Leaders Need Conviction. Here’s How to Maintain It Without Triggering Backlash in These Polarized Times

When Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill sparked controversy in 2022, then-Disney-CEO Bob Chapek faced pressure from all sides. Employees demanded the company oppose the legislation. Conservatives warned against “going woke.” Chapek issued a carefully calibrated statement emphasizing inclusion while avoiding explicit opposition. 

It satisfied no one. Employees staged walkouts. LGBTQIA+ advocates organized boycotts. Governor Ron DeSantis stripped Disney of tax privileges anyway. Chapek’s attempt to thread the needle backfired—angering both sides while demonstrating neither conviction nor values. Less than a year later, Disney’s board ousted him. 

This is the difficult position facing leaders today—take a stand and trigger backlash, stay silent and lose credibility, or hedge and satisfy no one. Stakeholders increasingly demand leaders demonstrate values. The question isn’t whether to have conviction, but how to express it without making yourself a target. 

Recent research from Elizabeth Krumrei Mancuso, a psychology professor at Pepperdine University, suggests a path forward. In a recent conversation about her work, Mancuso explained how intellectual humility impacts leadership effectiveness in navigating polarization. 

What intellectual humility means 

“Intellectual humility doesn’t mean you’re unsure of yourself,” Mancuso explains. “It often goes hand-in-hand with confidence—and helps people become better collaborators, more forgiving in relationships, and more capable of navigating disagreement.” 

Intellectually humble leaders acknowledge blind spots and consider opposing views. The most accessible entry point: simply asking questions. This isn’t weakness or both-sidesism. It’s engaging with disagreement while maintaining your position. 

You can disagree without abandoning your values 

Mancuso’s research reveals something counterintuitive: “It is not necessary for a leader to abandon his or her own perspective, to buy into the perspective of others, or to ignore the fact that there is disagreement in order to respect people who think differently and to acknowledge the soundness of alternative ways of arriving at conclusions,” she says.

Her research identified behaviors that increased follower satisfaction: welcoming different ways of thinking, respecting others when disagreeing, seeing sound points in opposing views, hearing others out, and respecting alternative approaches. 

“What is noteworthy is that these behaviors all acknowledge difference and disagreement,” Mancuso notes. “People seem to appreciate it when leaders can value, respect, and listen to others even when they disagree.” 

These approaches improved satisfaction with interpersonal leadership and perceptions of fairness—without impacting views of operational competence. 

The competence caveat 

“Intellectual humility is most likely to backfire for leaders when their competence was already in question,” Mancuso cautions. “When people view a leader as competent, then the leader’s expression of intellectual humility is typically seen as favorable. However, when leaders are viewed as less competent, then expressions of intellectual humility (such as saying ‘I don’t know’ or asking questions) can make leaders seem insecure and weak.” 

The harder reality: “Unfortunately, sometimes leaders’ competence is questioned based on factors outside of their leadership abilities, such as their gender, race, or age. In situations like this, leaders might find themselves in a Catch-22 when it comes to expressing intellectual humility,” Mancuso says.

For underrepresented leaders, this means sequencing matters: Establish your expertise and judgment first through decisive action, then deploy intellectual humility from a position of demonstrated competence. You may have less margin for “I don’t know” early on, but once credibility is secured, humility becomes your strategic advantage—not your liability. 

Women executives, leaders of color, and younger CEOs face higher barriers and may need to establish competence signals first. 

Building forgiveness capital 

Mancuso’s most valuable finding: “People are more willing to forgive leaders when they view the leaders as being intellectually humble. Thus, even when there is a loss of credibility or backlash, leaders are more likely to recover from this when they’re seen as intellectually humble.” 

Why? She explains, “Perhaps people have more hope that intellectually humble leaders will learn from their mistakes and make corrections, making people more willing to re-invest in and engage with the leader even after a rupture.” 

Intellectual humility functions as insurance. Think of it as a sort of “forgiveness capital” that makes recovery possible when things go wrong. Mancuso’s research found intellectually humble leaders engage in more servant leadership—they’re better at prioritizing follower well-being, perspective-taking, and empathy. Such leadership cultivates trust and increases engagement and satisfaction. Research links intellectually humble leadership to measurable outcomes: higher employee retention during organizational change and stronger customer trust scores—particularly when companies face values-based criticism. 

What to actually say 

Here are approaches that work: 

• “I acknowledge I may have blind spots. Help me understand your perspective.” 
• “People I respect see this differently. Here’s what I’m weighing…” 
• “I’m confident in this decision, but reasonable people can reach different conclusions.” 

Here’s what backfires: 

• False equivalence when you clearly believe one side 
• Excessive hedging, signaling you don’t believe yourself 
• Asking questions when competence is already questioned 
• Abandoning your position entirely 

Express convictions clearly while demonstrating you’ve considered alternatives and respect those who disagree. 

A leadership orientation 

“Becoming an intellectually humble leader might not be an easy, quick fix for navigating polarized environments,” Mancuso cautions, “but when leaders can cultivate this quality in themselves, they seem to reap benefits.” 

Would intellectual humility have changed Chapek’s outcome? It’s hard to know. His challenges went far beyond any single statement. But the framework offers something his approach lacked: a way to express clear conviction while genuinely respecting those who disagree—thus reducing temperature without abandoning values. 

That’s the path forward: not silence, not surrender, but conviction anchored in mutual respect. Leaders still need to take stands. The question of how they hold those positions determines whether they preserve relationships across divides or become the next cautionary tale.  

Intellectual humility offers a framework for maintaining conviction while reducing temperature and building the forgiveness capital leaders inevitably need.