L. The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools. 4th ed. Foundation for Critical Thinking; 2006.

Porter T, Elnakouri A, Meyers EA, et al. Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility. Nature Reviews Psychology. 2022;1(9):524-536. doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00081-9