O collective humility à a group tendency toward

o Collective Humility à A group tendency toward owning limitations and mistakes,
appreciating group members’ strengths, and being teachable.
§ Admitting weaknesses highlights growth opportunities
§ Appreciating others’ strengths highlights growth exemplars
§ Being teachable enables personal growth to occur
o Collective promotion focus à Team members focusing on “collective” goals rather
than “personal” goals, and maximal “promotion” goals rather than minimal
“prevention” goals.
§ Leader behaviour models the way organizational/group goals should be
pursued
HD C’mon à (Galinsky, 2013) Be seen as a leader

• Traditional leader qualities
o Demographics matter i.e. People of the historically dominant race and gender and
respected age (white men over 40 in western corporate world) are typically afforded
higher status than everyone else.
o Appearance plays a role e.g. tall and good looking. Personality (extroversion) and
formal rank are also important
• People who achieve high status early tend to retain it à First impressions matter more than
ever à However it also takes time to truly earn merit.
• Legitimate measures of influence include expertise, competence, and commitment
• The attitude with which you enter a new group will play a major factor in your chances of
leading it à Particularly relevant given flattened working structures, with new groups
forming all the time.
• Competence cues e.g. speaking up, taking initiative, expressing confidence all suggest
leadership potential.
• Two motivation systems 1. Avoidance (steering clear of adverse outcomes) 2. Achieving
positive outcomes and rewards à Using the latter sparks behaviour that lead to higher
status
o Three psychological states, promotion focus (i.e. goal orientation), happiness, and
feeling of power à All impact status in a group positively
§ Also relevant with job interviews, business deals, making speeches.
• The temporary mind-set that you bring to an initial group meeting can have a lasting impact
on your status and influence with your teammates.

HD C’mon à (Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013) When power makes others speechless: The negative
impact of leader power on team perfomrnace
This reading was absurdly long, here are the 8 hypothesis that were tested.
• Formal leaders with a high subjective sense of power spend more time talking in team
meetings than formal leaders with a neutral subjective sense of power
• Teams whose formal leader experiences a high subjective sense of power report lower levels
of communication openness (i.e., authority openness and open communication) than teams
whose formal leader experiences a neutral subjective sense of power à Open
communication is critical to team performance
• Teams whose formal leader experiences a high subjective sense of power exhibit worse
performance than teams whose formal leader experiences a neutral subjective sense of
power
• The effect of a formal leader’s subjective experience of power on team performance is
mediated in sequence by the formal leader’s amount of talking and by communication
openness.