Leading with Humility: Imagining a Different Kind of Government

“Imagine if the main quality of all leaders in Australia was humility” – Tjanara Goreng Goreng

This powerful statement kicked off a roundtable discussion CPI ANZ hosted in February 2025, bringing together leaders from government, academia, and community engagement to explore what an approach to humble governance might look like in Australia. 

The conversation surfaced a range of insights explored throughout this blog, including:

1. The structural barriers and incentives that hinder humble leadership
2. The interlinked relationship between trust and humility 
3. How a crisis can be a catalyst for humility
4. The idea that decisiveness and humility can co-exist

From this starting point, the roundtable discussion surfaced a wealth of insights, questions and ideas. Below are some of the standout themes that emerged:

1. Barriers to humble leadership

Roundtable participants highlighted the structural barriers and lack of incentives to encourage humility in leadership. Many current systems — political, bureaucratic, and cultural — discourage leaders from speaking up, admitting mistakes, or embracing participatory decision-making. Changing this culture requires shifting incentives and structures to encourage openness, learning through failure, and deeper engagement with communities. Some of this shift is happening already, with an increase in deliberative democratic processes and participatory decision-making. 

One of the most significant obstacles for humility in governments identified in the discussion is the adversarial nature of politics and media. The prevailing political culture and structural incentives discourage openness, reflection, and learning. Instead, leaders are expected to project certainty, avoid admitting mistakes, and engage in performative conflict rather than investing in genuine dialogue. Many participants pointed to how media narratives demand simple solutions to complex problems, amplify division, and create echo chambers that reinforce binary positions. 

For humility in leadership to be valued, a shift is needed in what the public expects from the government. There are ways to shift the public narrative. Media outlets, for example, can choose to highlight the public sector’s positive work, as seen in The New York Times’ coverage of courageous public servants. And, while it’s not the job of the public to celebrate the government, shifting public narratives to recognise the complexity of governing and commemorate the courage and strength it takes to lead with humility can also build the conditions for more leaders to adopt a humble approach. 

2. The link between trust and humility

Throughout the roundtable, participants highlighted trust as both a precondition for humility and a product of it. Practising humility fosters trust by strengthening relationships and collaboration. In turn, when trust is high, governments have greater permission to adopt humble approaches. This mutual reinforcement creates a challenge: when trust in government is low, practising humility can feel more difficult. Conversely, when trust is high, leaders may find it easier to embrace humility.

As philosopher Onora O’Neill suggests, trust is not freely given, it must be earned through demonstrated competence, honesty and reliability. Yet, in an era of low trust and heightened scepticism towards government, a key question emerges: How can governments build trust and practice humility?

This question, however, may oversimplify the challenge. One perspective is that governments must take the first step by proactively demonstrating humility — acknowledging mistakes, engaging communities in decision-making, and being transparent about challenges. But the reality is more complex. There are political risks inherent in adopting the humble approach, which may explain why governments don’t readily embrace humility already.

A more practical way to approach creating a humble government could be to begin in policy areas where there is already broad agreement on the goals. This reduces the risk of immediate backlash. As Demos Helsinki points out, “some common ground is better than none… [and] forging consensus does not require locking down the details of how and what.” Their work suggests that a humble government is a way to build trust and grow consensus by involving those closest to the issue, encouraging peer learning, and adjusting plans as new insights emerge. This approach allows leaders to show competence, honesty, and reliability in a lower-risk political environment.

3. Crisis can be an unlikely catalyst for humility in governance

On the surface, crises might reinforce calls for decisive, unwavering, centralised leadership. However, they can also serve as a catalyst for humility and transformation, especially when trust has been established or there is broad agreement across the political spectrum that immediate action is required.    

Taiwan’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a polycrisis where multiple global crises intersected, exemplifies a government taking a humble approach. Taiwan embraced transparency, public engagement, and adaptability. Rather than clinging to rigid plans and policies, leaders admitted when adjustments were needed, actively listened, and fostered a sense of collective responsibility. Taiwan’s response shows how embracing a humble approach, even in the face of extreme uncertainty and acute crises, leads to better outcomes and enhances trust in government. 

In light of increasing global instability and democratic decline, participants felt a growing urgency to rethink how leaders show up in the face of crisis, pointing to figures like Elon Musk, whose leadership style exemplifies the risks of unchecked power, unpredictability, and arrogance. The discussion highlighted that leaders who acknowledge uncertainty, consult widely, learn from mistakes, and make collaborative decisions are better equipped to navigate crises more effectively than those who rely solely on command-and-control approaches. 

4. Decisiveness and humility can coexist

A common misconception is that humility and decisiveness are at odds. Roundtable participants felt strongly that effective leadership requires the ability to be open, humble and take decisive action, after listening to all viewpoints. 

Government leaders might feel pressured to deliver clear, decisive leadership in high-stakes situations, but decisiveness should not mean an egotistical approach. Participants noted that leaders can be firm in their decision-making while remaining open to new information, acknowledging limitations or unknowns, and inviting diverse perspectives. This balance requires courage, especially in political and bureaucratic systems that often reward certainty and efficiency, and penalise deliberation or perceived weaknesses.

Tjanara Goreng Goreng’s work on Sacred Leadership offers a powerful lens here. Drawing on Indigenous knowledge systems, she shows how strong leadership can be grounded in humility, care, and a deep sense of responsibility to others. This framing challenges the binary between humility and strength, showing they are both compatible and mutually reinforcing.

There are also promising examples of humility and decisiveness happening around the world. 

Wales’ Future Generations Act, for instance, requires that all government bodies, from ministers to departments, to national parks and sports organisations, must work towards seven wellbeing goals that were directly decided by the people of Wales. This legislation has institutionalised long-term thinking and involved a broad range of the public in decision-making, ensuring that leaders remain accountable for decisions that align with what the people of Wales want.

Similarly, Australia’s Centre for Policy Development (CPD) has called for a national conversation on measuring what matters in Australia, offering a model for how governments can lead with both authority and openness. CPD advocates for a participatory process where the public is widely engaged in a national dialogue to co-create shared values and a vision to guide policy decisions. The government retains the responsibility to act but  does so by incorporating broad input and refining policies as new insights emerge.

As roundtable participants noted, these examples demonstrate that humility is not about being passive or indecisive; it is about leading with courage and a willingness to engage meaningfully, listen to communities and respond with co-created solutions.