How does humble leadership influence employee improvisation? A motivational perspective

Organizations operating in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environments frequently face unforeseen emergencies where pre-planned procedures may not fit actual conditions. Improvisation—employees’ proactive integration of resources and original problem solving under unexpected change—is crucial for organizational responsiveness and innovation. Prior work has focused mainly on team-level improvisation, leaving individual-level drivers underexplored. Leadership style is a salient situational factor shaping employees’ attitudes and behaviors. While several leadership styles (e.g., entrepreneurial, inclusive, ethical, authentic, transformational) have been linked to proactive outcomes, the role of humble leadership remains underexamined. This study investigates whether and how humble leadership fosters employees’ improvisation at the individual level, drawing on the proactive motivation model. It examines mediating mechanisms via leader–member exchange (LMX) and employees’ positive emotions, and boundary conditions via employees’ power distance orientation.

Proactive motivation model: Proactive behavior requires motivation related to ability (can do), reason (why do), and energy (energized to do) (Parker et al., 2010). As humble leadership is an external situational factor rather than an individual ability, this study focuses on reason and energy motivations. LMX represents a high-quality social exchange with leaders that can provide reason motivation (a sense of obligation and willingness to contribute), while positive emotions represent energy motivation, facilitating flexible cognition and action.

LMX: LMX quality varies across dyads and shapes employees’ responsibility, extra-role behavior, and psychological safety, particularly in relationship-oriented cultures (e.g., China). High-quality LMX can motivate employees to reciprocate via problem solving under uncertainty (i.e., improvisation). Thus, LMX may mediate the humble leadership–improvisation link.

Positive emotions: Humble leaders who acknowledge weaknesses, appreciate subordinates’ strengths, and remain open to learning can elicit employees’ positive emotions. Positive affect broadens cognition and builds resources, promoting novel, risk-tolerant problem solving—key for improvisation. Thus, positive emotions may mediate the humble leadership–improvisation link.

Interplay between motivations: Affective events theory suggests workplace exchanges (e.g., LMX) influence emotional states; hence LMX may foster positive emotions, implying a chain mediation from humble leadership to LMX to positive emotions to improvisation.

Power distance orientation (PDO): PDO is an individual-level value reflecting acceptance of unequal power distributions. High-PDO employees prefer hierarchical distance and leader-decided actions, potentially dampening the effectiveness of humble leadership behaviors and employees’ own initiative; low-PDO employees expect egalitarian, interactive leaders and may respond more strongly to humble leadership. Thus, PDO may moderate humble leadership’s effects on improvisation and on mediators.

Hypotheses: H1: Humble leadership positively relates to improvisation. H2: LMX mediates humble leadership–improvisation. H3: Positive emotions mediate humble leadership–improvisation. H4: LMX and positive emotions jointly form a chain mediation from humble leadership to improvisation. H5: PDO negatively moderates the humble leadership–improvisation relationship (stronger when PDO is low). H6: PDO negatively moderates humble leadership–LMX and the indirect effect via LMX. H7: PDO negatively moderates humble leadership–positive emotions and the indirect effect via positive emotions. H8: PDO negatively moderates the chain indirect effect via LMX and positive emotions.

Design and samples: Two studies using convenience sampling across multiple regions in China.

Study 1 (scenario-based experiment): Between-subjects single-factor design manipulating humble leadership (high vs. low) via vignettes adapted from Li et al. (2015). Participants (N=91; recruited from Shanghai, Shandong, Heilongjiang) imagined working under the described leader. Demographics: majority under 30 years; 79 held a bachelor’s degree or higher; 29 male. Measures used seven-point Likert scales: manipulation check (single item: “Manager Zhang is a humble leader”); LMX (7 items; α=0.97; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995); positive emotions (PANAS adaptation; α=0.98; Qiu et al., 2008); improvisation (7 items; α=0.95; Vera & Crossan, 2005). Controls: gender, age, education. Analyses: normality checks; manipulation check; correlations; independent-sample t-tests for effects of the manipulation on LMX, positive emotions, and improvisation, controlling demographics. Software: SPSS 22.

Study 2 (field survey): Multi-source cross-sectional survey of 217 employees and 61 supervisors from Shanghai, Shandong, Hainan, Heilongjiang. Employees rated humble leadership (9 items; α=0.95; Owens et al., 2013), LMX (16 items; α=0.97; Hui et al., 2004), positive emotions (PANAS adaptation; α=0.97; Qiu et al., 2008), and power distance orientation (6 items; α=0.86; Dorfman & Howell, 1988). Supervisors rated employees’ improvisation (7 items; α=0.96; Vera & Crossan, 2005). Controls: gender, age, education. Analyses: normality; confirmatory factor analyses (Mplus 8) demonstrated acceptable fit for the five-factor model (χ²/df=2.57, SRMR=0.08, CFI=0.88, TLI=0.87, RMSEA=0.08); correlations; hierarchical regressions (SPSS 22), mean-centering predictors (excluding the DV), and bootstrapped indirect and moderated indirect effects (5000 samples; bias-corrected CIs) in Mplus 8.

Study 1 (experiment):

• Manipulation check confirmed efficacy: High-humility group scored higher than low-humility group on perceived humility (Mhigh=5.77 vs. Mlow=1.63; t=30.08, p<0.001).
• Correlations: Humble leadership correlated with improvisation (r=0.37, p<0.001), LMX (r=0.60, p<0.001), and positive emotion (r=0.66, p<0.001); LMX (r=0.65, p<0.001) and positive emotion (r=0.56, p<0.001) correlated with improvisation.
• Effects of manipulation: Humble leadership increased improvisation (t=17.24, p<0.001; Cohen’s d=3.65), LMX (t=18.19, p<0.001; d=3.85), and positive emotions (t≈22.13, p<0.001; d=4.69).

Study 2 (field survey):

• Humble leadership positively predicted improvisation (β=0.35, p<0.001).
• Mediation via LMX alone not supported: Humble leadership predicted LMX (β=0.79, p<0.001), but LMX→improvisation became non-significant when positive emotion was included; indirect effect via LMX was not significant (95% CI [−0.04, 0.23]).
• Mediation via positive emotions supported: Humble leadership predicted positive emotion (β=0.43, p<0.001); positive emotion predicted improvisation (β=0.36, p<0.05); indirect effect significant (95% CI [0.10, 0.24]).
• Chain mediation supported: LMX predicted positive emotion (β=0.39, p<0.001); chain indirect effect (HUM→LMX→POS→IMP) significant (95% CI [0.05, 0.20]).
• Moderation by power distance orientation (PDO): Interaction HUM×PDO on improvisation was significant (β=−0.12, p<0.05); the humble leadership–improvisation link was stronger at low PDO. HUM×PDO on LMX was not significant. HUM×PDO on positive emotion was significant (β=−0.14, p<0.01), with a stronger humble leadership–positive emotion link at low PDO.
• Moderated mediation: Indirect effect via positive emotion was stronger at low vs. high PDO (difference=−0.13, 95% CI [−0.27, −0.04]); moderated mediation via LMX and via the chain path was not significant (95% CIs included zero).

The findings support that humble leadership enhances employees’ improvisation, addressing the core research question and extending leadership–improvisation research at the individual level. Mechanistically, employees’ positive emotions are a key mediator linking humble leadership to improvisation, and LMX contributes indirectly by fostering positive emotions, yielding a chain mediation from humble leadership to LMX to positive emotions to improvisation. This refines the proactive motivation model by illustrating interplay between reason (LMX-based reciprocity and support) and energy (positive affect) motivations. The boundary condition of power distance orientation clarifies when humble leadership is most effective: low-PDO employees, who expect egalitarian, approachable leaders, display stronger positive emotional responses and greater improvisation; high-PDO employees, preferring hierarchical distance and leader-driven action, show attenuated effects. LMX did not serve as a standalone mediator in the field study once positive emotion was included, suggesting that the motivational pathway from social exchange to improvisation is largely affect-driven in this context. Collectively, these results highlight the importance of leader humility in cultivating an affective climate that energizes adaptive, creative responses to uncertainty.

Humble leadership promotes employee improvisation primarily by elevating employees’ positive emotions, with additional influence via a chain pathway through LMX to positive emotions. These effects are attenuated among employees with high power distance orientations and amplified among those with low power distance. The study advances individual-level improvisation research and elaborates the proactive motivation model by demonstrating interactions between reason and energy motivations. Future research could strengthen causal inference through longitudinal or experimental field designs, examine multi-source assessments of LMX (leaders and subordinates), and delve deeper into the mechanisms by which LMX engenders positive emotions, as well as explore alternative boundary conditions and cultural contexts.

1. Measurement approach: Study 1 used self-reports for improvisation, potentially subject to social desirability; Study 2 used supervisor ratings, which may overlook some behaviors. More precise, multi-source or behavioral measures are recommended. 2) Cross-sectional design (Study 2) limits causal inference; longitudinal tracking or experimental field studies are needed. 3) Mechanistic detail: While LMX appears to enhance positive emotions (reason→energy motivation), the internal logic of this process was not unpacked; future work should examine underlying psychological mechanisms. 4) Moderation by power distance on humble leadership→LMX was not supported; possible rater-related explanations suggest future studies assess LMX from both leader and employee perspectives and probe conditions under which PDO shapes leader–subordinate exchanges.