Unit VII PP PFL
breal
optimalleadershiparcticle3.pdf
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
32
The Millennial Effect: A Multi-Generational
Leadership Model*
Darlene Andert Florida Gulf Coast University (Retired)
Accounting for Profitability LLC
George Alexakis Florida Gulf Coast University
Robert C. Preziosi
Nova Southeastern University (Emeritus) Each generation develops internal frameworks to understand the nature of effective leadership against a backdrop of significant contemporary national and global events—in effect, people are who they are based on the time in which they were raised. The civil rights movement, military behavioral models adopted by management, technological innovation, and mainstream media proliferation prompted the analysis of generational- based leadership perspectives in North America. Diverse trends and events also shaped the evolution of generational leadership mindsets in other countries. Arguably, there has been some development toward global paradigms of business leadership with the multiplying of business schools. The multi-generation leadership model presented in this article uses a systems theory lens to view the evolving leadership models from the traditionalists to the millennials in North America. It offers a broad temporal view and discusses the extent to which each the above events acted as variables that gained or lost critical mass in each respective generation. Based on the generational differences, this article offers some recommendations with regard to leadership development, talent management, and human resource practices in the new era and future foci for generational leadership research. Key words: generational leadership, millennials, multi-generational leadership model, systems thinking, workplace
In modern society, traditional management principles can lose their efficiency
(Binham et al., 2018). Leadership is one of the most popular topics for executive
development programs, and the widely researched traditional approaches no
longer significantly meet the needs of organizations or individuals (Moldoveanu &
Narayandas, 2019). Karakas, Manisaligil, and Sarigollu (2015) spent seven years
exploring the “benefits of reflective, creative, and collaborative spaces for
millennials using practices from leadership and personal development courses”
*Andert, D., Alexakis, G., & Preziosi, R. C. (2019). The millennial effect: A multi-generational
leadership model. International Leadership Journal, 11(2), 32–63.
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
33
(237) to understand and adjust for the differing needs of the next generation. In
1950, Stogdill’s seminal work acknowledged that leadership exists among people
in social situations, and that those who lead in one situation may not necessarily
lead in another. Diversified leadership theories followed. Understanding good
leadership’s composition, the factors contributing to future leader development
and the consistent replication of leadership models still challenge scholars and
practitioners nonetheless. In spite of an overabundance of scientific and
anecdotal work, a myriad of leadership-related questions have remained
unanswered (Gandolfi & Stone, 2018). Augmenting Stogdill’s groundbreaking
original work, Michel and LeBreton (2010) introduced the concept of leadership
coherence, which connotes that a leader’s behavior fluctuates in a consistent,
reliable, and predictable idiographic manner across situations. Haeger and
Lingham (2013) indicate that “leadership patterns are changing, not in theory, but
through intergenerational collisions between leaders’ behaviors and
interpretations from direct reports of what it means to lead” (1) Nonetheless, a
challenge for practitioners is that contemporary theories for understanding the
ways in which leaders can and should act in different situations typically depend
on context and may introduce numerous generational contingencies. Massey
(1979) posited early on that we are who we are based on the time in which we
were raised. Barbuto and Gottfredson (2016) explored three generational
cohorts, with particular emphasis on the millennial generation, estimated to be
50% of the workforce by 2020. They stressed the necessary progression of
general management and leadership practices needed to create an organization
rich in human capital. They suggest that servant leadership is the optimal
leadership style for the millennial generation and call for leadership process
adjustments that are in agreement with the current generational realities.
Conger and Kanungo’s (1998) landmark work demonstrates the complexity of
the issues and explains that even a well-researched theory like transformational
leadership, which depends on follower characteristics and emotions because
leadership is a process of attribution, implies the need for a theory of
followership. The authors conclude that people follow transformational leaders
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
34
because they attribute to those leaders the capacity to impose order, security,
and direction in an otherwise chaotic and threatening world. Naseer, Raja, Syed,
Donia, and Darr (2015) indicate that people will follow even bad leaders when the
leader–member exchange (LMX) is high and the perceived organizational politics
(POP) is also high, thus discovering the dark side of leadership and the social
impact and complexity of leadership.
Defining the Generations and Their Differences
Leadership research in the United States has spanned multi-generational
realities, commencing with the veteran generation, who grew up during the war
years, and culminating with the millennial generation, who were raised during the
digital age. The significant events that occurred during their formative adolescent
years greatly affect each generation (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Expanded
media news content and opinions, the codification of human rights legislation,
and the timing of major military actions and the impact of returning veterans re-
entering the workplace in critical mass substantively shaped each respective
generation’s understanding of leadership and followership. The current
leadership model of the millennial generation has progressed from that of the
previous generation. The apparent shift from the time-of-war traditionalist view of
leadership to a more dynamic and flexible leader/follower perspective is evident
when viewed through the lens of the multi-generational leadership model.
Howe and Strauss (2007) describe the word generation as a cohort group
whose estimated span of life boundaries is fixed and thus develops a peer
personality. While research on the topic of generational differences has
dramatically increased in recent decades since multi-generational marketing is
very important to advertisers and marketers (Williams & Page, 2011), employers
and human resources professionals are equally concerned with how these
differences play out in workplace leadership. While the workplace composition
continues to shift, examining the interrelationships of workers of different
generations who have different skills, attitudes, expectations, and learning styles
increasingly makes sense (Helyer & Lee, 2012). This article uses the four
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
35
existing generational cohorts that appear extensively in the literature as a
framework for analyzing the evolution of leadership using a systems approach,
acknowledging that significant societal events and the social learning experience
(Bandura, 1971) frame normative understandings and redefine leadership both
domestically and globally. The U.S. Census (Colby & Ortman, 2014) defines the
generations as
• traditionalists (also called the veteran generation; 1922–1943);
• baby boomers (1943–1960, or traditionally defined as 1946–1964);
• Generation X (also called Gen X; 1960–1980); and
• millennials (also called Generation Y or Gen Y; 1980–2000).
In 2018, after a decade of research, the Pew Research Center sought to “to keep
the Millennial generation analytically meaningful” in order to “begin looking at
what might be unique about the next cohort” and deconstructed the previous
generational frameworks (Dimock, 2019, para. 5).
[The] Pew Research Center decided a year ago to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials for our future work. Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward is part of a new generation (Dimock, 2019, para, 5).
The newest delineation of the generations by the Pew Research Center is
offered in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Pew Center generational definitions Source: From “Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins,” by M. Dimock, January 17, 2019, Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/ft_19-01-17_generations_2019/).
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
36
Millennial Characteristics
The multi-generational leadership model serves as a framework for
understanding the dynamic perspective of current leadership thinking to inform
American and international businesses. From viewing leadership during the
global financial crisis to the MTV icons who provided a distracting, fragmented,
rap-video culture (Kaufman, 1993), the millennial experience during their
formative years has considerably nullified the authority traditionally associated
with leaders. The Pew Research Center altered the millennial generation
boundaries in 2018 to encompass persons from 23 to 38 years of age who
represent “more than one in three (35%) American labor force
participants . . . making them the largest generation in the U.S. labor force (Fry,
2018, para. 1). Current thinking, especially among millennials, prioritizes a
balancing of personal and professional life (Ng & Gossett, 2013). They seek time
to pursue personal interests and personal goals as a life priority (Alexander &
Sysko, 2012). Campione (2015) states that
factors affecting Millennials’ job satisfaction are those that negatively impact satisfaction, those that push Millennials out rather than positive factors that lure them in. And, although employers have become quite creative in some of their offerings to recruit Millennials, they have often failed to retain them. (69)
They are technically adept and engaged in their communities using their
expertise to fight for social justice (Gass & Bezold, 2013). Previous generations
have not possessed “anything close to their upbeat, high-achieving, team-
playing, and civic-minded reputation” (Howe & Strauss, 2003, 1). This assertive
orientation challenges traditional leader-centric, hierarchical leader/follower
theories. Katy Perry’s (2010) song “Firework,” with such lyrics as “Baby you’re a
firework—come on show them what you’re worth,” is a popular theme song for
much of today’s young generation. It represents an anthem of sorts and is
consistent with the civic-mindedness attributed to the current generational focus.
Pop singer Brandi Carlile’s lyrics for “The Joke: (2018) further cement this
generation’s perspective “Let ‘em laugh while they can/Let ‘em spin, let ‘em
scatter in the wind/I have been to the movies, I’ve seen how it ends/And the
joke’s on them.” Millennials have strongly stated in corporate surveys and
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
37
academic studies that freedom to do their work, how they want to do it, is very
highly valued (Campione, 2015). Perhaps the preference represents the belief
that the previous generation did not get it right. The current millennial focus is
ostensibly a global generation, representing the most racially and ethnically
diverse cohort in U.S. history (Howe & Strauss, 2003).
With a keystroke or touch of a mobile telephone button, the current cohort can
summon their networks and swiftly amass people to any location or event. In
popular culture, this has led to the phenomenon of “flash mobs.” In political
arenas, the consequences can be more eventful. For example, as far back as
2011, the Egyptian revolution against the government served as an example of
this generation’s civic will and leadership–followership dynamic. Youthful pro-
democracy protesters used Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitpic to topple
an authoritarian regime that previous generations were unable to alter
(Ungerleider, 2011). The phenomenon compelled the mass news media to more
accurately report relevant stories. Distrusting of mainstream media and
established authorities, millennials not only supported the political revolution of
the Bernie Sanders’ U.S. presidential campaign but literally used technology to
gauge the accuracy of political claims (Uygur, 2016). PBS News Hour (2019)
notes that by Election Day 2020, millennials will be a larger share of America’s
adult population than baby boomers and destined to be politically wooed as an
important factor in the upcoming elections. Most recently, the control of the
media has radically changed with the origination of the Internet, mobile phones,
and online social networking (Alexander & Sysko, 2012). The current generations
have access to a highly expanded mainstream and independent media.
Millennials now teach others to use the media to create awareness of important
civic causes. Examples include the “flash mob to end violence against women”
(European Parliament, 2013) that occurred the week before a vote by the
European Parliament aimed at combating violence against women and girls. In
Aventura, Florida, millennial-aged local police officers advanced toward a holiday
celebration flash mob dance and joined in, rather than dispersing the crowd
(Wells, 2018), an expression of millennial egalitarianism.
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
38
Millennials are the first “native” generation to technology while members of all
other generations are described as “immigrants,” regardless of their technological
proficiencies (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010, as cited in Alexander & Sysko, 2012).
The historically unique circumstances (i.e., a younger generation possessing
superior skills and knowledge) affect the flow of information. The situation
equalizes opportunities and can lead to a more equitable redistribution of power
among leaders and followers.
With their highly collaborative nature, millennials seek constant interaction and
feedback to assess progress. They seek consistent and constant interpersonal
contact to move in partnership with others, fostered by an open access media. In
2016, IBM joined many other large firms in eliminating annual appraisals for more
frequent, real-time feedback for millennials and their entire workforce (Peck,
2016). Their external locus of identity prompts a need for immediate feedback
and almost continuous recognition and approval (Crumpacker & Crumpacker,
2007, as cited in Gass & Bezold, 2013). Although most millennials are committed
to their work and careers, they are reluctant to become general managers,
largely because they see that new managers are often given lots of additional
responsibility with very little additional support—and support is essential to them
(Tulgan, 2011). Today, it is a hi-tech, constant-contact world in which action does
not exist in isolation (Silverman, 2011). This is quite different from the first half of
the century, when Stogdill’s (Bass, 1990) summative work framed the leadership
assumptions and beliefs that considered:
• leadership to occur when leaders do things to followers;
• leadership to be hierarchy based and linked to an office;
• leadership to make the crucial difference to organizational performance;
• leadership to reside in an individual rather than the system, as the source
or central to organizational accomplishment;
• leaders to be different from other people; and
• leaders to be the ones who shape the behavior of others in a desired
direction and theorized to set the moral climate and culture of the
organization or collective.
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
39
By contrast, today’s workforce does not identify with being a corporate citizen
destined to retire with the gold watch but would rather be a world citizen destined
to retire after making a difference (Rhodes, 1983). Millennials’ expectations of
government and their own career goals are different from those of other
generations. The expectancies were cited as the main finding in a recent research
report on Brexit (Weinbaum, Girven, & Oberholtzer, 2016). This workforce is fluid
and mobile. POLITICO Magazine (Robertson & Henderson, 2018) began a series
of articles around the working title “The United States of Millennials,” which
explored how “the nation’s largest generation is transforming cities large and
small” (para. 1) and remaking each to fit their own image and beliefs.
Followers are indeed inspired by leaders who advocate for their moral freedom
(Lemoine, Hartnell, & Leroy, 2019). The financial industry downfall was blamed
on the traditionalist or greedy corporate senior executives, and the Egyptian
revolution of the millennials represented grassroots, emergent, and alternating
leadership (Andert, 2011). This brand of egalitarian and civic-minded leadership
is becoming ubiquitous, as the multidisciplinary nature of the management field
increasingly causes it to expand its sectors. Tesone (2003) best sums up the
growing intricacy of the contemporary manager’s leadership responsibilities and
challenges within an ever-widening group of products and service units with his
aptly titled book, The Leadership Cat with the Management Hat.
The purpose of this article is to compare and contrast generational influences
on the research and definition of leadership. We use a systems thinking lens to
view the various components of mainstream media, the codification of civil rights
and human relations legislation, and military behavioral modeling on the
perspectives of leadership from the traditionalist through millennial generations. It
offers a cross-functional view of the future foci for generational leadership
research, its applications, and implications on evolving organizational cultures.
A Systems Look at Leadership
Despite the frequent use of the term systems by academicians and management
practitioners, there is little agreement as to what the term really means (Kefalas,
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
40
2011). A system is “the name of an abstract concept, that of a complex whole
entity of a particular kind,” according to Stacey, Griffin, and Shaw (2000, 46).
Systems theory, or the systems approach, originated in the physical sciences,
where it challenged the prevailing Cartesian orthodoxy by methodically testing
instability, nonlinearity, and other complex variables of the natural world (Mingers
& White, 2010). Kefalas (2011) describes this way of thinking (i.e., systems
thinking) in the human organizational context:
The systems approach sees organizations as organic systems that are in a continuous interaction with their external environment. This process of interaction is essentially a process of acquiring information about the changes in the external environment, evaluating the impact of these changes, and adapting the organization's strategy, structure, and evolution. (370)
Palaima and Skaržauskienė (2010) established a link between systems thinking
and leadership performance. They empirically confirmed the theoretical insight that
a systems thinking approach is most important when dealing with the salient
conceptual strategic issues of an organization. This article uses systems thinking
as a theoretical insight to examine the dynamic nature of leadership, based on the
external changes affecting the human condition. It evaluates the evolution of those
changes on the generations, implementing a renewing definition of leadership.
Systems theory posits that a basic system consists of elements that function
interdependently and of inputs, throughputs, and outputs (Katz & Kahn, 1978; St.
Clair, Hunter, Cola, & Boland, 2018). Applied to generational cohorts, each
generation receives new inputs (i.e., social realities and norms) or raw materials
perpetuating the metaphorical systems cycle of life. The common inputs generally
affect a generation’s perspectives on life and specifically affect the meaning and
corresponding actions of the generation’s leadership. Coomes and DeBard (2004)
suggest that history and popular culture could be a useful frame through which one
can better understand various generations. Simply stated, the concept of
generational differences is that the time that one went through secondary school
generally affects one’s views regarding workplace matters (Raines, 2013). Teece
(2018) suggests that the application of systems theory in management ran its
course by the 1980s, yet today, its greater potential is for it to provide a holistic
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
41
view of the business enterprise. This article supports the notion that systems
theory applies as a holistic view of the workforce within business.
Millennials have experienced major influencers since the time they could begin
to conceptualize (i.e., preteen). They were affected by computers; mobile
phones; school violence (e.g., Columbine); domestic terrorism (e.g., Oklahoma
bombings and 9/11); celebrity scandals (e.g., O. J. Simpson and Bill Clinton);
parental layoffs; and an ever-increasing diversity of languages, dual ethnicities,
sexual alignment, and nontraditional families (Dwyer, 2009; Rhodes, 1983;
Salahuddin, 2010). The millennial generation experienced the idea that the child
is a central family focus, which substantially changes the input portion of the
systems leadership equation. This generation’s influence on society is
noticeable. So influenced by social media, today, millennials are ‘influencers”
using Instagram, Twitter, and other forms of social media to make their mark on
society (Izea, 2019). However, millennials’ leadership style is embryonic and yet
to be fully discovered (Foot & Stoffman, 1998; Lancaster & Stillman, 2002;
Sahadi, 2007; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 1999) as this generation gains
workplace status. Teamwork plays a main role as an input (Nicholas & Lewis,
2008). The Egyptian government overthrow represents an influential outcome of
a generation that can change situations with the touch of technology—
summoning thousands of previously unknown participants to a cause (Malik,
2014). The instant mass movement approach represents a leader–follower
paradigm disintegration of sorts, as leaders and followers become less
distinguishable. The roles can change within a person as well as among people.
This current reality has been a deliberate evolution, quietly occurring though
the maturation from the traditionalist through the baby boomer generation to the
current generations of Gen X and Gen Y. Daft (2013) provides a review of the
four eras of leadership theory development. Era 1 focuses on the greatness of
the individual person. Era 2 emerged with Taylorism and classical management.
It represents the formalization of rational thinking and organizational structuring.
Era 3 emerged during the time of the quality management and organizational
team structuring movements. Era 4 coincided with the increased societal
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
42
consciousness of stewardship and servant leadership frameworks. The
contemporary era, which we label Era 5, is the emergence of the dynamic
interplay in the leader–follower relationship, characterized by distributive
utilization of these roles. The primary role of the individual acting as a leader
must be to develop a culture that enables individuals to coalesce around the
shared purpose of the enterprise (Allio, 2012). There is some caution raised. The
development of “I” among millennials needs to slow down, and maybe even
reverse itself, so that leaders will be able to see issues and pending events from
a total community perspective (Kets de Vries, 2019).
All the eras described above are the result of systemic generational
experiences. First, and most pronounced, are the changes that occurred in the
early 1960s and beyond (see Figure 2 on the next page). Second, millennials are
the first generation in quite some time to experience their formative years without
a global war and the reinforcement of the military model as returning soldiers re-
entered the workplace. In contrast, veterans returning from Vietnam underplayed
their military backgrounds because the populace found disfavor with a war
perceived to have been lost and unjust. For the first time, the military model was
less influential in the workplace. In addition, the baby boomers began to be
exposed from the mid-1960s on to the codification of the civil rights strife of the
1950s, including the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pregnancy Discrimination Act of
1978, Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. Millennials benefited from the existence of all these
enactments, but experienced none of the struggles associated with inducing the
passing of these laws.
The final element displayed in the multi-generational leadership model depicts
the timing and expansion of the media messages that greatly influenced each
generation. The media’s effects commenced in the late 1960s with the
introduction of The Phil Donahue Show/Donahue (1967–1996); in the 1980s with
the introduction of The Sally Jesse Raphael Show/Sally (1983–2002); and in the
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
43
1990s with Ricki Lake (1993–2004) and The Jerry Springer Show (1991–2019). This expansion of media brought
about the expansion of content well beyond traditional dialogue. Millennials were fully exposed, and remain
exposed, to the media’s timing, complexity, and sophistication.
Geraldo (Geraldo Rivera show; 1987–1998)
The Phil Donahue Show/Donahue (1967–1996) Ricki Lake (1993–2004)
The Sally Jesse Raphael Show/Sally (1983–2002)
The Jerry Springer Show (1991–present)
World War I World War II Gulf War 2 1914–1918 1939–1945 2003–2010
Korean War Vietnam War Gulf War 1 Afghanistan War 1950–1953 1955–1975 1990–1991 2007–present
Cold War 1946–1991
The Civic Rights Act of 1991; The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967;
Vocational Rehabilitation Act; Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978; Equal Pay Act of 1963; Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Figure 2. Multi-generational leadership model
1910–1920 1920–1930 1930–1940 1940–1950 1950–1960 1960–1970 1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–2000 2000–2010 2010–2020
Traditionalists Baby Boomers Generation X Millennials
1910–1920 1920–1930 1930–1940 1940–1950 1950–1960 1960–1970 1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–2000 2000–2010 2010–2020
The maturing baby boomers, Gen Xers, and millennials were fully exposed to
the changes associated with talk television, with no subject being too outrageous.
The full spectrum and velocity of information increased, and so too did the
predatory behavior of criminals. The 1981 abduction and slaying of Adam Walsh
brought national attention to a generation that needs to challenge those in
authority (Thomas, 2008). The 2009 financial collapse and the 2011 Occupy Wall
Street protest movement solidified the reaction against the establishment and
authority. Each life event added to the generational cohort’s discernment of
authority and leadership roles (Deal, 2007; Williams, 2007; Zemke et al., 1999).
The above inputs shaped the respective generations. It made Gen Xers “not as
a separate generation, but rather the concluding stages of the baby boom
generation” (Foot & Stoffman, as cited in Dwyer, 2009, 103). The cohort sought a
new work environment, as Gen X’s leadership style reflected fairness and
competence (Houlihan, 2007; Salahuddin, 2010). It also created a generation
that reportedly lacks the people skills of the previous generations, with a
straightforwardness that may negatively affect others (Sahadi, 2007). Gen Xers
are more concerned about productivity than the number of hours spent on the job
(Houlihan, 2007). They view the idea of “face time” as inefficient, wasteful, and
unnecessary. Generation X is characterized as the latchkey kids, independent
(yet dependent on their parents), selfish or cynical, questioning authority,
resilient, adaptable, culturally progressive, and technologically well informed,
expecting immediate results and committing their attention to the team and the
boss (Frandsen, 2009). Collectively, these are neither submissive followers nor
traditional coercive leaders (Bass, 1990).
The baby boomers, Gen Xers, and millennials seek a different understanding of
leaders and leading that is based in a temporal systems lens. Salahuddin (2010)
characterizes the summative differences among the generational understandings
of leadership (see Table 1).
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
45
Table 1: Most Admired Leader Characteristics by Generation
Characteristic Veteran Baby Boomer Generation X Millennial
Ambitious 2 10 10 8
Caring 4 4 3 10
Competent 1 1 4 1
Determined 9 9 5 2
Forward-looking 10 2 5 5
Honest 3 5 1 4
Imaginative 6 6 7 9
Inspiring 8 3 9 7
Loyal 7 7 2 6
Self-controlled 5 8 6 3 Note: Bolding added for emphasis by authors. Source: Adapted from “Generational Differences Impact on Leadership Style and Organizational Success” by M. M. Salahuddin, 2010, Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), p. 5. Copyright 2010 by the Clute Institute.
Table 1 offers some patterns that help compare and contrast the view of
leadership among the generations.
• Baby boomers, Gen Xers, and millennials place greater value on
ambitiousness than traditionalists.
• Being determined and forward-looking are no longer considered valuable
leadership characteristics by Gen Xers and millennials.
• Being loyal and inspiring are reemerging as valued characteristics of
leadership.
• Being caring is a highly valued characteristic of millennials.
Historically, the traditionalists valued quality, respect, and authority (Houlihan,
2007). In its simplest form, traditional leadership research adopted the
perspective of leadership as:
• the nucleus of all social movements,
• preeminent within a group of a few people,
• a centralization of effort as an expression of the power of all,
• influenced by the needs and wishes of the group,
• the central focus of activity,
• a position of high potential,
• a primary agent, and
• a person one pace ahead of the group (Stogdill & Bass, 1981).
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
46
By contrast, the current generation values individualism. Ironically, millennials
embody core values that are similar to traditionalists in that they believe in
collective action, are optimistic about the future, and trust in centralized authority
of the organization, but only if it is caring (Houlihan, 2007; Howe & Strauss, 2003;
Hughes & Fiehl, 2013). Coworker trust is a significant predictor of lowered
turnover intention, while a trust-based environment encourages high levels of
management having trust in employees and vice versa, which undoubtedly
boosts organizational competitiveness (Semerciöz, Hassan, & Aldemir, 2011).
The root of trust lies in strong relationships.
Leadership and the Millennials
Hewlett, Sherbin, and Sumberg (2009) describe how the oldest and youngest
cohorts in the workplace demand many of the same things. They contend that
millennials are powerfully reshaping work agendas. Harris (2011) asserts that the
baby boomer leadership has failed, and millennials are displaying divergent
leadership behaviors.
The Millennials are entering and leaving college largely dedicated to issues that exceed self-interest. Millennials are the new service generation, and like a true Millennial, my first job out of college was working for the nonprofit I helped start. I want the world to be a better place, and I think dedicating at least part of your life to service is how we can make lasting change. This spirit runs at odds with the dominating zeitgeist of the Baby Boom Generation. (Harris, 2011, para. 7)
Loehr (2013, as cited in Sullivan, 2013) warns that massive changes are coming
to workplace demographics, and if leaders do not begin preparing now, they may
find themselves outdone by a competitor whom they originally trained, or be left
with employees who are ill-equipped to perform their duties. One example of
such massive change is the #MeToo movement. It is fairly common knowledge
that the election of a record number of women in the November 2018
U.S. congressional elections will cause many changes. Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal,
and Brown (2007) examined leisure time and electronic personal connections
outside the workplace as the preferred friendship building arenas of what the
authors call GenMe (i.e., millennials). Leadership may be less personal to them.
This generation has lived through a series of Enron-like leadership debaucheries.
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
47
Sessa et al. (2007) provide some of the first empirical evidence of a generational
shift in work values. Understanding the work values of these young individuals
helps organizations appreciate leadership evolution and how to support the
popular notion that leisure is a particularly salient work value for millennials
compared to baby boomers. Leaders should accept that the shift toward leisure
reflects the realities of the current work environment. Loehr (as interviewed in
Sullivan, 2013) says that today’s leaders should overhaul their leaders in training,
create an initiative and contribution culture, and fill the talent pipeline now.
Therefore, which leadership theory is most likely to accommodate this new
generation? Reviewing the leadership theories currently in use can be instructive.
Stewardship (Block, 1993) and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) are earlier
models consistent with the millennial mindset, but rarely practiced in the
workplace. With the flattening of organizational pyramids and the loss of
management positions, most millennials are experiencing job enlargement and
increased committee responsibilities. This group work will alter the focus of the
zeitgeist leadership models and empowering leadership may be a form of
leadership that is acceptable in multiple cultures (Thomas & Rahschulte, 2018).
The multi-generational leadership model proposes that an egalitarian, fluid, and
dynamic leadership paradigm must emerge along with increased awareness to
address the changing generational expectations and shifting role of today’s
leaders. Emergent leadership (Chaturvedi, Zyphur, Arvey, Avolio, & Larsson,
2012), alternating leadership (Andert, 2011), grassroots leadership (Kezar,
2011), and transcendental leadership (Alexakis, 2011) are leadership styles that
fit the caring, democratic, and imaginative frameworks of millennials. These
developing theories reflect a move away from a predominantly top-down
management focus and toward a more egalitarian orientation with practical
applications and global inclusiveness (i.e., not strictly U.S. based). Organizations
today are flattening their pyramids and assigning workers as “team leaders,”
replacing the traditional entry-level supervisor’s role. Millennials’ team-based,
lackluster desire for organizational commitment complements a dynamic leader–
follower role exchange. Emergent leadership allows for natural self-selection of
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
48
role diversity and permits millennials to select and re-select roles, as warranted.
The notion is analogous to self-leadership, which is “apparently not only
beneficial for individual performance, but fosters team members’ teamwork
(proficiency), leads to better adaptation to changes in the team environment
(adaptivity) and, especially, encourages participation in the improvement of the
team’s procedures (proactivity)” (Hauschildt & Konradt, 2012, 164).
Grassroots leadership, as demonstrated during the Egyptian revolution, allows
civic-minded millennials to circumvent the weaknesses of traditional authoritarian
leadership and act in a manner that aligns more with inclusive beliefs. Alternating
leadership aligns with the team-oriented nature of millennials versus the
autocratic-oriented inclinations of previous generations that color millennials’
reality. Finally, transcendental leadership focuses on personal development,
beginning with leader self-motivation toward peak performance, causing workers
to do the same as employee behavior is often indicative of superiors, and
organizational goals to be met or exceeded (Ling, Lin, & Wu, 2016). Similarly, the
transcendent follower expresses competence in terms of their management of
relations with self, others, and the organization (e Cunha, Rego, Clegg, & Neves,
2013). The effect of each generation’s experience redefines the leadership
paradigm. Though the generational realities are still developing for millennials,
researchers and business professionals would be wise to consider the lens
through which this generation views the workplace as unique and unlike previous
leadership perspectives.
Facilitating the Millennial Leadership Paradigm
Tulgan (2011) indicates that the following aids offer millennials the support and
guidance needed to effectively learn and practice general management and
leadership principles:
• Explain that a new role carries with it real authority. A huge new
responsibility should not be accepted lightly.
• Describe for new leaders exactly what their new leadership responsibilities
look like beyond extra paperwork. Explain the “people work” in detail and
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
49
create standard operating procedures for managing that focuses on the
basics (e.g., articulating employee expectations, following up regularly,
tracking performance closely in writing, and holding people accountable).
• Formally deputize any new leader, no matter how small the project or how
short the duration of the leadership role. Announce the new leadership to
the whole team, articulate the nature of this person’s new authority, and
explain the standard operating procedures for management that the new
leader has been tasked to follow.
• Check in regularly (preferably daily) with new leaders and review the
standard operating procedures for managing people. Ask about the
management challenges that new leaders are facing. Reinforce their new
authority with the team and every individual on the team.
• Pay close attention every step of the way, and evaluate new leaders in their
new roles. With the right amount of guidance and support, most people
who are very good at their jobs and committed to their work and career
have the ability to grow into strong, competent leaders.
The transcendental leadership model holds that the leader’s role is that of a
facilitator in the motivation process without using punishments and rewards to
manipulate or coerce (Alexakis, 2011). Transcendental leaders invariably provide
corporate social responsibility beyond their organizations’ domains; an appealing
orientation that decidedly attracts and sustains millennial workers and managers.
As in servant leadership, the leader can be most effective when fostering, aiding,
supporting, collaborating, abetting, easing, promoting, cultivating, nurturing,
sponsoring, and otherwise advancing the motivational level that is intrinsically
present within every person (Alexakis, 2011). Both the baby boomer and Gen
Xer mentor and the millennial mentee can benefit as leadership skills are
developed and advanced. Harris (2011) reports that “the Millennial Generation
will be the most educated, and is the most service-minded generation, in
American History. [They] are also the most diverse” (para. 5).
Some empirical studies challenge the popular media concerning the vast
generational differences (Deal, 2007) and have determined that a true tipping
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
50
point of change has been reached (Levenson, 2010). Contrary to many popular
press articles, the results of Zabel, Biermeier-Hanson, Baltes, Early, and
Shepard (2017) indicate that there are no generational differences in work ethic
between millennials and other generations. Their research supports Costanza
and Finkelstein’s (2015) broader contention that little actual empirical evidence
exists of generational differences in work attitudes. Others (e.g., Macky, Gardner,
& Forsyth, 2008) call for more research that controls for age and time period.
Deal, Altman, and Rogelberg (2010) sought a new direction that helps the
research and practitioner communities alike understand the realities of
generational similarities and differences so that there may be less reliance on
urban myths and stereotyping. Yet, the generation gap “endures as a staple
American political and social analysis” (Samuelson, 2010, para. 1). In 2000,
Howe and Strauss’s seminal work (as cited in Kowske, Rasch, & Wiley, 2010)
described millennials as having seven distinguishable traits, including being:
• special, vital, and full of promise for themselves and for the future of the
society and the world;
• sheltered from being smothered in their formative years with safety rules
and devices;
• confident, because of their trust and optimism;
• team-oriented, due to being raised in sports teams and group learning;
• achievement-oriented, which is the result of higher school standards and
an instilled sense of accountability;
• pressured by the desire to excel and do well; and
• conventional, rather than rebellious.
Meister and Willyerd (2010) list the “top five things millennials want to learn” from
their employers. Leadership is the third item below “technical skills in my area of
expertise” and “self-management and personal productivity” (Meister & Willyerd,
2010, in graphic).
According to Reinhardt, 2010, millennials recognize that they are
the youngest generation of current employees, say they understand the latest technological devices, have the ability to multi-task, [and] have plenty of
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
51
energy. They also recognize that their positive outlook on life, need for social interaction and immediate results in their work advancement might be seen as weaknesses by older colleagues. (para. 11)
The millennial generation can develop its leadership lens by executing the
following guidelines:
• Balance caring with authority when modeling sound leadership.
• Be imaginative and inclusive.
• Provide structure within an informal workplace atmosphere.
• Apply media and technology to everyday activities whenever appropriate.
• Be attentive and sensitive to use of face time only when it makes sense.
• Add teamwork and collaboration to the schedule whenever prudent.
• Provide for social opportunities and connections.
Companies such as Virgin, Google, Facebook, and SAS have gained notoriety
for moving well beyond the workforce commoditization paradigms that endorsed
command over human beings (Heilbroner, 1986) toward enacting an evolved or
enlightened systemic perspective—managing human resource synergy. The
approach points to an expression of a positive systems approach (i.e., holistic
perspective) to understand how to maximize the unique qualities of all current
workplace generations. Such interactive, generationally inclusive human
resource dimensions positively influence the modern organizational culture, in
contrast to the cost-oriented staffing practices of the early 20th century.
Leadership development cannot be separated from the context and culture of
organizational design (Swensen, Gorringe, Caviness, & Peters, 2016). The
paradigm shift toward human resource synergy is illustrated clearly by SAS CEO,
Dr. James Goodnight, who noted that “when 95 percent of a company’s assets
drive out the front gate every night, the CEO must see to it that they return the
following day” (Semerciöz et al., 2011).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Researchers and practitioners can be certain that the definition and application of
leadership is changing temporally and reactive to significant systemic
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
52
generational events and experiences. What is obtainable for the current
workplace is to help mirror and model the emerging leadership changes
understood by millennials. Dwyer (2009) offers that “understanding the
differences may enable management to structure strategies and transformation
techniques to motivate employees to the full extent of their skills and abilities to
support the realization of organizational goals and objectives” (101). These
workers will be the next generation of leaders. Where, then, does the future
leadership style of the up-and-coming generation stand? According to Gass and
Bezold (2013):
leadership must also create a workplace culture that is collaborative and empowers employees. Leaders must also show that they respect their employees as individuals, openly communicating with them including listening respectfully to what they have to say. Finally, [sic] leaders need to be open, trusting and ethical. (691)
Each generation enters the workplace with an understanding and expectation
of leadership roles and processes based on the summative experiences and
major events occurring during their respective formative years. Millennials, as
generations before, arrive in the workplace with a set of predetermined realities
that have shaped their beliefs and values related to what constitutes leader,
leading, and leadership. As millennials learn to lead, Ancona and Bresman
(2018) note that they begin to build knowledge, skills, and applications around a
set of capabilities: sense-making, relating, visioning, inventing, and building
credibility. The authors go on to say that building credibility is central to the other
four. Others (e.g., Groysberg, Lee, Price & Cheng, 2018) suggest that strategy
and culture are the most important focal points for an organization’s success.
The media, human rights legislation, and military experience have played a major
role on each generation’s perceived reality. Millennials’ experiences, media
shrewdness, civic-mindedness, and collaborative nature will continue to mature,
transform, and refine. Leaders, researchers, and practitioners can frame the
future and the resultant redefinition of leadership for this next generation through
a systems thinking approach, working through conceptualizing strategic issues of
the organization as offered by the multi-generational leadership model. This
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
53
model seeks to abandon the commoditization of employees offered by early
economic and human relations theorists. It further seeks to abandon the
constructivist cost approach that mechanistically can result in organizational
cultures focused on managing procedure, paperwork, and processes versus
creating synergy through people. The synergy caused by generational
intermingling cannot help but affect employers, sectors, and higher education
institutions (Helyer & Lee, 2012). Ultimately, the root of trust lies in individual
relationships, which create an institutional phenomenon beyond interpersonal
relationships (Semerciöz et al., 2011).
Temporal context represents the lens through which millennials view
leadership. An old lens empties the current reality. Millennials are clearly
rebuffing the norm established by earlier generations (Campione, 2015).
Consequently, researchers and practitioners alike need to reevaluate and frame
(Daft, 2013) an Era 5 of leadership, as millennials dynamically role-switch
between being leaders and followers in pursuit of an egalitarian expression of
leadership discrete from the role of management. Participatory decision making
in the Era 5 sharing economy (e.g., Airbnb and Uber) necessitates
interdependent decisions coupled with highly collaborative interactions pointing
to a robust leader–follower team dynamic.
Likewise, it is time to expand stewardship and servant leadership to include
emergent, grassroots, distributed, and alternating leadership styles as the
potentialities of the millennial generation’s redefinition of leadership unfolds.
Researchers must continue to identify and analyze the new generation’s
predominant leadership paradigm. They must consider an inclusive lens that allows
for a lessening of hierarchical-based, hero-worshipping leadership expressions. The
new focus should increase the fluidity of the role exchange between the leader and
follower. Current generations seek more flexibility when selecting the leader role—
and equally seek the follower role, as needed, when needed.
Limitations of the Research and Future Directions
The above analysis has been limited to North American examples in the
descriptions of the factors influencing generational cohorts. As Nayar (2013)
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
54
notes, the challenges of millennial leadership are of more than passing interest to
economically emerging nations, such as India. The authors propose that similar
principles may apply in other nations. The specifics of how these will result in and
influence leadership development requires further examination. China is now
becoming more powerful, and its new leaders are often media subjects. The
events and trends that have influenced their mindsets undeniably merit
investigation. As noted by Wang and Chee (2011), these include the earlier
Western influences, the Soviet legacy, the Cultural Revolution, the resurgence of
classic models, and the rise of new entrepreneurs such as Jack Ma of Alibaba. In
Western Europe (e.g., Germany and the United Kingdom), leadership models
and the generational influences include the austerities of the 1950s, economic
revitalization, reunification, Thatcherism, and so forth. The authors hope and trust
that the research described in this article contributes to the debate as to how to
view and approach the complex study of leadership development globally.
Generation Z (also known as iGeneration) includes those born between
approximately 2000 and 2020. They were not included in this article because
they have not yet entered the workforce in large numbers. In addition, little peer-
edited research currently exists on Generation Z. Future research on
generational differences pertaining to workplace leadership should include the
most recent generational cohort.
References
Alexakis, G. (2011). Transcendental leadership: The progressive hospitality leader’s silver bullet. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 708–713. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.12.005
Alexander, C. S., & Sysko, J. M. (2012). A study of the cognitive determinants of
generation Y’s entitlement mentality. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(2), 63–68. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA289620439&v=2.1&u=gale15 690&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=f83f2b933c7041e4f09a712776729fcc
Allio, R. J. (2012). Leaders and leadership—Many theories, but what advice is
reliable? Strategy & Leadership, 41(1), 4–14. doi:10.1108/10878571311290016
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
55
Ancona, D., & Bresman, H. (2018, November 14). The five key capabilities of effective leadership. Leadership & Organisations. Insead. Retrieved from https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/the-five-key- capabilities-of-effective-leadership-10441
Andert, D. (2011). Alternating leadership as a proactive organizational
intervention: Addressing the needs of the baby boomers, generation Xers and millennials. Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 8(4), 67–83.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning. Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2016). Human capital, the millennial’s
reign, and the need for servant leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(2), 59–63.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Revised and expanded
edition. New York, NY: The Free Press. Binham, O. T., Kilbourne, S., Jucle, G., Giselli, E., Stogdill, R., & Bennis, U.
(2018). Leadership as an effective management tool. ТРУДИ, 6. Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Campione, W. A. (2015). Corporate offerings: Why aren’t millennials staying?
Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 17(4), 60–75. Carlile, B. The joke [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r6A2NexF88 Chaturvedi, S., Zyphur, M. J., Arvey, R. D., Avolio, B. J., & Larsson, G. (2012).
The heritability of emergent leadership: Age and gender as moderating factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(2), 219–232. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.004
Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2014, May). The baby boom cohort in the United
States: 2012 to 2060—Population estimates and projections. U.S. Census Bureau Current Populations Reports (P25-1141). U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1141.pdf
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
56
Coomes, M. D., & DeBard, R. (Eds.). (2004). Serving the millennial generation: New directions for student services (No. 106). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in
the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 303–323. doi:10.1017/iop.2015.15
Daft, R. L. (with Lane, P. G.). (2011). Management (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-
Western Cengage Learning. Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the generational gap: How employees young and old
can find common ground. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2010). Millennials at work: What
we know and what we need to do (If anything). Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 191–199.
Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where millennials end and
generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end- and-generation-z-begins/
Dwyer, R. J. (2009). Prepare for the impact of the multi-generational workforce!
Transforming Government People, Process and Policy, 3(2), 101–110. e Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., Clegg, S., & Neves, P. (2013). The case for
transcendent followership. Leadership, 9(1), 87–106. doi:10.1177/1742715012447006
European Parliament. (2013, February 4). Flash mob to end violence against
women [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I_0u_mE04U
Foot, D. K., & Stoffman, D. (1998). Boom, bust and echo: Profiling from the
demographic shift in the new millennium (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: MacFarlane, Walter & Ross.
Frandsen, B. M. (2009, February 1). Leading by recognizing generational
differences. Long-Term Living, 58(2), 34–35. Fry, R. (2018, April 11). Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor
force. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest- generation-us-labor-force/
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
57
Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2018). Leadership, leadership styles, and servant leadership. Journal of Management Research, 18(4), 261–269.
Gass, E., & Bezold, M. P. (2013). Generation Y, shifting funding structures, and
health care reform: Reconceiving the public health paradigm through social work. Social Work in Public Health, 28(7), 685–693. doi:10.1080/19371918.2011.619460
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Groysberg, B., Lee, J., Price, J., & Cheng, J. Y.-J. (2018). The leader’s guide to corporate culture: How to manage the eight critical elements of organizational life. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 44–52.
Haeger, D. L., & Lingham, T. (2013). Intergenerational collisions and leadership
in the 21st century. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11(4), 1–18. Harris, L., Jr. (2011, July 28). After the baby boom leadership fail. Brain Food.
Retrieved from http://archives.hypervocal.com/politics/2011/baby-boom- leadership-fail/
Hauschildt, K., & Konradt, U. (2012). The effect of self-leadership on work role
performance in teams. Leadership, 8(2), 145–168. doi:10.1177/1742715011429588
Heilbroner, R. (1986). The nature and logic of capitalism. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton. Helyer, R., & Lee, D. (2012). The twenty-first century multiple generation
workforce: Overlaps and differences but also challenges and benefits. Education + Training, 54(7), 565–578. doi:10.1108/00400911211265611
Hewlett, S. A., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). How gen Y & boomers will
reshape your agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87(7/8), 71–76. Houlihan, A. (2007, November). How to effectively lead different generations in
the workplace. Reliable Plant. Retrieved from https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/7233/generations-workplace
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The next 20 years: How customer and
workforce attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 41–52. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college (2nd ed.). Great Falls,
VA: Lifecourse Associates. Hughes, T., & Fiehl, S. (2013, October). Talking ‘bout my generation. Inside
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
58
Learning Technologies & Skills. 45–46. Retrieved from http://new.generationsatwork.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/nologiesMagazine_GenerationY_Oct2013.pdf
Izea. (2019). Influencer marketing: Top millennial influencers. Retrieved from
https://izea.com/2018/01/08/top-millennial-influencers/ Karakas, F., Manisaligil, A., & Sarigollu, E. (2015). Management learning at the
speed of life: Designing reflective, creative, and collaborative spaces for millennials. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(3), 237– 248.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Wiley. Kaufman, P. (Producer & Director). (1993). Rising sun [Motion picture]. United
States: 20th Century Fox. Kefalas, A. G. (2011). On systems thinking and the systems approach. World
Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm Research, 67(4–5), 343–371. doi:10.1080/02604027.2011.585911
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2019, January 18). Have we reached the limit of
individualism? [Web log post]. INSEAD. https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/have-we-reached-the-limit-of- individualism-10791#gFVHbkI0Qxyc9mFt.99
Kezar, A. (2011). Grassroots leadership: Encounters with power dynamics and
oppression. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(4), 471-–500.
Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of) attitude
problem: An empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 265–279.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are.
Why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C., & Leroy, H. (2019). Taking stock of moral
approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148–187.
Levenson, A. R. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An economist’s
perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 257–264. 10.1007/s10869-010-9170-9
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
59
Ling, Q., Lin, M., & Wu, X. (2016). The trickle-down effect of servant leadership
on frontline employee service behaviors and performance: A multilevel study of Chinese hotels. Tourism Management, 52, 341–368. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.008.
Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work:
Introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 857– 861.
Malik, N. (2014). Revolutionizing the revolution: An examination of social media’s
role in the Egyptian Arab spring (Undergraduate honors thesis). Retrieved from the Undergraduate Honors Thesis Collection of the Digital Commons at Butler University (Paper 197). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=ug theses
Massey, M. (1979). The people puzzle: Understanding yourself and others.
Reston, VA: Reston. Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010, May 1). Mentoring millennials. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/05/mentoring- millennials
Michel, J. S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2010). Leadership coherence: An application of
personality coherence theory to the study of leadership. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 688–694. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.018
Mingers, J., & White, L. (2010). A review of the recent contribution of systems
thinking to operational research and management science. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3), 1147–1161. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.12.019
Moldoveanu, M., & Narayandas, D. (2019). The future of leadership
development. Harvard Business Review, 97(2), 40–48. Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A
communication perspective on millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225–238. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7
Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donia, M. B., & Darr, W. (2015). Perils of being
close to a bad leader in a bad environment: Exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader member exchange, and perceived organizational politics on behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 14–33.
Nayar, V. (2013). Handing the keys to Gen Y. Harvard Business Review, 91(5),
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
60
40–41. Ng, E. W., & Gossett, C. W. (2013). Career choice in Canadian public service: An
exploration of fit with the millennial generation. Public Personnel Management, 42(3), 337–358. doi:10.1177/0091026013495767
Nicholas, A., & Lewis, J. (2008). Millennial attitudes toward books and e-books.
Faculty and Staff—Articles & Papers, Digital Commons at Salve Regina University. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=fa c_staff_pub
Palaima, T., & Skaržauskienė, A. (2010). Systems thinking as a platform for
leadership performance in a complex world. Baltic Journal of Management, 5(3), 330–355.
PBS News Hour. (2019). Politics. The game for 2020 Democrats: wooing
millennials. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-game- for-2020-democrats-wooing-millennials
Peck, E. (2016, February 2). The dreaded annual performance review inches
closer to extinction. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/companies-phasing-out-annual- performance-reviews_us_56b0c819e4b0655877f722ec
Perry, K. (2010, October 28). Firework [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGJuMBdaqIw&feature=fvsr Raines, C. (2013, March 14). Claire Raines on 10 predictions for Generation Z
[Web log post]. AMACOM Books Blog. Retrieved from http://amacombooks.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/claire-raines-on-10- predictions-for-generation-z/
Reinhardt, E. (2010). The challenge of managing a multigenerational workplace.
The Business Journal, 24(21), 1-5. Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A
review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 328–367. Robertson, D., & Henderson, T. (2018, April 26). The United States of
millennials. POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/26/millennials-cities-where- they-live-218059
Sahadi, J. (2007, August 29). CEO pay: 364 times more than workers.
CNNMoney.com. Retrieved from
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
61
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/news/economy/ceo_pay_workers/index.ht m?section=money_topstories
Salahuddin, M. M. (2010). Generational differences impact on leadership style
and organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), 1–6. doi:10.19030/jdm.v5i2.805
Samuelson, R. J. (2010, March 15). The real generation gap: Young adults are
getting slammed. Newsweek, 155(11). Semerciöz, F., Hassan, M., & Aldemir, Z. (2011). An empirical study on the role
of interpersonal and institutional trust in organizational innovativeness. International Business Research, 4(2), 125–136. doi:10.5539/ibr.v4n2p125
Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H., (2007). Generational
differences in leader values and leadership behavior. The Psychologist- Manager Journal, 10, 47–74.
Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data (4th ed.). London, United
Kingdom: Sage. Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D., & Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and management: Fad
or radical challenge to systems thinking? East Sussex, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
St. Clair, D. P., Hunter, G. K., Cola, P. A., & Boland, R. J. (2018). Systems-savvy
selling, interpersonal identification with customers, and the sales manager’s motivational paradox: A constructivist grounded theory approach. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 38(4), 391–412. doi:10.1080/08853134.2018.1517357
Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological
Bulletin, 47(1), 1–14. doi:10.1037/h0053857 Stogdill, R. M., & Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey
of theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press. Sullivan, K. (2013). Prepare your organization now for the workforce of the future.
Nonprofit Business Advisor, 285, 1. Swensen, S., Gorringe, G., Caviness, J., & Peters, D. (2016). Leadership by
design: Intentional organization development of physician leaders. Journal of Management Development, 35(4), 549–570. doi:10.1108/JMD-08-2014-0080
Teece, D. (2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems
theory. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3), 359–368.
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
62
doi:10.1017/jmo.2017.75 Tesone, D. V. (2003). The leadership cat with the management hat. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Custom. Thomas, D., & Rahschulte, T. (2018). The moderating effects of power distance
and individualism/collectivism on empowering leadership, psychological empowerment, and self-leadership in international development organizations. International Leadership Journal, 10(3), 3–39.
Thomas, P. (2008, December 16). Case closed: Police ID Adam Walsh killer.
ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/dec-16-2008-adam- walsh-case-closed-12422678
Tulgan, B. (2011). Generation Y: All grown up and now emerging as new
leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 77–81. doi:10.1002/jls.20237 Ungerleider, N. (2011, January 25). Massive Egyptian protests powered by
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Twitpic. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/1720692/massive-egyptian-protests-powered- youtube-twitter-facebook-twitpic-pics-video-updates
Uygur, C. (2016). Why millennials love Bernie Sanders. The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-millennials- love-bernie_b_9839450.html
Wang, B. X., & Chee, H. (2011). Chinese leadership. Basingstoke, United
Kingdom: Palgrave MacMillan. Weinbaum, C., Girven, R. S., & Oberholtzer, J. (2016). The millennial generation:
Implications for the intelligence and policy communities. RAND Corporation. doi:10.7249/RR1306
Wells, D. (2018, December 21). Florida cops break up, then join flash mob at
shopping mall. Retrieved from https://fox13now.com/2018/12/21/florida-cops- break-up-then-join-flash-mob-at-shopping-mall/
Williams, K. C., & Page, R. A. (2011). Marketing to the generations. Journal of
Behavioral Studies in Business, 3(1), 1–17. Williams, R. B. (2007, February 21). Gen X will change work culture. National
Post, p. 3. Zabel, K. L., Biermeier-Hanson, B. J., Baltes, B. B., Early, B. J., & Shepard, A.
(2017). Generational differences in work ethic: Fact or fiction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(3), 301–315. doi:10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5
International Leadership Journal Summer 2019
63
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at work: Managing
the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers, and nexters in your workplace. Toronto, Canada: AMACOM.
Darlene Andert, EdD, is retired from the faculty of Florida Gulf Coast University’s Lutgert College of Business in Fort Myers, although she continues to conduct research. She earned an EdD in Human and Organizational Development from The George Washington University. Dr. Andert’s research interests include leadership, group dynamics, and organizational development with a focus on human resource development. She can be reached at [email protected]. George Alexakis, EdD, is a full professor at Florida Gulf Coast University’s Lutgert College of Business in Fort Myers. His leadership background includes administrative, consulting, and operations positions with academic institutions, corporate organizations, and small business partnerships. He has provided management training for a variety of organizations domestically and internationally. Dr. Alexakis is currently conducting research in the areas of transcendental leadership, organizational dynamics, and pedagogical advancements as they relate to the management disciplines. He can be reached at [email protected]. Robert C. Preziosi, DPA, is a professor emeritus of leadership and human resources management in the Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University with the Public Administration Department. In December 2000, her was named Professor of the Decade by the school. In a recent book, North American Adult Educators, he was named 1 of 50 quintessential adult educators of the 21st century. He is on the editorial boards of Employment Relations Today, the Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, and the Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. Six of his books are on the shelves at the Baker Library at the Harvard Business School. He can be reached at [email protected].
Copyright of International Leadership Journal is the property of International Leadership Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
