leadership in the retail sector

andra37

paper1.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >leadership in the retail sector

Walden University

College of Management and Human Potential

This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by

Phyllis Jean Atwood

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by

the review committee have been made.

Review Committee

Dr. Kenneth Levitt, Committee Chairperson, Management Faculty

Dr. Daphne Halkias, Committee Member, Management Faculty

Dr. Robert Haussmann, University Reviewer, Management Faculty

Chief Academic Officer and Provost

Sue Subocz, Ph.D.

Walden University

2022

Abstract

Millennial Leadership in the Retail Industry

Phyllis Jean Atwood

MA, Webster University, 2005

BS, Missouri Baptist College, 1999

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Management

Leadership and Organizational Change

Walden University

May 2022

Abstract

The retail industry contributes to the United States economy, and high turnover rates

reduce the profitability of businesses, which affects their sustainability. The general

problem is millennials employed in retail are not finding adequate leadership support and

alignment with their career expectations or social beliefs. This qualitative single case

study involved an embedded group of millennials employed as retail managers with at

least three years of supervisory experience. The purpose of this study was to explore

experiences and expectations involving effective leadership. The study involved using the

generational theory, cognitive model of behavior, and servant leadership theory to

address how perceptions of leadership are influenced by generational differences and

leader behavior. Data collection from 8 semi-structured interviews was affected by the

shared societal event of the COVID pandemic. Thematic analysis revealed transitional

data from a follower’s perspective to a leader’s perspective and an emerging millennial

leadership style. Millennials’ skills and behaviors have evolved from life experiences and

they can relate to other generations because of a need to know everything with a

fearlessness to ask why. Future research of retail leadership will provide guidance to

managers in the retail industry as they determine the style of leadership that fits their

environment, culture, and employee needs. Reducing the voluntary turnover rate by

putting people before profit in the retail industry will decrease the ripple effect that

business closures have on local, state, and federal government sustainability.

Millennial Leadership in the Retail Industry

Phyllis Jean Atwood

MA, Webster University, 2005

BS, Missouri Baptist College, 1999

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Management

Leadership and Organizational Change

Walden University

May 2022

Dedication

Without my co-workers, friends, and family constantly challenging me, I would

not have had the resolve to finish. Whether they encouraged or questioned my reasons for

pursuing a doctorate, their words added to my continual self-evaluation of motive and

reminded me of a life goal I made 30 years ago. It doesn’t matter how much time passes,

what matters is the journey.

I dedicate this work to Andy because without his generosity and disbelief that I

was about to give up, my goal would have been unrealized.

Angels walk amongst me.

Acknowledgments

When a dissertation committee convenes, the goal is simple, in theory. I know I

was one of many candidates, but my committee never ceased to make me feel like I was

their only concern. I was given strong guidance, honesty, and comments that instilled

confidence. Thank you, Dr. Levitt, for finding my study interesting from the beginning,

accepting it as viable, and for valuing the message. Whenever I needed validation of my

pathway, you encouraged me and bolstered my courage. Dr. Halkias, I appreciate your

guidance and all the resources you provided that kept me within the scope and purpose of

my study. Thank you for your eye for detail, time, and devotion to getting it right the first

time. You inspired me to write with purpose and clarity and served me well academically

and professionally. Dr. Haussmann, if I could have chosen my URR, it would have been

you. As my instructor for my first research class, you recognized and encouraged the

multi-disciplinary approach I needed to pursue this study. Thank you for supporting my

tendency to think outside the box. You helped me find my voice.

“Mentoring is a brain to pick, an ear to listen, and a push in the right direction.”

--- John C. Crosby

Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................v

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1

Background of the Study ...............................................................................................2

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................5

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................6

Research Questions ........................................................................................................6

Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................7

Nature of the Study ......................................................................................................10

Definitions....................................................................................................................12

Assumptions .................................................................................................................13

Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................14

Limitations ...................................................................................................................15

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................16

Significance to Practice......................................................................................... 18

Significance to Theory .......................................................................................... 18

Significance to Social Change .............................................................................. 19

Summary and Transition ..............................................................................................19

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................20

Literature Search Strategy............................................................................................21

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................22

Literature Review.........................................................................................................24

Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................59

Research Design and Rationale ...................................................................................59

Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................61

Methodology ................................................................................................................64

Participant Selection Logic ................................................................................... 66

Data Analysis Plan ................................................................................................ 80

Issues of Trustworthiness .............................................................................................85

Credibility ............................................................................................................. 85

Transferability ....................................................................................................... 85

Dependability ........................................................................................................ 86

Confirmability ....................................................................................................... 87

Ethical Procedures ................................................................................................ 87

Summary ......................................................................................................................89

Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................90

Research Setting...........................................................................................................91

Demographics ..............................................................................................................92

Data Collection ............................................................................................................93

Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................96

Evidence of Trustworthiness......................................................................................103

iii

Credibility ........................................................................................................... 103

Transferability ..................................................................................................... 104

Dependability ...................................................................................................... 105

Confirmability ..................................................................................................... 105

Study Results .............................................................................................................106

Emergent Themes from a Follower Perspective ........................................................109

Summary ....................................................................................................................119

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ..........................................121

Interpretation of Findings ..........................................................................................121

Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................132

Conclusions ................................................................................................................144

References ........................................................................................................................146

Appendix A: Retail Trade Subsections…………………………………………………173

Appendix B: Semi-Structured Interview Questions …………..…..……..……………174

Appendix C: Invitation to interview letter..…………………………………………….179

Appendix D: Interview Protocol Outline………………………………………….……181

Appendix E: Interview Guide………………………………………………….……….183

Appendix F: Codebook…………………………………………………………………185

List of Tables

Table 1. Generational Characteristics ............................................................................... 37

Table 2. Translation of Misunderstanding ........................................................................ 46

Table 3. Servant Leadership Characteristics and Millennial Expectations………………55

Table 4. Participant Demographics………………………………………………………92

Table 5. Conceptual Categories and Themes…………………………………………….98

List of Figures

Figure 1. Responses to Question 3……………………………………………………116

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

The turnover rate for millennials is three times more compared to other

generations (Petrucelli, 2017). The industry supports 52 million jobs and contributes over

$3.9 trillion to the U. S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP; National Retail Federation

[NRF], 2020). A leadership style for the retail industry that serves the newest generation

of employees instead of profit first might lead to social change (Akers, 2018). Akers

(2018) argued that voluntary turnover is reduced when employees’ sense of meaningful

work increases.

Background information included in this study includes the evolution of the retail

industry and an overview of leadership. Chinyerere and Sandada (2018) argued that

current leadership expectations might conflict with previous retail industry leadership and

adopting a more employee-centric style would improve organizational commitment. I

addressed how millennials employed in the retail industry described their perceptions and

expectations regarding successful leadership.

Societal influences and upbringing shape adult behavior (Fritsch et al., 2018;

Lyons & Kuron, 2014). The continuance of a specific behavior is dependent on the

received response, and followers imitates positively received behaviors (Bandura, 1977).

The concept of serving others as a style of leadership involves meaningful work and

socially conscious and attentive leaders. This case study involved eight interview

participants who were of millennial age with 3 years or more of leadership experience in

business. Interview questions involved millennial leadership viewpoints as employees

with experiences as leaders and followers.

Background of the Study

Millennials’ expectations and characteristics, generational differences, and current

leadership theories in the retail industry were part of the scope of this study. The general

problem is millennials employed in retail do not find adequate leadership support and

alignment with their career expectations or social beliefs, often leading to a high

voluntary turnover rate. Voluntary turnover does not apply to a single age group, but

statistically, the millennial generation has the highest turnover percentages of other age

groups and lowest tenure rates of less than 3 years (Petrucelli, 2017; U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics, 2019). Naim and Lenka (2020) said millennials desire to work where

they continuously learn and add to their marketability.

Howe and Strauss (2000) recognized crossover generations that exhibited

characteristics of two generations. There is a microgeneration within the millennial

generation known as Xennials between Generation X and the millennial generation

(Howe & Strauss, 2000). This microgeneration does not identify wholly with either

Generation X or millennials but considers themselves adaptable in terms of both (Erts,

2020; Taylor, 2018). Leadership training in the retail industry lacks soft skills needed to

inspire positive behavior, like retention (Holtschlag et al., 2020; Lindblom et al., 2016;

Mekraz & Rao Gundala, 2016; Nolan, 2015). Current research involves the need to

encourage expectations and the connection to voluntary turnover.

This study involved examining how millennials view the world differently from

each other and other generations. The millennial generation’s collective social influences

that reportedly affect personality characteristics were significant in this study as

environmental stressors and parental/mentor affectations. The values of a business are an

essential factor in terms of success, and people before profit should be a key-value

(Deloitte Millennial Survey, 2021; Friedman & Gerstein, 2017). Nolan (2015) noted the

responsibilities of management to adjust organizational culture to include millennial

needs and expectations instead of expecting the generation to assimilate. Nolan (2015)

and Petrucelli (2017) included proposed behavioral adjustments in leadership needed to

combat stereotypes associated with millennials and millennial dissatisfaction with the

status quo. Nolan described benefits to the organization via lower turnover costs and

increased performance by acknowledging and accepting millennial expectations.

The delicate balance of the retail industry management’s need to drive business

and develop leaders for a succession plan necessary for organization sustainability is

significant in terms of interpreting millennials’ needs and expectations. Smith and

Garriety (2020) argued that organizational goals and employees’ personal needs align

with job satisfaction. I identified a gap in the literature between existing leadership styles

in the retail industry and millennials’ definition of successful leadership.

Acknowledgment of millennial characteristics of purposeful teamwork, social

consciousness, and authenticity combined with the reported need for meaningful work,

sincere feedback, and a work-life balance are basic guidelines for leading millennials

(Anderson et al., 2017; Sarwono & Bernarto, 2020). Arellano (2015) said leadership

involved in developing leaders and organizations experience growth and stability by

recognizing and embracing strength in others.

Positive behavior in leadership is reflected in the behavior of followers (Bandura,

1977). Bandura's social learning theory includes expectations of reciprocity or responding

to benevolence with benevolence for others (Du et al., 2020; Langhof & Guldenberg,

2020). A person is influenced by their environment, observations, and treatment from

others, and they respond to these influences with actions toward others (Cherry, 2021).

Received impact can be negative or positive, depending on the follower’s expectations

and the leader’s motivations. A study focused on leadership in the retail industry to

explore expectations and perceptions is valid to recognize the need for compassion in

response to a paradigm shift.

There is little guidance for retailers about how to dispel negative connotations of

retail management as a career option with long-term commitments. Hurst and Good

(2009) said retailers are neglecting the chance to cultivate part-time college students for

retail careers, causing a negative perception of the industry. In deference to new

employee training, the National Retail Federation began a skills training and

credentialing program to promote careers in retail. Successful leaders need to coach the

next generation by recognizing their beliefs and aspirations (Akers, 2018; Broadbridge et

al., 2009). Holtschlag et al., (2020) said millennials do not necessarily make retail a

career choice but are less likely to assign negativity to the experience.

Problem Statement

The general problem was that millennials employed in the retail industry are not

finding leadership support which aligns with their career expectations or social beliefs,

often leading to a high voluntary turnover rate. Excessive turnover in a retail setting

negatively affects staff efficacy, knowledge transfer, cohesiveness, and customer loyalty

(Berisha & Lajçi, 2020). The 4.3% turnover rate in retail trade contrasts with the total

national average of 3.6% and the voluntary turnover rate, which is at 30% (U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics, 2019).

The pandemic effect on the turnover rate was 57.3%, and the previous three-year

average was 42-45% (DailyPay, 2021). Millennials change jobs three times as often

compared to other generations, compounding the turnover rate. Costs associated with

recruiting and training replacements are detrimental to successful organizational

operations (Petrucelli, 2017).

A literature search produced limited results regarding retail industry leadership,

and the majority of the research centered on how to lead millennials. Anderson et al.,

(2017) said the struggle for leaders to determine millennials’ needs and develop them into

successful leaders resulted in organizations without succession plans and millennials with

no faith in organizational leadership. The specific problem was that current leadership

styles in the retail industry are not effective in terms of recruitment and retention of

millennials for leadership positions (Anderson et al., 2017; Friedman & Gerstein, 2017;

Mekraz & Rao Gundala, 2016; Taylor, 2018).

Limited information about retail leaders’ behavior supports the retail industry’s

need for research on how retail leader behavior affects voluntary turnover. Lee et al.

(2017) argued for examining why employees remain employed in the retail industry, thus

providing practitioners insight into followers’ perceptions of successful leadership. Gunn

et al. (2017) said the academic community should explore the literature gap involving

perceptions and expectations of millennial leaders and current leadership techniques in

the retail industry.

Purpose of the Study

This qualitative case study involved exploring experiences of millennials

employed as managers in the retail industry and their expectations involving effective

leadership. An organization with a higher purpose than profit contributes to society and

promotes servant leadership that aligns with millennials’ expectations for successful

leaders (McCleskey, 2018; O'Connell & Gibbons, 2016). Conceptually, a leader’s

behavior reflects in the performances of those that follow (Bandura, 1977), and each

generation has unique perceptions and expectations (Mannheim, 1952). Exploring

expectations of millennials who chose retail as a career added insights regarding viable

leadership styles for the retail industry and addressed the gap between purported retail

leadership and millennials’ self-descriptions.

Research Question

RQ1: How do millennials employed as managers in the retail industry describe

their perceptions and expectations of successful leadership? 

Conceptual Framework

I used a conceptual framework to gather the information about the influence of

behavior on leadership that guided this study of millennials as leaders. Societal influence

determines behaviors in a generation, and individual upbringing shapes adult behavior

(Lyons & Kuron, 2014). In the workplace, generational differences in perception can be

attributed to age, relating to the human cycle of development, and environmental

influences affecting human development.

Such factors of characteristic development impact perceptions and behaviors and

lead to stereotypical generalization when other factors, such as industry changes or career

progression stages, should be considered (Lyons et al., 2015). Employees base their

perceptions of leadership qualities of individuals within the group (Graybill, 2014; Gruda

et al., 2018). Conceptually, in a multi-generational workforce, composite knowledge is

not segregated by age but rather substance of knowledge.

The literature review included leadership differences affected by generational

perceptions along with evolution of knowledge sharing from hierarchal to mentorship.

Knowledge sharing is dependent on social relationships of groups, which are not

necessarily divided by generation. Knowledge defines leadership in an unspoken

hierarchy of command (Gruda et al., 2018). Mannheim (1952) supported behavioral

differences that influence leadership style and social influence constructs.

Mannheim (1952) argued that events shared by a group influence their collective

perspective. Life experiences, perceptions of those experiences, and leadership

expectations as the result of these experiences comprise characteristics of leader

behavior. In the workplace, behavior characteristics of a leader are either supportive or

destructive, with leaders exhibiting neither supportive nor destructive behavior,

supportive nor destructive, which hurts employee perceptions (Schyns et al., 2018).

Mannheim (1952) defined generational theory as a collective personality

identifying birth years by behavioral traits influenced by perceptions of life events. The

key to a collective personality is perception, and Mannheim’s concept of generational

differences included the possibility of a collective personality based on a shared social

event. In addition to the concept that generational differences influence leadership

behavior, Bandura’s model of cognitive behavior was used to understand how

observation influences behavior. Continuance of the behavior depends on the received

response. The cognitive model of behavior contains a mediational process that involves

the individual observing, remembering, determining the possibility of mimicry, and

imitating the behavior (Bandura, 1977). Positive behavior will continue and expand if

there is an increase in self-efficacy through positive feedback that the individual

perceives as sincere (Bandura, 1977). Workplace reciprocity is relevant to this study.

Reciprocity functionality in the organization includes an agreement that benefits

both employees and employers and is rooted in the social concept of kindness begets

kindness (Hu et al., 2016; Tian et al., 2016). The third part of this framework is congruity

of millennial expectations and characteristics of a servant leader, which is discussed

further in Chapter 2.

Barbuto and Gottfredson (2016) conceptualized servant leadership to recruit and

retain millennials seeking meaningful work, corporate social responsibility, recognition

for good performance, and attentive and authentic leaders. Treating others with

consideration of their individual needs is socially driven and is associated with religious

teachings, but there is a connection to business leadership (Frey, 2017). The servant

leader’s controversial softer side of leadership has been labeled more of a philosophy

than leadership style, but conceptually align with millennial expectations of leadership

(Mertel & Brill, 2015).

The five aspects of servant leadership: altruism, emotional healing, wisdom,

encouragement, and stewardship, outlined by Barbuto and Gottfredson (2016, p 62),

serves as a model of leadership behavior that mirrors millennials’ expectations. The

theory of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) means the follower bestows authority

because of the leader’s willingness to serve others first. Coetzer et al. (2017) defined

Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership as putting others’ needs before one’s own,

considering those that follow and surrounding communities. Information regarding past

and present leadership styles and the need for a leadership style to adapt as the landscape

of the retail industry changes, led to the question of generational differences in leadership

style. The concept that behavioral characteristics of each generation influence employee

perceptions of successful leaders and leadership theory that involves millennials’

expectations of leadership led to this study involving millennials’ behavioral

characteristics.

Nature of the Study

Of the three approaches to research, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods,

the best fit for this study was qualitative. Alignment of methodology with the research

question was paramount, in addition to whether results were quantifiable. Qualitative

researchers are interested in reasons or motivations behind a phenomenon, understanding

the social implications of behavior, and understanding experiences (Klenke, 2016;

Maxwell, 2013).

I chose a qualitative analysis to study leadership because of the diverse nature of

influence and dependency on contextual consideration. A relativistic ontology guides

researchers' belief that several realities arise from individual interpretations of social

constructs (Klenke, 2016; Rolfe, 2006; Scotland, 2012). A subjectivist epistemology

leads researchers to believe there is no separation between self and perception, suggesting

perception is a personal reality.

Qualitative research provides the opportunity for a deeper understanding of

phenomena involving a holistic point of view to explore the complexity of the human

experience (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Denzin (2002) said qualitative research based on the

interpretivism paradigm and believing that reality is subject to context, results in a deeper

understanding of a social phenomenon. Qualitative research involves connecting

scientific disciplines, concepts, and established theories (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). The

researcher may act as a bricoleur, using multiple tools to collect data. Bricolage research

is interactive, involves challenging epistemology and ontology as universal rationales,

and encourages a multi-dimensional philosophy and more profound understanding

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2018; Maxwell, 2013). The bricolage approach, used by researchers

in studies that involve multidisciplinary areas of inquiry, enables a deeper understanding

of participant's’ personal beliefs rather than adhering to strict paradigms (Maxwell, 2013;

Wibberley, 2017).

A quantitative method is not appropriate because the focus of this study is not

testing a hypothesis with predictable outcomes or one correct answer. Quantitative

research involves a deductive process with no variance in data retrieval, but qualitative

research with an inductive process allows for alterations during the collection stage

(Urban & van Eeden-Moorefield, 2018). Mixed methods research involves looking at the

research problem using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. I opted against

mixed methods in favor of streamlining the study using a single method of inquiry with a

bricolage approach.

I conducted a case study by interviewing participants that met inclusive criteria as

part of the millennial age generation and retail industry leaders with a minimum of 10

employees and over 3 years of experience in a retail environment who were graduated or

enrolled in a business curriculum. Yin (2018) suggested using the case study design in

situations involving an embedded phenomenon in the context of world reality, such as

one group’s perceptions involving retail leadership. Other considered designs were

ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory.

Ethnography is the primary method of studying cultures and standards of behavior

which constitute group identity involving in-depth immersion (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Since the focus of this study is not the study of a way of life, I did not use the

ethnographic design. Phenomenology involves individuals’ lived experiences of a

phenomenon (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). I did not choose phenomenology because there was

no specific event or situation being explored. Grounded theory involves the development

of new theory as a link between concepts emerges with research or data collection (Urban

& van Eeden-Moorefield, 2018). The development of a new theory was not the focus of

this study; therefore, the grounded theory design was not used.

The qualitative purposeful selection strategy requires inquiries posed to a specific

participant group determined by inclusive criteria to encourage collecting information

that is relevant to research questions (Klenke, 2016). Of the choices for data collection

tools, interviews offered a better opportunity than observation, documentation, or

archival sources for desired depth of information. Interviewing participants who met

inclusive criteria for the case study provides an opportunity to ask follow up questions

and elaborate on experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Definitions

Baby Boomer: The term used to describe the generation born between 1943 and

1960 (Strauss & Howe, 1991). Arellano (2015) defined the boomer generation as loyal,

preferring to work alone with little need for praise, and possessing a strong work ethic

(living to work).

Baby Buster: This is microgeneration of baby boomers, also referred to as late

boomers, who were born between 1955 and 1964 (Strauss & Howe, 1991).

Bricolage: Multi or cross-discipline approaches to research, which encourage

pursuit of a broader understanding of the topic.

Generation X: Individuals born between 1960 and 1980 (Howe & Strauss, 2000).

Generation Z: Individuals born between 2000 and a yet undetermined year (Howe

& Strauss, 2000).

Generational Characteristics: Aspects of personality that by consensus involve a

group of individuals born during the same generation.

Latchkey Kid: Children with no one at home to meet them after school. The term

was coined during the time when many Generation Xers were children of divorced or

single parents who were still at work when their children arrived home.

Millennials: Individuals born between 1980 and 2000 (Howe & Strauss, 2000).

Xennial: Microgeneration between Generation X and Millennials that have

characteristics of both groups (Howe & Strauss, 2000).

Assumptions

Assumptions in this study involved qualifications of participants and their views

of retail leadership. The primary assumption was that the participants met inclusion

criteria. All participants had a birthdate between 1980 and 2000 and were classified as

millennials per this study. Participants had 3 years of minimum experience in a retail

industry leadership position. Participants also studied or were studying a business

curriculum. A I assumed participants’ responses were given freely and honestly with a

desire to voice their opinions, and results of this study would provide meaningful insights

regarding comprehensive, amenable, and practical avenues for retail leadership

consensus. I built the contextual framework on the supposition that individual perceptions

come from personal experiences. I assumed results were analyzed without bias and led to

essential information involving successful leadership in the retail industry. 

Scope and Delimitations

I chose the retail industry for this study because of limited literature regarding

causes or concerns for higher-than-average turnover rates. The retail industry includes

small privately-owned one-person businesses as well as multiple location chain stores

with thousands of employees. The study required narrowing the scope via inclusive

criteria for participant selection. Participants were leaders in the retail industry. Leaders’

behaviors influence voluntary turnover, training, and job satisfaction (Lee et al., 2017;

Mekraz & Rao Gundala, 2016; Petrucelli, 2017). Because supervision is received and

practiced, I addressed perceptions of received leadership and individual self-reflections in

terms of how they lead.

I chose age parameters between 1980 and 2000 because the turnover frequency

rate in this cohort was three times greater compared to other generations (Petrucelli,

2017), and the number of recruits choosing retail as a career has decreased (Broadbridge

et al., 2009; Hurst & Good, 2009; Lee et al., 2017). The topic of possible academic

shortcomings regarding retail promotion as a career choice was excluded from this study

but included as a possibility for future research. Late Boomers and Xennials were not

included in this research. I addressed challenges involving generational differences

affecting leadership styles.

Societal events create cohorts, not biological age, rendering previous leadership

styles based on the age group or generation of the follower often prejudicial (Costanza &

Finkelstein, 2015; Rudolph et al., 2018). By using LinkedIn Professional Network, I

expanded participant locations beyond the southern U.S. This reduced the possibility of

regional bias and led to a thorough cross section of the participant pool. There is potential

for transfer of this study to other industries. The underlying concept of understanding and

considering perceptions of leader behaviors would benefit any organization striving for a

holistic leadership style.

Limitations

This study was limited in terms of synchronicity of interviews during the second

part of the data-gathering stage. Chosen participants for one-on-one interviews declared

their interest via a questionnaire posted on a LinkedIn message board. Video

conferencing was requested to provide access to individuals from any location as well as

observation of body language. Video conferencing was replaced by phone and

asynchronous interviews as choices of convenience and anonymity. While phone and

asynchronous interviews did not provide visual information, these methods did add to

breadth of results. 

Researcher bias is a burden that challenges integrity of research. To avoid bias,

researchers should remain vigilant when gathering and analyzing data (Yin, 2018).

Abiding by inclusivity criteria for participant selection and using prepared interview

questions, peer review of preliminary findings, transcripts of interviews, and member

checking after analysis reduced opportunities for bias contamination. One limitation of

this study involves transferability of results. Transferability of results of this study might

benefit future studies in the field of sociology, psychology, or business leadership

because the topic of the study was based on perceptions and behaviors as it relates to

leadership. Participants’ descriptions, context, and background were explained in detail to

ensure transferability.

Significance of the Study

This study has the potential to lead to a grassroots movement in terms of structure

of retail leadership by exploring how current leaders’ behaviors involve balancing

organizational needs to drive business as well as needs of millennials to make a

difference through meaningful work. With each generation, expectations, motivation, and

goals reflect social influence, creating challenges for millennials in terms of adopting

leadership styles to meet the needs of a changing workforce while maintaining

organizational goals. The industry supports 52 million jobs and contributes over $2

trillion to the U.S. GDP (National Retail Federation, 2020). Exploration of appropriate

millennial leadership styles may lead to identifying attributes of desired leadership

behaviors. 

A leader who acknowledges the value of building up individuals strengthens the

leader-follower relationship by demonstrating positive results of serving others (Maier et

al., 2015). Grisaffe et al. (2016) said servant leadership positively influences sales

environments, increased performance levels, job satisfaction, and ultimately customer

loyalty, suggesting that characteristics of a servant leader mirror reported millennial

expectations of successful leaders. Gunn et al. (2017) said retail leaders lack a clear path

of advancement, resulting in millennials’ disappointment with perceived lack of career

opportunities in the retail industry and dissatisfaction with lackadaisical recruitment

methods. Use of top-down driven leadership and reluctance to adapt to millennial

expectations are particularly salient in terms of the fast-past environment of retail

organizations that depend on customer service for survival.

The anticipated arrival of the newest generation of workers (Generation Z) to be

led by millennials intensifies the need to understand how leadership reflects generational

differences and expectations (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). Lyons and Kuron (2014)

said employee needs reflect societal needs and acknowledging generational expectations

involving beneficent leadership may increase the attractiveness of retail careers. 

A leadership style for the retail industry that serves the newest generation of

employees instead of profit first might also lead to social change by supporting

community needs, increasing employees’ sense of meaningful work, and ultimately

reducing voluntary turnover (Akers, 2018). Encouragement of leaders to serve employees

might be significant in terms of retaining millennial talent, securing the succession of

qualified leaders, and ensuring the sustainability of the industry and surrounding

communities.

Significance to Practice

The effect of positive leader behavior is significant in the retail industry.

Benevolent leadership styles might transform the retail industry mantra from, the

customer comes first to employee-centric (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016; Padma & Wagenseil,

2018; Schwepker & Schultz, 2015). Leadership influence aligned with benevolent leader

behavior may change the followers’ perception of retail employment.

Significance to Theory

Historically, leadership theory has reflected existing leadership behavior to

explain the significance of a leader’s behavior on a follower’s motivation. This case study

is an examination of leader behavior in real time. The advancement in leadership theory

is a possibility of prevention instead of reparation in the voluntary turnover rate of retail

industry employment (Nair & Salleh, 2017). The information provided via data collection

gives insights about events that are significant in terms of leader-follower relationships

and shifts in expectations of leadership behavior. Using a constructivist lens, information

regarding leader behaviors was revealed through data collection, reducing the gap in

literature regarding practical and successful leadership styles in the retail industry to

mitigate voluntary turnover.

Significance to Social Change

The retail industry supports 52 million jobs and contributes over $3.9 trillion to

the U.S. GDP (NRF, 2020). Leadership styles for the retail industry that serve employees

instead of profit first leads t social change by supporting communities, increasing

employees’ sense of meaningful work, and reducing voluntary turnover. Encouragement

of leaders to serve employees first might be significant in terms of retaining millennial

talent, succession of qualified leaders, and industry sustainability. 

Summary and Transition

The above-average voluntary turnover rate of the millennial generation in the

retail industry is indicative of a disconnect between millennial expectations and leader

behaviors. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions and expectations

involving successful leadership by interviewing millennial leaders in the retail industry.

This study had the potential for a grassroots movement in terms of structure of retail

leadership by exploring how current leaders’ behaviors balance organizational need to

drive businesses and needs of employees. Societal influence determines commonalities of

behavior and generational differences influence leaders’ behaviors. Interview questions

involved exploration of millennial perceptions from three viewpoints: employees,

leaders, and organizations. A literature search produced limited results regarding retail

industry leadership, and Chapter 2 goes into more detail about the field of leadership and

its significance.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The general problem is that millennials employed in the retail industry are not

finding adequate leadership support to meet their career expectations or social beliefs,

often leading to a high voluntary turnover rate. The purpose of this study was to explore

perceptions of millennials who chose retail as a career and their self-descriptions and

expectations of leadership in the retail industry. This included a report involving positive

social change through induction of a leadership style that balances organizational needs

to drive profit and millennials’ expectations of leadership. This brief history of the retail

industry includes the social needs that are met by retailers and contributors to economic

stability.

Examination of transformational, authentic, ethical, and leader-member exchange

theories in terms of applicability to millennial leadership was used to highlight

generational differences requiring recognition of changing social environments of the

retail industry. My research centered on information about connections between

leadership style and turnover intent and relevant concerns involving the sustainability of

the retail industry due to a paradigm shift. This literature review includes three major

topics: turnover causes in the retail industry, generational differences in terms of

leadership expectations, and leadership theories that are present in the retail industry.

This review concludes with information about retail management as a career choice, and

research is centered on recruitment, retention, and mentoring of millennials.

Literature Search Strategy

The literature review strategy included dissection of the problem statement to find

keywords that would lead to notable information. I used the following keywords:

millennials, retail industry, leadership, social beliefs, voluntary turnover, retail industry,

leadership, social beliefs, turnover, generation, characteristics, career expectations,

statistics, leaders, leadership, turnover, history, careers, future of retail, changes,

multigenerational workforce, theory evolution, current theories, generational differences,

statistics for the retail industry, causes, psychological contract, prevention, results,

generation, social influence, group identity, and environmental influence. Most resources

were peer-reviewed. However, there was limited information in peer-reviewed

publications about the retail industry. There were publications available from industry

journals, government databases, and other electronic sources that provided insights

regarding the current state of retail and changes in recruitment and succession planning.

Included in this literature review are resources supporting the conceptual framework that

include current and seminal literature on generational and servant leadership theories and

Bandura’s cognitive model of behavior.

Walden University, University of Alabama at Huntsville, and Calhoun

Community College libraries were used to conduct literature searches. The following

databases were used: ABI/INFORM, Academic Search Complete, Business Source

Complete, Emerald Insight, ProQuest Central, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, SAGE

Journals, SAGE Research Methods Online, ScholarWorks, ScienceDirect, Thoreau

Multi-Database Search, Business Collection (Gale), Business Insights: Essentials, and

Business Source Premier. Google Scholar and Google were used to research current

events in the retail industry, and Research Gate was consulted to gauge amenability of

this project and ongoing research involving leadership.

Conceptual Framework

Conceptually, each generation learns from the previous generation, often within a

didactic relationship that leads to perceptions of leadership. Societal influence determines

commonalities of behavior in generations, and individual upbringing shapes adult

behavior (Fritsch et al., 2018; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Characteristic development impact

perceptions and behaviors and lead to stereotypical generalization when other factors,

such as industry changes or career progression stages, should be considered (Lyons et al.,

2015). Employees base their perceptions of leadership qualities of individuals or

individuals within groups (Graybill, 2014; Gruda et al., 2018). Events shared by a group

influence collective perspective, life experiences, and perceptions of those experiences

(Gruda et al., 2018; Mannheim, 1952). Leadership expectations result from experiences

that comprise characteristics of leader behavior. In the workplace, behavior

characteristics of leaders are either supportive or destructive, affecting employee

perceptions (Schyns et al., 2018). Mannheim (1952) defined generational theory as a

collective personality identifying birth years by behavioral traits influenced by

perceptions of life events. The key to a collective personality is perception, and

Mannheim's theory included the possibility of a collective personality based on a shared

social event.

In addition to the concept that generational differences influence leadership

behavior, the cognitive model explains how observations influence behavior. The

continuance of the behavior depends on the received response. The cognitive model of

behavior contains a mediational process that involves the individual observing,

remembering, determining the possibility of mimicry, and imitating the behavior

(Bandura, 1977). Expanding on Bandura’s model, workplace reciprocity is relevant to the

framework of this study. Reciprocity functionality in organizations includes an agreement

that benefits both employees and employers and is rooted in the concept of kindness

begets kindness (Hu et al., 2016; Tian et al., 2016). The third part of this framework was

congruity of millennial expectations and characteristics of servant leaders.

Barbuto and Gottfredson (2016) said the promotion of adopting servant leadership

involves recruiting and retaining millennials by demonstrating social consciousness,

providing recognition of good performance, and behaving as attentive and authentic

leaders. The concept of treating others with consideration of their individual needs is

socially driven and synonymous with religious teachings, but there is also a connection to

business leadership theories (Frey, 2017). The five aspects of servant leadership are

altruism, emotional healing, wisdom, encouragement, and stewardship (Barbuto &

Gottfredson, 2016, p. 62), which served as a model of leadership behavior that involves

Millennials’ expectations. The follower bestows authority because of the leader's

willingness to serve others first. Coetzer et al. (2017) defined Greenleaf’s theory of

servant leadership as putting others’ needs before one’s own, considering those that

follow and surrounding communities. The servant leader’s behaviors influence followers’

commitment to self, community, and organization, bringing about social change via the

ripple effect (Grisaffe et al., 2016; Langhof & Guldenberg, 2020; Van Dierendonck &

Patterson, 2015). The review of literature associated with the study begins with the

evolution of the retail industry. It was necessary to review this topic to understand its

significance in terms of societal changes and influence on leadership.

Literature Review

The literature review revealed how leadership behavior in the retail industry

effects the level of commitment to the industry's sustainability. There has been long-

standing acceptance of the high turnover rate in the retail industry compared to the

national turnover average. The increasing expectation for organizational social

consciousness requires leaders to evaluate recruitment and retention policies.

The review process began with the retail industry environment concerning

employee relations and leadership styles, past and current. The search for a leadership

styles that adapted to the retail industry changes over the years, led to the question of

generational differences in retail leadership. The information regarding past and current

leadership styles in the retail industry is slim, and historically, the description of the

industry's immense growth holds more significance to the economy than workforce

leadership. The retail history gave a glimpse of the service stores provides to society.

There were overlapping timelines where social events such as war, regulations,

public policy, constitutional amendments aligned with existing leadership theory and

generational characteristics. The behavioral characteristics of each generation influence

employee perception of a successful leader. Generational influence on perception led to a

query into millennials' behavioral characteristics and the assimilation of retail leadership

to societal and generational expectations.

The last section of the literature review contains an analysis of leadership theories

and their alignment with notable millennial characteristics. Included in the literature

review is the need for further study of millennial leadership and the possible social

influence of millennial leaders. There is evidence of a paradigm shift and a gap in the

literature regarding a leadership style for the retail industry that supports the

organizational goal of profit while promoting social consciousness.

Retail Industry

The search terms included: leadership, leader behavior, and employee to align

with the purpose of this study, which is to explore leadership in the retail industry. The

keyword retail and the phrase retail industry returned an unmanageable number of results,

with the subsections including marketing and the demise of long-standing giants in the

industry. Adding the term history to the search returned the history of specific

organizations that have maintained a retail presence for decades. Still, the articles lacked

any aspect of relevance to this research. 

The background information sought for this study included a brief account of how

the provision of goods and services influenced the evolution of retail leadership. A

history of the retail industry was prudent for the beginning of this literature review. The

research required the narrowing of the information on the retail industry into alignment

with the general problem in this study and the significance of the specific problem of

leadership evolvement from the industry's transposition from socially supportive with

sensitivity to community needs to socially destructive by absorbing small businesses. 

History

The history of retail intertwines the story of America's social and economic

development with businesses created to supply the needs of an ever-growing population.

Depending on the context, a retail organization's life cycle description can vary. In the

truest sense of the word, retailing means buying large quantities from a manufacturer,

dividing the goods, and supplying consumers with a product quantified by the need. 

Scholars plot the evolution of the retail industry, beginning with trading

companies, the westward migration, and the trading posts frequented by early settlers.

The niche of supplying goods and services culminated into the "general store" located in

the heart of every small town, operating with little overhead and providing a service to

the community (Castaldo, 2017; McArthur, et al., 2016; Ramaswarmy, 2018; Rielly,

2018). These early entrepreneurs took a repeated risk, gambling that the goods they

purchased in bulk would be in demand by consumers (McArthur). Until this point in

history, the owner ordinarily managed the retail establishment with little or no staff. 

The arrival of mass production and mass marketing changed the face of retail,

which flourished in response to the need for a bridge from manufacturer to consumer

(Dreesmann, 1968). The population growth created a consumer market for household

goods, i.e., furniture, clothing, and cookware purchases from retailers instead of

homespun goods (Dreesmann, 1968; Hortaçsu & Syverson, 2015). With the arrival of

automobiles and refrigerators, consumers were not limited to small purchases that they

easily carried home from a corner store (Blakemore, 2018; Leibowitz, 2013; Moyer,

1962). Social advances influenced the establishment of larger stores, supermarkets, and

department stores that offered an opportunity for consumers to spend time looking at new

merchandise and enjoying the shopping experience (Blakemore, 2018; Castaldo, 2017;

Moyer, 1962; Ramaswarmy, 2018; Willis, 2019). Managing a workforce for the retail

establishments was authoritarian and pay for performance. Leadership styles were based

on the manufacturing industry style. 

As the shopping malls with department stores, supermarkets, "big box" stores,

i.e., Wal-Mart, Target, Lowe's, and Home Depot, gained prestige and proved to be a

formidable opponent to the small businesses that anchored communities (Hortaçsu &

Syverson, 2015; Korten, 2015). The final blow in the reported demise of shopping malls,

with their department stores, chain stores, and consideration for social interaction, came

in e-commerce. With the end of many brick-and-mortar stores, the need for optimal

customer service reduced to a matter of fulfilling faceless orders. Removing the

referenced "middleman" of the supply chain, the retailer, enables the consumer to pass by

the need to enter a brick and mortar store to compare products and prices (Hortaçsu &

Syverson, 2015; McArthur et al., 2016). The economic and social contribution of the

retail industry is dependent on the wants and needs of the consumer, and retail, by

definition, will survive (Hortaçsu & Syverson, 2015). In what form of societal influence

and GDP contribution occurs is dependent on the consumer.

In the context of social influence, the retail industry provided an outlet for the

surge of manufactured goods to reach the consumer (Caius, 2018). The retailer's

objective was to grow the business and rarely shared information, privilege, or decision-

making with employees. If the profit margin decreased, employees were the first cost

reduction (Korten, 2015). The corner store could not carry the large quantities needed to

supply their customers, so most were lost to chain stores or supermarkets and department

stores. In turn, the supermarkets and department stores continue a battle with the "big

box" stores that have provided the consumer with "one-stop shopping" (Hortaçsu &

Syverson, 2015). The opportunity for an inclusive type of leadership that affords the

employee to take part in the decision-making process places a burden on the strict goal of

driving the business and delivering a profit.

Economic Contribution

With an understanding of industry evolvement and the social needs that retail

fulfills, there is a comprehension of the industry's economic impact on a community. The

economic impact of the retail industry is not limited to contributing annually to the

United States Gross Domestic Product because the industry also supports 52 million jobs

(NRF 2020). Of the 52 million jobs, 20 million are assorted indirect support to jobs for

advertisers, marketing firms, and those in the technological field (NRF, 2020). Drucker

(2001) wrote that the health of a business is dependent on a healthy society, and the

opposite holds as well.

A business that does not respond to the needs and demands of society will not

survive (Dreesmann, 1968; McArthur et al., 2016). The growth of economic

contributions of the retail industry aligns with the expansion and adjustment to the

development of society. Still, Adam Smith warned that there is a cost of livelihood to

small communities by taking more than a fair share of competition (Smith, cited in Wells

& Graafland, 2012). Retail is the lifeline of communities, and the demise of retail

business results in diminished employment rates and loss of economic stability for the

community (McArthur et al., 2016). Conversely, establishing retail businesses create jobs

and contribute to a community's economic growth and stability. Smith's warning aligns

with the reports of "big box" chains eliminating the competition of surrounding small

businesses without absorbing the displaced workforce of the closed businesses.

The 4.3% turnover rate in retail trade contrasts with the total national average of

3.6% and the voluntary turnover hovering at 30% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019).

The retail industry has always been ebb and flow due to staffing needs reflective of

holiday shopping. Moyer (1962) wrote that many gravitated to the retail industry because

of the air of respectability, and information about the history of retail contains inferences

to customers seeking the council of salespeople when considering a purchase. Hortaçsu

and Syverson (2015) delivered statistics of the disproportion between retail industry

growth and retail wages, supporting the leader mindset that employees are a controllable

cost of doing business. Throughout retail history, numerous companies have used staff

reduction to bolster the bottom line. The fallout of this mindset is a picture of instability

in terms of a viable career choice. Gunn et al. (2017) elaborated on the lack of

consideration for a career in retail and how the National Retail Federation recognized the

struggle of the business students’ perception.

Retail Leadership

Fast-paced, ever-changing, and somewhat authoritarian are terms that many use to

describe retail culture. The evolvement of the field of leadership in the last 100 years

included the challenge of balancing the needs of a growing industry. The parallels

between retail and societal needs represent the growth of a nation. As the population

grew, so did the businesses that provided for consumer needs in the form of first the

general store and ultimately the industry we know today. A hundred years ago, the

challenge for management was increasing profit by streamlining production. Following

the guidelines of Frederick Taylor, businesses flourished in society and benefited from

the Scientific Method and adopted Taylor's principles as guidelines for retail leadership

(McArthur et al., 2016).

The shift in retail leadership behavior included the expectation of multiple roles,

externally focused and production driven. Blumberga and Austruma (2015) researched

the climate of the modern-day retail environment and concluded that the psychological

environment is a managerial responsibility, listing the increase of confidence, interest in

employee well-being, and trust as necessary additions to the leadership style. Tunji

(2022) added that leadership requires building trust with employees to increase

dependability and collaboration. King and Badham (2018) described retail leadership as

wrought with uncertainty and complexity because of the multiple tasks expected of

leaders. The fast-paced environment of the retail industry, brought about by an ever-

changing merchandising requirement to meet consumers' needs, causes difficulty for

leadership to behave in anything but an authoritarian style.

Authoritarian leadership, usually on a lower level of the employment tier

(cashiers, customer service representatives, stockmen, etc.), meets the description of top-

down driven leadership. Middle management in a store setting includes department

managers and assistant store managers, many surpassing the basic need level of

mentoring but required to defer to the upper echelon for the store operation and

merchandising task clarification. Relating to Douglas McGregor’s concept of theory X

and Theory Y motivation, retail leaders have justified many years of an authoritarian

leadership style with the fast-paced environment and time limitations to complete the

necessary tasks (Arslan & Staub, 2013). Theory X is the belief that people are passive,

dislike work, avoid responsibility, need to be closely supervised, and told what to do.

Furthermore, people are self-centered, prone to resist change, and aren't very intelligent

(McGregor, 1960). During the explosive growth of the retail industry, employees were

nothing more than a tool to use in the operation of the business.

Consequently, when the business suffered a reduced profit level, the employee

was dismissed as a controllable cost (Moyer, 1962). A common manifestation of Theory

X is an authoritarian approach characterized by transactional rewards or punishments

with a disregard for the employee's welfare (McGregor, 1960). During the times of

expansion, retail industry leaders centered on increasing profit and decreasing

competition. 

With the success of the business dependent on profit, restrictions on decision-

making extended to daily operations, especially for a company with multiple locations

and corporate guidelines. The lack of employee innovation or inclusivity in decision-

making, under the guise of consumer convenience, the "cookie-cutter" store typical to

drug stores and supermarkets sells the same products at each location and in the same

aisle of every store. Moyer (1962) noted that the standardization of the industry fared

well with consumers' expectations of fair pricing and shopping simplicity, especially with

the emergence of self-serve businesses. 

The rationale for including exploration of current leadership theory is that the

concept of behavioral characteristics influences an employee's perception of a successful

leader and a specificity of a leadership theory that aligns with the millennials'

expectations. The retail industry has adapted to every social change necessary for

corporate sustainability, but the time is now to evaluate, reconstruct, and create new

leadership criteria (Anderson et al., 2017). The growing number of millennial leaders

need strong direction to encourage organizations to perform at optimal levels, not just for

personal job satisfaction or paycheck but also for contributions to society. The challenge

remains in the adaptability of present management to meet the needs of a changing

workforce (Anderson et al., 2017; McArthur et al., 2016). In addition to setting goals for

organization growth and stability, management has the task of planning succession. 

The current literature about the changing trends in retail notes that consumers

want the social interaction that a retail associate offers (McArthur et al., 2016). The

section devoted to millennials expounds on the changes to the face of retail as older

generations retire. The changes to retail leadership are not exclusive to the organization's

daily operations but include a flatter structure of management with higher level of

inclusivity and collaboration. The current literature centered on millennial academic

business curriculum, career choices, retail industry recruitment, training, and retention

recommends the inclusion of reciprocity functionality. Reciprocity in the organization

establishes an agreement that benefits both employee and employer, rooted in the social

concept of kindness begets kindness (Hu et al., 2016; Tian et al., 2016). Exploring the life

experiences, perceptions of those experiences, and expectations of millennials as they

move into leadership positions, reveals the characteristics of the millennials’ leadership

behavior.

Generations

It was essential to include a review of the literature about generations due to the

influence of social events on the collective perspective of leadership. The literature

review of generations that comprise a workforce began with an essay by Karl Mannheim

about “The Problem of Generations” (Mannheim, 1952). Mannheim’s concept that social

events influence individual and collective behavior began as a study in social

behaviorism. Philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists have used Mannheim’s

“Generation Theory” to classify groups by birth years. There remains a lack of consensus

on what constitutes a generation, but one remark from Mannheim about the timing of a

generation describes the term as when there are definitive modes of behavior resulting

from the influence of environmental events (Purhonen, 2016; Teng, 2020). 

The following section on generational theory gives detail to the sociological study

by Mannheim in which he stressed the problem of labeling generations by age and not a

cohort sharing social events (Mannheim, 1952). Katz (2017) argued that generation

formation is not dependent on a set number of years but shifts with sociological

influence. The inability to determine and claim the beginning and ending date of a

generation resulted in cohorts relating to characteristics or experiences of more than one

date-established generation.

The information on generations is incomplete without mentioning the authors that

are synonymous with the term. Strauss and Howe (1991) cyclically described the age

groups and argued that generational characteristics repeat every 80 years. Strauss and

Howe committed that a generational theory centered on behavioral characteristics

influenced by environmental conditions and reactions to stressors determined different

social behavior. The generation characteristics section includes Figure 1 listing

behavioral characteristics of the generations known as the baby boomers, gen X,

millennials, baby busters or late boomers, and xennials. 

The information collected in this review included the behavioral characteristics

recognized as workplace behavior of the current workforce addressed as baby boomer,

generation X, and millennial generations. A review of the literature about generational

characteristics revealed sub-generations that straddle categorization, which aligns with

Mannheim’s observation of social influences having prevalence over birth year in

collective behavior. The contributions noted in generational leadership center on how

expectations of leader behavior differ in each generation. Employees respond positively

to needs satisfaction, which is different with each generation location, but the perception

of a psychological contract is cross-generational. Anderson et al., (2017) wrote that

leadership style is influenced by the employees’ perception of career potential with an

organization. Expectations and perceptions change with environmental influence

regardless of age resulting in multi-generational cohorts with similar needs and

perceptions (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015; Mannheim, 1952).  The concept of

generational characteristics is the belief that knowledge was acquired and shared

differently depending on the individual’s generational location.

Generation Theory

The dissemination of information is simpler within a cohort because of

similarities in speech and commonalities of reference. Strauss and Howe (1991) wrote

that introducing generational theory requires a belief that history repeats and social

behavior reflects our environment. Mannheim’s (1952) main attraction to studying

generations was from a sociological point of view, and a theory of the sociological

structure of knowledge (Katz, 2017; Purhonen, 2016). Mannheim described the social

phenomenon of generation with the following characteristics: emerging and disappearing

participants, limited time to influence the historical process, and the necessity of

knowledge transference to subsequent generations.

The best definition for generational theory is an explanation of peer personality,

described as a collection of personality behavior traits that emerge throughout the lifetime

of a generation. The argument set forth by researchers of generational theory centered on

behavioral characteristics influenced by environmental conditions and reactions to

stressors demonstrated and social behavior. The concept that behavioral differences

belong to an age group is considered stereotypical and not a complete and thorough

analysis of the term generation (Cucina et al., 2018; Purhonen, 2016). Alongside the

belief that a new generation emerges approximately every 20 years, another definition of

generation relates to societal differences and environmental influence (Little & Winch,

2017; Mannheim, 1952). Many researchers have studied the significance of generational

differences in the workforce to leadership behavior. The leadership theory section of this

review includes further explanation of cross-generational characteristics, including

comments on Mannheim’s (1952) thoughts about the influence of environment on multi-

generational cohorts.

Generational Characteristics

The most notable researchers that collected generational characteristics are

Strauss and Howe (1991), and their categorizations are referenced in Figure 1,

which shows the name, the birth years, and the characteristics significant to workforce

behavior. Strauss and Howe (1991) named a sub-generation of baby boomers the Late

Boomer. Taylor (2018) labeled a blended or crossover generation between generation X

and millennials, “Xennials.”  Mannheim (1952) noted that the timing of one’s birth does

not restrict the beliefs and values formed by social events to an age-related collective

perception (Lyons et al., 2015). For example, a baby boomer might react to a reduction in

hours worked the same way as a millennial if neither could afford less money in their

paycheck. 

Conversely, age-related characteristics would have the boomer viewing the forced

time off as a loss of productivity hampering progress. In an age-related fashion, the

millennial would look at the time off as an opportunity to pursue a recreational activity.

But maturation or a social event like a depressed economy bridges the generation gap and

creates a new cohort with a generational locator of basic needs.

Table 1

Generational Characteristics

GENERATION BIRTH YEARS CHARACTERISTICS

Boom

(Baby Boomers)

1946-1960 Ambitious, loyal to career, majority of work

experience under hierarchal rule, with one

company and prefers independent work.

Requires little feedback on performance and

does not seek praise, nor praise others. Live

to work.

Late Boomers 1955-1964 Social events solidified the determination to

make a difference. The end of the Viet Nam

war, Watergate, the destruction of the Berlin

War supplied a purpose and collective

perception of leadership. There was a

mission to make a better world, and hard

work was the way to achievement.

(GenX)

1961-1981 Need managers to acknowledge they work

for the paycheck, and when the day is over,

they have a life. Work to live.

Xennials 1977-1983 A blending of the “work to live” attitude of

genX and choosing meaningful work,

adaptability to technology, and empathy of

millennials.

Millennials 1982-2003 Ambitious, socially dependent, distrustful of

authority, requires complete transparency

from leadership. First generation to think of

technology as a necessity, not a

convenience.

The topic of generational differences surfaces in articles that attempt to

understand why a single leadership style is not effective for all followers (Anderson et al.,

2017; Bako, 2018; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015; McCleskey, 2018). Researchers use

behavioral characteristics assigned to individuals born in a timeframe to explore various

aspects of social phenomena. The substance of a person’s existence, their behavioral

characteristics affect those around them, causing a ripple effect of social influence. The

ripple of affectation is not generationally specific and results in a blending of age groups

caused by a shared event (Katz, 2017; Mannheim, 1952). Events are processed and

individualized emotionally and differently in each generation. A member of an older

generation might consult a previously lived event as a frame of reference to a current

situation, but younger generations will attempt alternative rationalizations. Socrates

encouraged the youth of Athens to gain wisdom through questioning the previous

generation to help them determine their life course (Plato, n.d.). The behavior

characteristics of each generation reflect a collective perception of the social values

important at that time or generational location.

The generational reasons for voluntary turnover differ as much as the reason that

employees stay, prompting practitioners to seek a cross-generational expectation of

leadership (Ng & Parry, 2016; Sanner-Stiehr & Vandermause, 2017). Defining cross-

generational proves difficult with the natural maturation of the workforce and entrance of

another generation of workers, tentatively known as Generation Z (Howe & Strauss,

2000). Understanding the values and attitudes of the members of each generation is an

obvious place to begin the task of choosing a leadership style for a multi-generational

workforce.

Baby Boomers

Baby boomers were not always the workaholic, organizationally dedicated, and

strong voices of moral authority. Boomers protested the Vietnam War, marched for

women's rights and civil rights, and were called revolutionaries. They incited riots,

resulted in youth uprisings on college campuses, and transformed social norms (Howe &

Strauss, 2000). Research on the baby boomer generation revealed an increase in the labor

force that echoed the birth rate and increase in educational institutions (Cox et al., 2017;

Howe & Strauss). The early reports on the baby boomer generation examined the

probability of tremendous social and economic influence due to the unprecedented

addition to the population.

The offspring of the "greatest generation," the GIs and the Silent Generation, baby

boomers benefited from the wartime and peacetime sacrifices of the GIs and Silents that

contributed to society. The baby boomer generation included two distinct sub-generations

creating a gap distinguished by social events. Strauss and Howe (1991) commented that

the oldest of the boomers witnessed the first man walk on the moon, the assassinations of

JFK, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, that created a generational bond and

perception. They were old enough for the draft into the Vietnam War, which many

openly protested and sought avoidance. They were the first 18-year-olds allowed to vote

and use their votes to further their fight against societal injustice. The younger members

of the generation mentioned sometimes as late boomers, remember Watergate, President

Nixon's resignation, the fall of Saigon, the return of troops from Vietnam, yellow ribbons

tied around trees for the hostages in Iran, the rationing of gasoline due to the oil embargo,

and the destruction of the Berlin Wall (Strauss & Howe, 1991).

The baby boomer generation's perception was influenced by television as they

viewed current news within hours of the event, i.e., the moon landing, Nixon's publicly

broadcast resignation. Shared cultural events like the moon landing and the Vietnam War

news reports erased geographical lines and brought the world into the living room. Baby

boomers grew up with a sense of duty to correct the world's wrongs, and they trusted only

themselves to accomplish the challenges of changing society. Howe and Strauss (2000)

wrote that generations repeat approximately every 80 years, and the idealist persona of

the baby boomers reflects the missionary generation that worked post-Civil War to bring

about the reparation of America. Baby boomers came of age with a forceful, authoritarian

idea of how the country should be run and translated it into an idealistic style of

leadership experienced throughout society.

Personality characteristics of the baby boomer carried over into the business

persona because of the deep investment of time and commitment to the organization.

Baby boomer leaders tended to be authoritarian, demanding obedience, loyalty, and

commitment to the organization. With unemployment a result of the boom in the labor

force, boomers considered themselves fortunate to be employed. Just as in youthful

pursuits, they devoted all their resources, ideas, time, and energy to an organization that

provided feelings of accomplishment, a societal contribution, and only changed jobs if

the money and prestige were a positive career change (Arellano, 2015; Rudolph et al.,

2018). The term "workaholic" first appeared to describe the adult baby boomer's work

ethic due to their career dominating much of their self-image (Gentry, et al., 2011; Oates,

1971). Boomers displayed an idealistic sense of right and wrong when it came to social

justice and expressed that through pain and suffering comes progress (Strauss & Howe,

1991; Zabel et al., 2017). Baby boomers, early and late, viewed their home as an

extension of themselves and often stressed the same orderliness expected in the

workplace. Children were seen but not heard unless spoken to, and respect for elders was

a foregone conclusion.

The 13th generation

The 13ers, named by Strauss and Howe (1991) for the distance by generations

from the date of America’s independence, were later called Generation X (GenX), but

with a speculative explanation of origin. The term latchkey kids were GenX children left

on their own and arriving home from school to an empty house due to a working mother

(Katz, 2017; Swanzen, 2018). The sitcoms they watched on television after school were

their tutors and one-way mentors. GenX reached adulthood knowing more about worldly

problems, such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, violent crime, and the state of the

economy than previous generations. GenX grew up isolated and resentful because their

parents divorced, lost jobs, and feigned interest in being a parent (Martin & Ottemann,

2015; Swanzen, 2018).

GenX had intentions of parenting differently than what they received and viewed

work/life balance as a priority (Arellano, 2015; Ng & Parry, 2016; Swanzen, 2018).

GenX views work as a necessary evil, finding no intrinsic reward in a career and never

bringing the “job” home. There is no trust in corporations, so there is no loyalty that

prompts GenX to go above and beyond the assigned task unless an extrinsic reward exists

(Strauss & Howe, 1991). With no expectation of success voiced by their parents,

generation X works hard when needed, either for job retention or personal budgetary

requirements, but the job doesn’t matter.

The paycheck is the only reason to work. GenX went to work at a young age,

reminiscent of when children had to help feed the family. Conversely, GenX worked to

prove self-sufficiency and fulfill their “work hard-play hard” philosophy by planning

retirement with the first paycheck. GenX prefers to draw little attention to themselves and

is more interested in the pay rate for the job than the scope of the position.

Millennials

The millennials have been the most documented generation to date. Initially

introduced as the last generation in the millennial cycle. Strauss and Howe (1991) gauged

the birth years to begin in 1982 with no estimation of an end date. In subsequent

literature, the end date of the millennial birth years fluctuates with varying authors from

1978 to 2002 (Howe & Strauss, 2000). The focus of the literature review on the

millennials began with a search into the behavioral characteristics that labeled the

generation as selfish, spoiled, and lazy. Strauss and Howe generalized the millennials'

childhood with descriptions of child-centered households with two parents (likely late

boomers and GenX) who determined that their offspring would grow up without the

burden of proving themselves for parental nurturing in return. Fritsch et al. (2018) and

Twenge (2006) wrote about childhood when the mantra was individuality and self-love,

and the millennial child was praised for participating and trying their best instead of

acknowledging the loss of a competition. There was protection from anything that might

bring discouragement, like losing a game or receiving a bad grade, subsequently

witnessing parental defense of their behavior instead of corrective guidance. 

With parents focused on the child's needs, and encouragement of individuality,

millennials were always a winner, regardless of the situation (Fritsch et al., 2018; Gentry

et al., 2011). Brought up on the value of diversity, fair play, open communication,

personal wants, and needs are primary and social responsibilities, there is a deep belief

that continuous connection through technology, they are informed and knowledgeable

(Ghosh, 2016; Pyöriä et al., 2017). With the perception of leadership tarnished by

corporate dishonesty, a recession, the war on terrorism, school violence, and a faltering

economy, millennials entered the workforce with expectations of similarity to childhood,

when the reason behind a request was explained and respected, and everyone's opinion

was valuable and freely offered (Nolan, 2015; Twenge, 2006; Valenti, 2019). The

challenge to authority is not unique to the millennial generation, but they have the

distinction of influencing a needed shift in the leadership paradigm. While millennials

bring purposeful teamwork, social consciousness, and empathy to the workplace, the

social events of their youth cloud their perception of leadership (Anderson et al., 2017;

Kilber et al., 2014; Tulgan, 2015). Research literature concerning the millennial

generation ranges from current leadership observation of workplace behavior to the

supposition of failure to attract and retain, ultimately defining millennial characteristics

with a complex evaluation (Holtschlag et al., 2020; Kilber et al., 2014; Nolan, 2015;

Tulgan, 2015). Millennials' parental and social influence might be translated in negative

terms of behavioral characteristics like a job-hopper, entitled, disrespectful, arrogant, and

self-serving (Holtschlag et al., 2020; Nolan, 2015; Rodriguez & Rodriguez, (2015).

Fritsch et al. (2018) agreed that millennials want status and recognition, but the

motivation for millennial behavior resembles successful leadership qualities when their

motives are understood.

Examining possible causes of voluntary turnover revealed millennial

disappointment with the lack of opportunity for advancement, broken psychological

contracts about work/life balance, and disapproval of leader behavior. (Arellano, 2015;

Ertas, 2015; Gabriel et al., 2020; Grisaffe et al., 2016; Mekraz & Rao Gundala, 2016;

Petrucelli, 2017). Akers (2018), Anderson et al., (2017), Ertas (2015), and Rudolph et al.

(2018) agreed that leaders considered the generational differences of millennials as a

crucial component of recruitment, training, and retention. Millennials approach a job

interview to question whether the organization would fit personal expectations instead of

competing for a job (Barbuto & Gottfredson, 2016; Nolan, 2015). Millennials expect

initial and ongoing training with a mentor dedicated to career advancement (Anderson et

al., 2017; Holtschlag et al., 2020), aligning with the ambition to move up the corporate

ladder. Millennials excel at compartmentalizing, which means they have no sense of

commitment to an organization that is not serving their needs. Psychological contracts are

essential, and millennials depend on transparency and honesty from leadership to avoid

losing trust and voluntarily leaving an organization (Codrea-Rado, 2019) The information

in Table 2, Translation of misunderstanding, compares the perceptions of previous

generations to the millennials' expectations drawn from the literature published to date.

For example, what one person views as selfish, might be the millennial following

parental direction of taking care of oneself first, which is no different from the previous

generation's "looking out for number one" advice. The characteristics listed are not

intended to be a complete account but simply a demonstration of how perception can lead

to assumptions and hinder successful leadership. 

Table 2

Translation of Misunderstanding

PERCEPTION EXPECTATION

Selfish, narcissistic,

lack of focus.

Transparency from leadership with a clear definition of

duties and compensation

No loyalty

Organizations need training and mentoring available so

there is a clear path of advancement. “Nothing to work

for, nothing to care about”. Want to know how they

contribute to the organization and how the organization

supports society.

Ambitious, feelings of

entitlement

Organizations assign mentors to insure Millennial

advancement in a timely manner. No one stays on the

“bottom rung”.

Lack of respect

Leaders are deemed worthy of respect with the display of

qualities Millennials expect, i.e. transparent, empathetic,

open communication, authentic, and ethical.

A review of recent literature offered examples of millennial expectations from

leadership. Anderson et al. (2017), Bodenhausen and Curtis (2016), Nolan (2015), and

Stewart et al. (2017) stressed the importance of involving employees in daily operations

to increase job satisfaction. The millennial employee believes in withholding loyalty until

a leader is deemed worthy but readily follows a peer they perceive as interested about

their welfare, emphasizing the need for empathetic and authentic leadership (Anderson et

al., 2017; Tulgan, 2015). Research showed that millennials consider themselves valuable

partners in decision-making, able to recognize opportunities for improvements, and

worthy of the necessary training to advance.

My research of the leader behavior characteristics of millennials revealed

similarities to servant leadership. The millennials were brought up on the value of

diversity, fair play, open communication, and individual needs as primary social

responsibilities. Millennials believe that they are informed and knowledgeable with a

continuous connection through technology, open to inspiration, eager to experience life,

and seek information (Ghosh, 2016; Rodriguez & Rodriguez, 2015; Sarwono & Bernarto,

2020; Valenti, 2019). Millennials' upbringing provides robust and inclusive behavior,

leaning towards a collective personality of socially conscious behavior (Howe & Strauss,

2000; Valenti, 2019). The millennial strives to help another with a problem, often

researching and offering possible solutions, and a lifelong team player with leaders

chosen based on knowledge or skill (Twenge, 2006). The millennial accepts the challenge

of earning and giving trust with the understanding that authenticity is paramount to

gaining that trust. The business world offers a fertile ground to practice the problem-

solving, team-building, encouraging, and socially conscious behavior of millennials.

Leadership Theories

The evolvement of leadership theories aligns with industry and societal events,

often in response to employee demotivation or cessation of loyalty. An organization that

considers and promotes the personal growth of employees’ knowledge expands the

opportunities for job satisfaction and organizational commitment and growth (Mayfield

& Mayfield, 2015; Schein, 2010; Senge, 2006). The differences in leadership style by

generation were noted by Anderson et al. (2017), and Rudolph, et al. (2018) prompting

a re-evaluation of the importance of generational recognition when determining

leadership style. The continuation of research on generation theory lends support to areas

of leadership styles (Anderson et al., 2017; Arellano, 2015; Bolser & Gosciej, 2015;

Bottomley & Willie Burgess, 2018; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Sanner-Stiehr, &

Vandermause, 2017). However, Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) and Lyons et al. (2015)

questioned the significance of generational differences when adopting a leadership style.

The commonalities of the generations’ expectations from leaders are the focus of recent

research, and the results support the concept of leading with the followers’ needs as

guidance (Alvesson & Blom, 2015; Grisaffe et al., 2016; Van Dierendonck & Patterson,

2015). Generational needs and generational behavior characteristics are not

interchangeable.

A leadership style should accommodate a generational location related to social

influence rather than biological age. How an individual reacts to social or environmental

events remains a generational characteristic, but maturation or fulfillment of personal

needs influences behavior (Drucker, 2001; Maslow, 1998). Included in the figure below

is a presentation of the timeline correlation of leadership style or theory and social events

by generation. For this review, the timeline is limited to the generations in this study, e.g.,

baby boomers, generation X, and millennials. The discussion of leadership style

differences continues in the following section, where leadership theories are examined

through the lens of generational differences, emphasizing the significance of the retail

industry leadership and social events. 

The field of leadership is deeply seated in psychological theories of behavior

characteristics with past or on-going phenomena. The purpose of the documentation of

singular leadership theory leading to leadership options lies in the field of social science

and the privilege of opinion (Friedman, 2016). There is much overlap in the attributes of

leadership, and no one theory has thus far had the distinction of the best approach to

success. Leadership theories are divided into established and emerging categories, then

further grouped by the type, i.e., charismatic, informational, exchange, dispositional,

strategic, complexity, and ethical (Dinh et al., 2014). The following information on

leadership theories are listed in chronological order with the subsections of behavioral

characteristics. There was limited information on the style of leadership used in the retail

industry, therefore only a small contribution was offered in this area. The results of this

study contribute to the field of leadership, particularly the underexplored retail industry,

with information gathered directly from retail leaders.

Contingency Theory

The contingency theorist F. E. Fiedler argued that there is no single way to lead

people, because it depends on the leadership style, the situation, or the strength of the

employee (Northouse, 2021; Stahl, 1995). The best fit principle of assigning tasks to

employees meant an increased possibility of task completion (Berisha & Lajçi, 2020;

Rudolph et al., 2018). Leader characteristics influence effectiveness requiring the leader

to alter leadership style to benefit the circumstances. This results in a varying level of

interaction since the leadership style might be authoritarian, authoritative, or even laisse-

fare at any given time (McCleskey, 2018). The multigenerational workforce today, with

its different expectations, still agrees on the expectation of consistency in leadership. A

leader chooses the best style for the situation, leaving the concerns of others aside to

concentrate on the goal. The Contingency Theory approach in a retail organization with a

fast-paced environment, consideration of the needs of the employees rarely rises to a

concern. Associated theories include Hershey – Blanchard situational leadership theory,

path-goal theory, Vroom – Yetton – Jago decision-making model of leadership, cognitive

resource theory, and strategic contingencies theory.

Transactional Theory

The leadership theory often referred to as the “carrot and stick” method of

leadership, leaves little room for inclusive employee behavior. Often judged by their

contribution to the bottom line, the employee led by a transactional leader might view

their leader as unapproachable, goal-oriented, unsupportive, and uninvolved (Albanese,

2018). . The retail industry adopted the transactional leadership style because of the fast-

paced environment and the challenge of consistently managed multiple locations (Mekraz

& Rao Gundala, 2016). Transactional leadership is effective in work environments that

do not have the luxury of adequate response time for problem-solving, i.e., military

operations, police, or fire departments. The organizations are typically top-down driven,

with little room for inclusive decision-making from employees.

The employee motivated by extrinsic means might respond positively to the

exchange of pay for performance without requiring the opportunity for job input. The

authoritarian atmosphere produces successful quantifiable results but at the cost of

employee job satisfaction (Blumberga & Austruma, 2015). The social exchange theories

of leadership, including leader-member exchange, base the reward contingent on

performance and the motivating factors of the employee.

Authentic Leadership

Be true to yourself. Authentic leaders admit their flaws and acknowledge needs

and wants, believing that trustworthiness increases by understanding one's psychological

capabilities. Amunkete and Rothmann (2015) reported that the "authenticity of a leader is

a psychological aspect of behavior, not a leader's style." Lemoine et al.(2019) reported

that authentic leadership contains self-awareness, internal moral perspective, balanced

processing, and relational transparency. The definitive aspect is the follower's perception

of the leader's trustworthiness, built on the leader's interaction with employees, which is

never changing.

Each aspect of authentic leadership leads to performance improvement, job

satisfaction and qualifies as a positive leadership behaviors. Jiang and Men (2017) and

Xiong et al. (2016) expounded on authentic leadership as perceived as transparent and

building trust with employees. Characteristics of an authentic leader align with the

millennials’ expectations of trustworthiness in leaders that builds the self-efficacy and

overall psychological capital of employees.

A strong sense of balance in the workplace increases productivity and job

satisfaction. Gabriel et al. (2020), Metcalf (2014), and Shapira-Lishchinsky and Levy-

Gazenfrantz (2016) agreed that balanced processing is necessary for mentoring, requiring

the combination of authentic and participative leadership. An authentic leader answers

first to themselves, understanding and acknowledging strengths and weaknesses, then

second the leader uses the style of leadership that produces needed results.

Ethical Leadership

Ethical leadership, like authentic leadership, contributes to other leadership styles.

With Servant Leadership as a central component of this study, information on leadership

ethics has a place in the literature review. Ethical behavior is a cornerstone of servant

leadership and aligns with the millennials’ expectation of a successful leader (Bhana &

Bayat, 2020). The exhibition of a positive ethical core is an attractive aspect when

millennials choose an organization as a career option. Bhana and Bayat (2020) and

Gaudencio et al. (2014) reported that individuals choose organizations with core values

that best represent the individual’s ethical perception with the core values strong in

ethical and social responsibility.

Servant Leadership

Choosing the gap between theory and practical application of servant leadership

requires this research to examine the perceptions of millennials as leaders with a

benevolent attitude toward social change. The literature on servant leadership contains

negative views of a theory's viability that might place decision-making in the hands of

employees, and Coetzer et al. (2017) argued that the lack of development renders the

theory ineffective. The premise of leading in service of others necessitates a change in

leadership style, and implementation of servant leadership depends on positive reception.

The original idea of servant leadership, credited to Robert Greenleaf, still inspires

researchers in the field of leadership decades after the publication of Servant

Leadership in 1977 (Northouse, 2021). Servant leadership is a broad concept with a

simple message of putting others before yourself and leading with benevolence (Grisaffe

et al., 2016; Northouse, 2021; Schwepker & Schultz, 2015). Greenleaf (1977) credits his

inspiration from his professor's challenge to react with concern for the emerging

domination of institutions and negligence of societal issues. The philosophical approach

of leadership found in servant leadership studies has revealed a common thread of

direction.

 A definitive definition remains a debate due to the varying perceptions of

qualifying behavior for a servant leader. The philosophy of putting others before yourself,

a golden rule, serves as the basis for the actions of a servant leader. Bawany (2017),

Greenleaf (1977), Liden et al. (2014) and Paas et al. (2020) hypothesized that the servant

leadership philosophy is the basis for social learning and social identity theory research.

The assumption of Liden et al. was that servant Leadership begat Servant Leadership as

followers mimicked leader behavior.

The examination of servant leadership over the last 40 years has added insight to

the leadership field centering on the softer side of leadership: empowerment, authenticity,

ethical, benevolence, and empathy (Barbuto & Gottfredson, 2016; Coetzer et al., 2017;

Flynn et al., 2016). Servant leadership's viability is an ongoing debate, including whether

the theory is religious or secular, antecedent or learned behavior, multi-industry

adaptable, or restrictive (Frey, 2017). Inquiry into transferability across generations,

cultures, and industries supports the supposition of leadership style classification by

environment (Barkema et al., 2015; Črešnar & Jevšenak (2019); Landis et al., 2014;

Lyons & Kuron, 2014). The focus and interest in the practical application of Servant

Leadership is the argument for a theoretical bridge from recognition of the basic human

need for compassion to leadership's resolute response to employee expectations.

Robert Greenleaf (1977) constructed the premise of a Servant Leadership theory

on a belief inspired by Hermann Hesse's Journey to the East. The follower bestows

authority because of the leader's willingness to serve others first. A servant leader guides

by intuition, the ability to foresee potential and be empathetic to the concerns of others.

Recent literature expounds on Greenleaf's theory of servant leadership as putting others'

needs before your own, considering those that follow, and the community surrounding

you; including the question of antecedent attributes that contribute to servant leader

behavior (Coetzer et al., 2017; Frey, 2017; Keith, 2016). Lemoine et al.(2019) and

Northouse (2021) added that servant leadership contributes to the growth of others in all

areas of concern like physical, mental, and emotional health, personal goals, social

awareness, and the likelihood of serving others.

My research into the area of the retail industry's leadership builds upon the

foundations of Robert K. Greenleaf's work by highlighting the commonalities of servant

leadership characteristics and millennials' expectations of leader behavior. Specifically,

the research on the millennial generation revealed desired antecedent characteristics of a

servant leader (Beck, 2014; Langhof & Guldenberg, 2020). The following table illustrates

the commonalities of servant leader characteristics and millennial expectations.

Table 3

Servant Leadership Characteristics and Millennial Expectations

Servant Leadership Characteristic Millennial Expectation

Altruism Purposeful teamwork, social consciousness, and

empathy

Emotional Healing Value leaders they perceive as solicitous about

their welfare emphasizing the need for

empathetic and authentic leadership

Wisdom Partner in decision-making, technologically

advanced

Encouragement Initial and on-going training with a mentor

dedicated to career advancement

Stewardship Social activists, conscious of environment, and

is loyal to organizations that support similar

causes.

Recognition of others' strengths and promoting leadership in others compounds

the overall well-being of those served while benefitting the organization's goals. Servant

leaders are worthy of followers' trust because there is authenticity, transparency, and

ethical behavior in the relationship. Included in the literature is the argument for the

exhibition of Servant leadership behavior influencing followers' commitment to self,

community, and organization; bringing about social change via the ripple effect (Grisaffe

et al., 2016; Karakas et al., 2013; Korten, 2015; Marks, 2015; Mertel & Brill, 2015;

Northouse, 2021; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015). Each generation of workers

requires and expects certain leadership behavior; therefore, the viability of a Servant

Leadership theory is subject to the perception of the employee and the transparency of the

leader (Anderson et al., 2017; Arellano, 2015; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Mertel & Brill,

2015; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015). A Servant Leader abides by ethical behavior

requiring self-reflection of behavior. Organizations reap the benefit of the practical

application of Servant Leadership, resulting in fully engaged employees.

Summary and Conclusions

The retail industry is a complex machine with beginnings rooted in serving a

community by providing needed or wanted merchandise. The reported history has

leadership concentrating on expanding businesses to support the manufacturing

industry’s need for a sales outlet. The accounts of early retail concentrate on the

improvement in serving the consumer and little about the worker. As society’s needs

changed and customer demand included knowledgeable salesclerks, the employee

became more than a business tool.

There is scant literature devoted exclusively to the retail industry with some

notations as to a standard leadership style that is difficult to maintain because of the fast

pace. A literature review on leadership theories mentioned retail leadership and how no

single theory would suffice industry-wide. The literature review results revealed that life

experiences, perceptions of those experiences, and expectations of leadership comprise

the characteristics of workplace behavior. The gap between business goals and employee

needs was at the heart of this literature review, but only pieces of existing theories

matched the current leadership (Anderson et al., 2017). A lack of peer-reviewed material

and recent research supported the purpose of this study, which is to explore current retail

leadership. The rationale for choosing the case study design for this research centered on

the need to gather first-hand information about millennial leadership in the retail industry

and is explained further in Chapter 3.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore experiences of

millennials employed as managers in the retail industry, their perceptions, and

expectations of leadership. I explored expectations of millennials who chose retail as a

career, provided insights regarding viable leadership styles for the retail industry and

addressed the gap involving purported retail leadership and misalignment with

millennials’ self-descriptions. I used the qualitative research tradition for this study. I

included the rationale for using the qualitative design and an explanation of why a case

study design with interviews was the best choice for this research.

Maxwell (2013) said researchers are obligated to analyze reasons for undertaking

studies by exploring benefits and drawbacks. The methodology section includes data

collection and analysis processes and possible trustworthiness issues in order to ensure

researcher bias is acknowledged and controlled throughout the study. I address the

problem statement, research question, and purpose of the study as well as transferability.

Research Design and Rationale

I chose the case study with an embedded group design for this research in order to

gather firsthand information about millennial leaders employed in the retail industry. The

purpose of this study was to contribute to the field of leadership in retail, where the

voluntary turnover rate threatens the sustainability and profitability of the industry. A

qualitative study design was appropriate for research involving leadership because the

topic was styles of leadership in the retail industry. Qualitative studies involve depth of

significance in terms of context with results that challenge paradigms and offer an

understanding of a problem. Millennials are the emerging leaders in the retail industry.

Yin (2018) said the case study method involves examining a problem, often without the

ability to separate the problem from a more significant phenomenon. The specific

problem under exploration in this study was failure of retail leaders to connect

consideration of employees’ needs to voluntary turnover.

RQ. How do millennials employed as managers in the retail industry describe

their perceptions and expectations of successful leadership?

The central concept of this study included the supposition that ach generation of

workers requires, expects, and displays certain leadership behaviors, therefore leaving

practitioners to question the applicability of current theories in the workforce (Anderson

et al., 2017; Arellano, 2015; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Mertel & Brill, 2015). Mannheim

(1952) said events experienced by a group influence a collective perspective, suggesting

a cross-generational phenomenon. Inclusivity is a behavioral characteristic brought to the

workforce by the millennial generation.

I chose qualitative analysis for this study of leadership because of the diverse

nature of influence and dependency on contextual considerations. Several realities rise

from individual interpretations of social constructs (Klenke, 2016; Rolfe, 2006). A

subjectivist epistemology leads researchers to believe there is no separation of self and

perception (Rolfe, 2006), suggesting perception is a personal reality. I conducted a case

study by interviewing participants who were millennials, were employed as retail

industry leaders with at least 3 years tenure and graduated or enrolled in a postsecondary

academic level business curriculum. Yin (2018) suggested using the case study design in

situations involving an embedded phenomenon.

Other designs considered were ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded

theory. Ethnography is the primary method of studying cultures and involves researcher

immersion and exploring the standards of behavior that constitute group identities

(Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Since the focus of this study was not the study of a way of life, I

did not use the ethnographic design.

Phenomenology studies involve individuals’ lived experiences with a

phenomenon (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). I did not choose phenomenology because there was

no specific event or situation under exploration. Grounded theory involves the

development of new theory as links between concepts emerges with research or data

collection (Urban & van Eeden-Moorefield, 2018). Developing a new theory was not the

focus of this study; therefore, I did not use the grounded theory design.

Role of the Researcher

A qualitative study requires researchers to immerse themselves in the process.

First, during participant interviews, the researcher is responsible for restricting questions

to the topic of the study and then controlling for bias when asking initial and follow-up

questions (Yin, 2018). My area of interest was motivation of leaders in the retail industry

specifically related to servant leadership. My experiences in the industry over two

decades supported my role as the researcher in this study. I addressed how millennials

viewed their leadership styles, and how they described successful retail leadership. My

main goal was to provide insights regarding a more productive retail industry culture. I

considered my role in this study as an observer. Although I had a professional career in

the retail industry, I am no longer associated with any retail organization. There were no

instances of personal or professional relationships with any participant.

My role as the researcher was collaborative and often involved controlling

personal bias. Reflexivity was used as a process of self-analysis to manage bias and

reveal possible influences on data. Reflexivity refers to how the researcher sees their part

in the study and how self-reflection, experiences, knowledge, and bias shape the

researcher’s views in terms of data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2008; Thorpe &

Holt, 2008). Maxwell (2013) recommended a technique for tracking potential bias by

listing original goals of the study combined with accounting for assumptions, perception,

observations, and self-reflections to understand personal motivation. Reflexivity was a

valuable exercise in maintaining focus through self-analysis and journaled my

perceptions which proved helpful in defining possible bias.

A peer review of interview questions and interview transcripts for any leading

questions controlled any bias that would jeopardize reliability of findings (Brinkmann &

Kvale, 2015). A rigorous analysis was necessary to ensure cohesiveness and worthiness

of the study in terms of ethics. Bias towards or against any group for inclusion or

exclusion is unethical (Yin, 2018). The most critical role of the researcher was to prepare,

execute, and analyze in an ethical manner. Avoiding bias is not limited to introspection

but resides at the root of ethical behavior in research.

Conducting a study involving human participants required me to proceed with

consideration of complete well-being. Compliance with ethical guidelines included

obtaining informed consent from the participants, disclosing the nature of the study and

pre-published results of their contribution. I had the ethical obligation to protect the

participant from physical, emotional, psychological, or financial injury and preserve their

anonymity. Babbie (2016) noted that, for example, youth and prisoners as participants

groups are vulnerable to exploitation and need special consideration. The researcher must

be cognizant of certain groups needing extraordinary protection due to age, cognitive

level, or threat.

I managed the ethical guidelines to research by including a brief description of the

study, a request for consent, member checking intention, and pledge to maintain

anonymity in the participant letter. The primary and follow-up questions presented to the

participants were peer-reviewed for any potentially harmful content that may cause

unethical treatment of participants and the information provided. The potential participant

group did not classify as vulnerable to exploitation. Finally, to protect against bias,

demographics that are not necessary for the conduct of this study were not included in

data collection, i.e., race, gender, pay scale, place of employment. Participation in this

study was voluntary with no incentive offered for their opinions.

Methodology

Qualitative researchers believe that there is no single way to approach social

research. Babbie (2016) wrote that a case study is an avenue of discovery about one part

of a larger picture. I chose the single case study design with an embedded group

methodology for this research of the millennials' collective experiences, self-descriptions,

and perceptions of leadership. I used the bricolage approach to follow the literature into

areas of study that offer insight into the topic of study. The bricolage approach interplays

constructivism and philosophical underpinnings to include individual and collective

perceptions for a more profound sense of the participants' reality (Denzin & Lincoln,

2018; Maxwell, 2013). Yin (2018) stated that the case study design with an embedded

group with unclear boundaries stressed the importance of data triangulation to stabilize

the boundaries of the case study. I used data triangulation of semi-structured interviews,

field notes, salient literature, including historical and government archives to establish

validity. The case study design allowed me to explore the reality derived from the

perception of a representative group of a larger population and understand the

phenomenon from a collective viewpoint.

The target group of the millennial generation was reportedly leading differently

from previous generations of Baby Boomers and Generation X. To better understand if or

how the retail industry leadership is shifting, the case study targeted the recent addition to

leadership for their perception of past and emerging styles of retail leadership. The

procedure for identifying the participants was an invitation to interview sent to the retail

groups on LinkedIn Professional Network. The groups on LinkedIn were not specific to

an age group but had commonality of working in the U.S. retail industry. The

methodological guidance of Yin (2018) supported the use of the case study design for

studying distinctive portions of an established intangible dyad, like the leader-follower

relationship, based on perception and perspective. The criteria included the exclusion of

participants with personal bias that responded to the invitation to interview i.e., there was

a loss of anonymity due to mutual recognition, or their location was outside the United

States. The timeliness of this study allowed me to include a millennial's response from

two perspectives, leader, and follower, to examine any shift in the leadership paradigm.

To protect the ability to transfer the information gathered from this study, I did

not include region inclusivity or any restriction to the nature of the retail establishment in

the data collection. There was concern with the case study approach in that the case was

unique, reducing the possibility of replication, and construed as explanatory. A case study

that explains rather than explores a phenomenon might be labeled as instructive and used

to revise or dispute an existing theory. Still, the inductive nature of qualitative research

aims to add to the pool of knowledge by exploring different opinions so future studies

can build upon the results.

This case study fell into the realm of open possibilities for future studies and

replication by the retail industry restrictions of inclusivity and retention of a target

population. The aspects of participant selection and the instrumentation for data

collection were important to transferability and the study's validity. Transferability

requires that the participants be part of the environment under research, and researchers

remain within the scope of the research (Givens, 2008). The choice of instrumentation,

unit of analysis, and target group aligned with the researched problem and provided the

appropriate data. The following section outlines my process of purposive sampling, and

the explanation of the instrumentation I developed to explore the target population's

perception and expectations.

Participant Selection Logic

Population

The target population of this case study was the millennial generation of retail

industry employees that have advanced to a leadership positions in a United States retail

organization. Many do not readily consider the retail industry a career choice but a job

that provides an income while studying for an unrelated career (Broadbridge et al., 2009;

Lyons, et al., 2015). The scheduling flexibility fits with most academic schedules, and

management does not expect any long-term commitment from the employee.

Millennials with post-secondary education who have stepped up to a leadership

position in retail have a unique environment perspective. They worked in the industry

part-time, are still attending school without making retail a career, or returned to retail

employment upon graduation. These co-mingling of academic and organizational

responsibilities account for a portion of the turnover percentage.

Participant Selection Criteria

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019), there are over 3 million

managers of retail workers. Narrowing criteria was necessary to arrive at a manageable

number of participants. Reducing the statistic by age identified the target population as

the millennial generation with birth years from 1980 to 2000, numbering more than 1

million (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). I established that the participants met the

inclusivity requirements through demographic data collection. Asking the participant’s

birth year established millennial generation status. The consensus of researchers in the

last two decades of the 20th century is the average time frame for the birth years of the

millennial generation. Strauss and Howe’s (1991) referenced the generation beginning in

1982, but others have a 1978 beginning date and a late 90’s end date.

The next criterion was serving in a retail organization with at least 3 years of

leading other employees. The 3 years of serving as a leader in their place of employment

and type of retail, listed as such by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019), established

the connection to retail leadership. The 3-year time frame was determined by reviewing

the 2018 statistics from the Deloitte Millennial Survey (2019). The results of the Deloitte

survey were an average of 56% of Millennials left businesses because of job

dissatisfaction within two years, and 73% quit after five years, so I used a three-year

timeframe as a qualifier.

Further inclusive requirements for participation in this study were enrollment or

completing a business curriculum in a postsecondary institution. I included the inclusive

criterion of academic studies in business or management to 1) narrow the participant

selection and 2) verify the contextual knowledge of the participant. A student or graduate

of a business or management curriculum should have the knowledge and insight into

leadership styles.

For this study, I used purposive sampling to ensure the participants met the

inclusive requirements of the study. I selected the criterion for participant selection of a

one–on–one interview based on inclusivity requirements and an expression of interest by

the participant to be interviewed (Maxwell, 2013; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Answering

these demographics truthfully was one of the assumptions in this study, and any

participant that left the information blank was excluded and counted as non-qualifying.

Participant Sampling Strategy and Rationale

I used purposive sampling to recruit participants that had direct knowledge of the

context and emailed invitations to complete a survey questionnaire about perceptions of

leadership qualities to members of retail groups and individuals identifying as “retail” on

LinkedIn Professional Network to increase the possibility of receiving an acceptable

sample size. I posted the invitation with 160 views and sent a personal invitation to 120

members. Ravitch and Carl, (2016) listed 40 types of purposive sampling strategies and

the maximum variation strategy aligned with this sampling logic. The maximum variation

strategist purposely chooses a large population to gather diverse information and identify

commonalities (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). I decided on a purposive sampling strategy but

opened the data collection to the United States instead of a region for the participant pool

to capture aspects of diversity.

Sample Size and Saturation

If this were a quantitative study, I would have wanted a sample size closer to 100

respondents rather than the 8-20 for a case study. Yin (2018) wrote that the defining

characteristic of a survey interview in a case study is the usefulness of the gathered

information as an insightful consensus on the topic of study, but no mention of an

appropriate sample size. Guest et al., (2006) revealed that saturation was met with six

interviews in an experiment to discover the point of saturation. By removing the

exclusion of regional restrictions, the information gained a higher level of transferability

and provided a diverse view of the participants’ environment. The omission of a region

exclusion within the U.S. also influenced saturation. Six interviews did not produce

overlapping information requiring an increase in the number of interviews conducted to 8

before I collected no new information.

Instrumentation

For this case study, semi-structured interviews, field notes, salient literature,

including historical and government archives, were the instruments for data collection.

The task of data collection in this case study required my constant attention to the topic of

the study. Yin (2018) stressed the importance of continuity and alignment with all veins

of data collection. Data collection for this qualitative inquiry began with a review of the

literature surrounding the topic of research, forming an order of progression.

I used the concepts revealed in the literature review to develop the framework and

to base the questions used in data collection. Babbie (2016) refers to this process as

explaining the research in a “conceptual order.” The conceptual order included the

necessary connection of the concept to a real-world activity and the process succinctly.

Using the semi-structured interview as a data collection tool, the researcher understands

the millennials’ perception than with observation, literature syncretization, or archival

resources for the desired depth of information (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The millennial

perception of successful leadership was the basis of this research, linked to concepts of

successful leadership and the specific problem of reported ineffectiveness in retail

leadership.

Review of Literature and Archival Sources

Of the many instruments for data collection, the literature review had the

distinction of evolvement. The review process begins with the study and does not

approach completion until the final chapter (Ridley, 2012). In the beginning, my

literature review supported the problem as legitimate as I discovered a gap, then supplied

the concepts that framed the study, and lastly, the statistical information added to the

study's validity.

A standalone document within the dissertation, the literature review is a

compilation of the research journey because it provides the facts of the study. The

inclusion of archived information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics appeared early

in this study as it provided statistics on the turnover rate in the retail industry. The

National Retail Federation (2020) has guided the industry since 1911 and supplied

statistics on the retail industry's societal contribution through employment and the GDP.

Deloitte U.S. has provided statistics for 150 years and was a collaborating source on the

millennial generation employment statistics and survey information.

I collected other salient literature by seminal authors like M.S. Moyer for the

history of retail; Robert Greenleaf for Servant Leadership; Albert Bandura for Social

Learning Theory; Karl Mannheim for Generational Theory; and Neil Howe & William

Strauss for information about the generations. The information gleaned from the literature

review on the problem of high turnover in the retail industry led to the formation of a

researchable and specific problem that set the base for a conceptual framework. The

literature review and conceptual framework information supported the devised questions

for the interview portion of data collection.

Semi-Structured Interviews

The collection of data from interviews provided insight that aligned with the

study's purpose and continued the study's contextual order. The semi-structured interview

is the most important and appropriate approach to provide opportunities for participant

elaboration (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). I developed six open-ended interview questions that

had the required alignment to the conceptual framework, research question, and the

purpose of this study (see appendix B).

The success of social research depends upon the collection of first-hand

information. The qualitative interview involves the researcher's ability to see the world

through someone's words (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). Maintaining the structural design

of the interview was paramount to ensure the data collected was relevant to the study.

There was no room for ambiguity; therefore, I carefully worded the questions with

familiar terminology to avoid contextual confusion. Yin (2018) wrote that one of the

reasons for the semi-structured interview in a case study is to verify pre-established

information. The researcher must withhold knowledge, adhere to the general question,

and avoid leading follow-up questions.

Following the protocol for a semi-structured interview increased the possibility

that the interviewee's responses provided personal insight and perception of the

phenomenon. The development of an interview protocol (Appendix D) followed a

process to ensure the alignment to the research question, conceptual framework, and

purpose of the study. Castillo-Montoya (2016) developed a four-part process to improve

the interview protocol by verifying alignment with the research question, designing the

questions to prompt narrative responses, soliciting feedback on the protocol.

The interviewees were asked the same questions in the same manner, to avoid

researcher-influence on the responses. For this case study, I developed the interview

protocol from the research question: How do millennials employed as managers in the

retail industry describe their perceptions and expectations of successful leadership? I

used the questions, listed below, and detailed in Appendix B, to prompt narrative

responses during the interview.

Q1: In the context of the retail industry, how do you describe a successful

leader?

Q2: When you think of a leader in your workplace, describe how the leader

assigns tasks. Follow-up questions: How are processes to the task determined? What

procedure is taken if a problem arises?

Q3: What or who has influenced your perception of successful leadership?

Follow-up question: What action do you take to influence others in the behaviors of a

successful leader?

Q4: Describe the learning opportunities that you receive or expect to receive from

leadership to advance your career. Follow-up question: Where do you see yourself in 5

years?

Q5: Research indicates job dissatisfaction is high on the list of reasons for leaving

a job amongst the millennial generation compared to previous generations. Answering in

terms of how you are led, describe how leader behavior does or does not influence job

satisfaction?

Q6: Research indicates non-seasonal voluntary turnover is highest amongst the

millennial generation compared to previous generations. In terms of how you are led,

describe how leader behavior does or does not influence voluntary turnover.

I established content validity through transferability, dependability, and

confirmability. The literature review I conducted on the topic is transferable to other

studies on leadership, regardless of the industry, also revealed questions to examine in

future research.

Transferability is present when enough information has been reported to

understand the study, the participant selection, and the concepts supporting the study

(Urban & van Eeden-Moorefield, 2018). Transferability requires that the participants are

part of the environment under research and researchers remain within the scope of the

research (Givens, 2008). Complete reflective notes from the interviews established a

method of data collection considered for triangulation in a case study.

I maintained dependability by maintaining alignment to the research question and

design. Data collection instrumentation need to support the research design (Ravitch &

Carl, 2016). I achieved dependability with a constant review of the alignment by using an

internal audit trail and external audits by my committee.

The third validity criterion I used was confirmability. Ravitch and Carl, (2016)

mentioned reflexivity as a method to remain vigilant about any pre-conceived ideas of

study outcome. To ensure the confirmability of this study, the survey questionnaire was

scrutinized by my committee for any sign of influential language. The one-to-one

interviews followed a carefully scripted format with influence-free follow up question

choices.

Field Notes

The third instrument in my data collection was my reflective notes during data

collection. Reflective field notes were the first stage of data analysis as I looked for

keywords and noted the reference beside the question (See Appendix E). Reflexive notes

help discover themes in the interview responses and recognize when feelings of bias

toward the interviewer or interviewee delineate the data (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). My

experiences with the retail industry served as an interpretive frame of reference, and I

decided there was a need for a follow-up question for clarity. Reflexive notes are

important when interviewing, not to influence the interview but to help interpret the

problem from a different perspective (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Having pre-planned follow-

up questions for clarification helped ensure the inclusion of expanded answers during

data analysis.

During the review of the responses, taking notes was used to determine if a

follow-up was needed. Appendix B (Interview questions) contains notes made during the

creation of the interview questions as to the supporting literature and concept, which were

paramount to the “conceptual order” of the research (Babbie, 2016). Appendix B also

contained potential follow-up questions.

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

The primary source of data collection for this case study was the semi-structured

interviews. Other data sources were reflective notes, current, seminal information

reviews, and government reports—the sources of data used in this study aligned with

procedures to support the purpose of the study. The first consideration in recruitment for

the semi-structured interviews was the alignment of the problem being researched and the

contextual knowledge of the participants.

Recruitment

Recruitment depended on the participant's comprehension of the problem stated in

the study, and the invitation outlined the purpose of the study to aid in an informed

decision to participate. The opening paragraph of the invitation to interview stated that in

this case study, the research problem is that millennials employed in the retail industry

are not finding the leadership support and alignment to their career expectations or social

beliefs, often leading to a high voluntary turnover rate (Friedman & Gerstein, 2017). The

invitation continues with the purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the

experiences of millennials employed as managers in the retail industry, their perceptions,

and expectations of leadership. Exploration of the expectations of millennials who chose

retail as a career may add insight into a viable and transferable leadership style for the

retail industry and address the gap between purported retail leadership and misalignment

with millennials' self-description. 

The invitation concluded with a request to answer the three inclusivity questions

and return the consent to the email address on the interview form. Setting limits or points

of inclusivity for the recruitment phase accomplishes 1) the narrowing of the scope of the

study and 2) identification of qualified respondents to interview (Guest, et al., 2006; Yin,

2018). When I received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in August

2019, I used LinkedIn as my primary source for recruitment.

LinkedIn is a professional platform that thrives on exchanging information and

promotes all avenues of knowledge sharing. The invitation to be interviewed and an

introduction to the study (Appendix C) were posted on the LinkedIn Professional

Network to recruit participants for the semi-structured interviews. I identified several

retail groups on LinkedIn and began inviting individuals to participate in the groups and

the main page. I repeated this process once a month, communicating with each

respondent. I protected the respondent's personal information by requesting that they not

identify themselves on the questionnaire.

The inclusivity questions did not ask for a birthdate, employer's name, or

educational institution but only confirmation that they qualified. I planned to collect data

using referrals from respondents that did not meet inclusivity but were supportive of the

study as a follow-up plan to reach enough respondents for the study. I collected the data

through an attachment in the LinkedIn messaging system. I responded with appreciation

for their participation, my guarantee to guard their privacy, and my plan to send them a

copy of the results.

Participation

The inclusivity criteria for participation in this study were: the enrollment or

completion of a business curriculum in a postsecondary institution, a leadership position

in a retail organization with at least three years of leading other employees, and a

millennial. The participants for the one-to-one interviews had the commonality of retail

leadership, which aligned with the interactive aspect of a case study (Yin, 2018).

Interviewing participants that met the inclusive criteria that constituted the boundary of

the case study provided an opportunity to ask follow-up questions and for participants to

elaborate on their experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Invitations to be interviewed about their perceptions of leadership qualities were

extended to members of the LinkedIn online community to increase the possibility of

receiving an acceptable and qualified participant group. I chose maximum variation

sampling to open the data collection to a national (United States) participant pool to

capture aspects of diversity and did not put any regional restrictions on the data

collection. Maximum variation sampling requires the identification of the commonality

of the population that is significant to the research (Maxwell, 2013), which in this study

was the millennial generation. For the semi-structured interviews, I used purposive

sampling, ensuring the inclusive requirements of the study were met by reviewing the

responses from the invitation letters. The 10 participants for the semi-structured, 20-30-

minute interview were chosen by response to the invitation to interview and meeting the

inclusivity criteria.

Data Collection

For each data collection instrument, there was a connection to the research

question, and the conceptual framework. The research was clearly stated to explore the

perceptions and expectations of millennials in a retail industry leadership position. The

specific problem noted in this study was the failure of retail leaders to connect the

consideration of employees’ needs to voluntary turnover; therefore, exposing a specific

problem of leader behavior (Mekraz & Rao Gundala, 2016).

Interviews. The interview questions were designed to explore the specific

problem and outlined in Appendix B. For example, Mekraz and Rao Gundala (2016) and

Anderson, et al., (2017) provided support for interview question 1, How do you describe

a successful leader? aligned with millennial voluntary turnover due to dissatisfaction

with leadership. The frequency of data collection was dependent on the availability of the

participants and interviews were conducted by e-mail, due to the fear of being

recorded. The e-mail interview proved to be advantageous due to demanding retail

schedules, but the process was lengthier than a virtual or telephone interview. There was

the added disadvantage of the absence of reading body language that occurs with e-mail

interviews.

Interview Exit. The first task when ending an interview was to thank the

participant for taking the time to answer a few questions. It is important that they felt

their time was considered valuable to the study included that their insights and opinions

were important to the research conducted in retail leadership. I assured the participant

that everything shared would be treated with the upmost respect for their privacy and

reinforced that the permission slip they signed protected them from harm including their

employment. The participant was informed that a copy of the results would be available

for any corrections or additions they wished to make. Rubin & Rubin (2012) suggested

closing with an informal invitation to further contribution. I left the invitation open to

supplemental information from participants by repeating my contact e-mail and

encouraging feedback on the interview results.

Reflexive Notes. During the interview process, I noted key words and phrases

from the participants’ responses to the questions. I noted words or phrases associated

with the concepts of the influence of behavior, generational differences, or servant

leadership. I also recorded the communication by the respondents that did not follow

through with the interview noting the reasons for delaying or withdrawing from the study.

My reflexive notes became a permanent part of the research documents with any post

interview correspondence with the participants. My notes and journal entries recorded

important insight into the behavior of the interviewee and served as another source of

data contributing to triangulation.

Review of Literature. The third source of data collection was the review of

current and seminal research on the topic of this study included the history of retail,

generational differences, the influence of behavior on leadership, and current leadership

styles. Additional sources of information supporting my research was noted from

government databases and research institutions with a long-standing history of assisting

social research. Archival data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics supported the

reported generational voluntary turnover, and statistical data from Deloitte Millennial

Survey supplied insight into consensus about leadership concerns, which provided

relevancy to the wording of my interview questions.

Data Analysis Plan

As part of this empirical research into retail industry leadership, thematic analysis

of the data collected for the study of retail industry leaders began with patterns in the

literature centered on the industry's evolvement. I worked to present a holistic view of the

case. Functioning as a bricoleur, I recognized commonalities in the literature that formed

a theoretical definition of the phenomenon from a social and psychological viewpoint

(Maxwell, 2013). Yin (2018) suggested studying the data for concepts that may lead to an

analytical process such as pattern matching, but Denzin (2002) suggested a case-oriented

approach to recording more profound descriptions of a social setting; grounded in

situational relationships. The purpose of conducting a single case study with millennials

as an embedded group was to explore retail leadership and the impact on the subunit of a

more extensive, possibly unmanageable case study, i.e., a holistic study of the retail

industry (Yin, 2018). The case-oriented approach allowed for theoretical definitions of

conceptual categories in the analysis in which the research question and the semi-

structured interview questions referred to retail industry leadership.   

The conceptual categories created by thematic analysis of the literature review

provided me with the direction of my interview questions and a triangulation tool for data

collection. Denzin (2002) and Yin (2018) suggested that the participants' interpretation of

historical events, behavior, and relationships is the inductive study's cornerstone. Instead

of asking questions about personal observations of any changes in retail leadership, I

conducted a case-oriented analysis to understand how the millennials' perception of

leadership transferred to their expectations and experiences as retail industry leaders. One

example of the conceptual categories used for the interview questions was the correlation

between leader dissatisfaction in millennial performance regarding initiative and loyalty

and the reported millennial expectations of mentoring. Mentoring is an aspect of leader

behavior linked to the interview question; Describe the learning opportunities that you

receive or expect to receive from leadership to advance your career. This question

supports the concept of thinking of others' needs before your own, as described in

Greenleaf's theory of Servant Leadership, and the concept of generational differences in

leadership expectations (Anderson et al., 2017). The interview question aligned with the

overarching research question of how millennials employed as managers in the retail

industry describe their perceptions and expectations of successful leadership? and the

general problem of millennials employed in the retail industry are not finding adequate

leadership support and alignment that meets their career expectations or social beliefs,

often leading to a high voluntary turnover rate (Friedman & Gerstein, 2017). Appendix B

outlines the six semi-structured interview questions and potential follow-up questions

reflecting the connection of the data analysis from the literature review, the conceptual

frame, and the purpose of the study.

The thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews followed the same case-

oriented approach to how the response related to retail industry leadership. Thematic

analyses contain researcher interpretation of the data which can challenge the reliability

and rigor of the results with researcher bias (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015; Guest et al.,

2014). In the vein of analysis, beginning with the collection stage, follow-up questions in

the interview to clarify any vagueness or generalizations will support the interpretation,

but only if the question is void of subjectivity. Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) included that

searching for the real meaning of a participant's response is a fruitless endeavor.

Interpretation differences add to the positive aspect of qualitative research and should not

be discounted as subjective.

After the interview, specific sentences, words, or phrases in each response were

marked and recorded as significant to the research problem. During the analysis stage, I

assigned codes to the phrases or sentences for each response. This process is a

deconstruction of the participant's response to identify phrases or keywords representing

the total (Maxwell, 2013). Saldana (2009) defined a theme as a phrase or a collection of

descriptive words that relate to the study, and by using a table in Microsoft Word, I listed

the themes in columns for easy coding (Appendix G). Based on the primary data

collection source, the semi-structured interview, manual coding is a way to capture the

theoretical propositions and "play with the data" (Yin, 2018). For the interview

responses, manual coding is the option that will provide the best insight into the

participants' perceptions and allow the bricolage approach to analysis, which upon closer

scrutiny, can reveal relevance to the study (Maxwell, 2013).

For the construction or syncretization of the interviews, Microsoft Excel offers the

beginning researcher a way to organize the keywords in the responses into categories and

compile the commonalities (Bree & Gallagher, 2016). To develop commonalities, my

analysis must contain syncretization where the conceptual categories and context of the

study intersect with the meaning in the results (Givens, 2008). Using the Excel Program,

the codes I assigned to the responses can be sorted by using the sort option, with the

bonus of creating a new spreadsheet for each category.

This second stage of analysis was the beginning of the reporting of results, as the

second spreadsheet was the tool used to synthesize the interview responses with the data

collected from other sources. The analysis of the theoretical conceptions was easily

integrated because the coding for the thematic analysis was the same as the interview

coding. My recording of the commonalities of the three data sources generated meaning

and insight into a contextual form of the problem.

While this was a single case study of the retail industry, there was an opportunity

to divide the analysis into two stages. The second stage of analysis included observations,

journal notes, archival and current literature, and statistical data, which allowed for an

alignment to the context through theoretical concepts. There was an opportunity for

discrepant cases or outliers in the sample with the interviews for this study. Discrepant

cases are a contradictory voice in the study, often bringing a challenge of construct

validity to the study (Maxwell, 2013). Outlying information is merely a difference of

opinion but vital to qualitative research and possibly the voice of future research.

There are outliers in research, exceptions to the consensus, and the literature

review supported my expectation of discrepant responses. One of the theoretical concepts

is that maturation changes an individual's perception, as does the environment's influence

on social behavior. Some interviewees disagreed with the specific problem of a lack of

effective leadership influencing voluntary turnover in the retail industry, but their

perspectives remained valuable to this study. In this study, all feedback from the

interview process was added to the body of knowledge about leadership, specifically

retail industry leadership.

Issues of Trustworthiness

Credibility

I achieved credibility in this qualitative study through reflexivity, triangulation,

and member-checking. The study's credibility began with the relationship of the

researcher and the participants in the study; the challenge is controlling the threats to

internal validity, i.e., participant selection, misalignment of questions, or incorrect

instrumentation (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015; Creswell, 2008). Questions to consider for

validity are methodology alignment with research questions and whether the research

design aligns with the study's context (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The credibility of data was

gauged on the believability of the participants, and the selection of participants that knew

the contextual nature of the study was crucial in establishing credibility (Yin, 2018

Transferability

Qualitative research does not produce generalizable results but a study that can be

transferred to a broader or similar setting (Guba, 1981; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The main

question in establishing external validity is whether enough information has been

reported to understand the purpose of the study, the participant selection, and the

theoretical conceptions supporting the study (Urban & van Eeden-Moorefield, 2018). In

this study, the information offered in the literature review is transferable to other studies

on leadership, regardless of context.

Transferability requires that the participants be part of the environment under

research, and researchers remain within the scope of the research (Givens, 2008; Ravitch

& Carl, 2016). A qualitative study is transferable when the information offered as

background and synthesized literature is steeped in the possibility for future studies. I

established transferability by the purposeful sampling of the participants chosen for the

study that met certain criteria that aligned with the research design (Givens, 2008;

Ravitch & Carl, 2016). In this study, the participants shared personal impressions of an

environment that generalized results. Readers could recreate this study in any industry to

study the leadership paradigm.

Dependability

I achieved dependability through maintaining alignment throughout the study.

Arguments supplied by the researcher as to processes used, i.e., data collection,

instrumentation, analysis, need to support the research design (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Constant review of the alignment by using an internal audit trail and external audits by

my committee ensured the study's dependability. Auditing the study began with

recognizing the possible threats to validity, and the lack of cooperating and triangulating

data hinders the study's dependability. Urban and van Eeden-Moorefield (2018)

suggested verifying whether the information is understandable and ensuring clearly stated

results.

Confirmability

There are inevitable biases in qualitative research, but as a qualitative researcher, I

did not attempt to answer a question but to understand a problem. The integration of bias

into the direction of the study was a productive way of managing the threat (Maxwell,

2013). I established confirmability by implementing strategies to counteract personal

influence in the data collection instrument and the analysis. Maxwell (2013) and Ravitch

and Carl (2016) mentioned reflexivity as a method to remain vigilant about any pre-

conceived ideas of the study outcome. Maxwell reminds us that the qualitative researcher

is an instrument to be used for the collection of data free from influence. The study's

conformability was reached by my committee's scrutiny of the survey questionnaire any

sign of influential language. The one-to-one interviews followed a carefully scripted

format with influence-free follow-up question choices

Ethical Procedures

There are ethical issues throughout the execution of a research project. The

consideration of the population's rights involved in the research, directly or indirectly,

must be protected. Walden University requires all research involving humans to be

approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has the responsibility to

protect participants from any physical, emotional, mental, or financial harm that may

arise from the research project. With the interaction of researcher and participant,

protecting the participants' rights falls to the researcher (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Receiving approval for research required complete disclosure of the data collection

process to ensure ethical procedures. Confidentiality is the main and most straightforward

form of protecting a participant, and part of the data collection phase is providing and

collecting informed consent from participants. The participation in data collection must

be voluntary, and the participants must have confidence in the researcher's discretion if

there is to be an expectation of truthfulness in the responses.

Maintaining the anonymity of respondents was necessary throughout the data

analysis and reporting the results and ethical responsibility extended to protecting the

research materials provided by participants. The materials, questionnaires, hand-written

notes from interviews and e-mail correspondence are stored in a secure location during

analyses and for seven years post-dissertation, at which point any identifying materials

are destroyed. Protecting the anonymity of the participants during analyses involved

assigning an alpha-numeric designation during the coding process. Anonymity also

involved a disconnect between the participant and their exact location and place of

employment to protect the participants from any perceived danger or repercussion that

might risk livelihood.

Ethical considerations extended to my ethical behavior in reporting the results.

The accuracy of the data is expected and deserved by anyone who reads the research.

Trustworthiness of the results is necessary for the transferability of the study.

Exaggerating or fabricating details from the data is subjecting the study to dismissal and

hiding results that do not support the assumptions is not ethical behavior (Roberts, 2010).

Ethical responsibility also involves protecting others' scholarly work. To copy someone's

original work without citation is an unethical act of plagiarism and deems the research

untrustworthy. Resources used in the production of this dissertation were given

recognition by citation in the text and complete reference per APA guidelines.

Summary

Chapter 3 discussed a single case study involving interviews with millennials with

three years or more of leadership experience in the retail industry and participation in a

business curriculum to explore the millennial generation’s perception of successful

leadership. Interviews of individuals bound by a commonality of retail leadership and

generational characteristics align with the interactive aspect of a case study of an

embedded phenomenon in a larger context (Yin, 2018). The questions were aligned with

the problem and included behavior questions, training procedures, mentoring examples,

and planned career progression.

I provided the interview questions designed to gather information about the topic

of the study, and I discussed the case-oriented approach to the thematic analysis of the

interview responses. Chapter 4 is set aside to record the responses offered by the

participants accurately, compiled, categorized by commonality, and respectively

submitted as the results of the study. The results began with the demographics of the

participant group and contributing factors to the settings of the interviews. Chapter 4 will

contain a thorough accounting of the interview results using manual coding and

syncretization of the information. The conclusion of chapter 4 will have any discrepant

responses and evidence of trustworthiness.

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore experiences of

millennials employed as managers in the retail industry, their perceptions, and

expectations of leadership. Exploring expectations of millennials who chose retail as a

career may lead to insights regarding viable leadership styles for the retail industry and

the gap between purported retail leadership and millennials’ self-descriptions. The

research tradition for this study was qualitative. The research question for this study

involved how millennials employed as managers in the retail industry describe their

perceptions and expectations involving successful leadership. I used six semi-structured

interview questions to collect these insights. Schram (2006) recommended researchers

have between five and 10 participants for a qualitative study because a larger sample size

can lead to weaker research results.

To better understand if or how retail industry leadership was shifting, I questioned

millennials about their perceptions of retail leadership to examine leadership paradigms.

Data triangulation of semi-structured interviews, field notes, and salient literature,

including historical and government archives, were used to establish validity (Ravitch &

Carl, 2016). In this chapter, I described the research setting, demographics, data

collection and analysis, and evidence of trustworthiness. I presented study results

involving organizational and environmental conditions that influenced respondents. This

chapter concludes with a summary of the research question and its applicability.

Research Setting

I posted invitation to interview letters on LinkedIn as an open post. I received

various responses citing interest in the study but was resistant to virtual and recorded

interviews. I contacted LinkedIn members through messaging who identified as retail in

order to encourage participation with further explanation of the study and assurance of

anonymity. I included informed consent forms for 80 individuals who self-identified as

retail employees, but these were met with continued resistance. I also posted this letter in

several groups on LinkedIn: Retail Industry Professionals Group, Southeastern

Manufacturing PRO Network, Retail Executive Leadership, Servant Leadership Institute

Discussion Group, and Retail Leadership Network. I confirmed anonymity by explaining

the privacy portion of the consent form with every post or individual message but

received few responses.

I began recruiting in August/September, but communication was hindered due to

participants’ trust of anonymity. I was an unknown individual, and employers feared

retribution as a result of their opinions about retail leadership. Due to the COVID

pandemic, there was a major change in the retail environment during data collection that

increased the difficulty of collecting responses. Two of the responses were collected pre-

pandemic, with the remainder requiring an extension from the IRB to complete data

collection.

Interview times varied depending on whether participants were willing to talk

with me about their answers. Three who agreed to speak with me clarified answers or

follow-up questions. Conversations averaged 22 minutes, but participants declined virtual

or phone recordings. There were no risks to participants’ safety or wellbeing, and the

interviews or research questions were completed at participants’ convenience. I kept

notes regarding participants’ responses and their struggles to participate. I used an

interview guide (see Appendix E) to record reflexive notes during data collection and

analysis.

Demographics

The target population of this case study was millennial employees in the U.S. who

have advanced to leadership positions in the retail industry. Inclusive requirements for

participation in this study included enrollment or completion of a business curriculum in

a postsecondary institution and a leadership position in a US retail organization with at

least 3 years of leading other employees (see Table 4). Participants were identified as P1

through P8 to protect their identity and maintain confidentiality.

At the time of data collection, the youngest participant was 19, and the oldest was

38. The average age was 29. Enrollment or completion of a business curriculum was a

requirement, and 50% of participants were enrolled in a postsecondary business program,

25% had an Associate of Arts and Science degree, and 25% had their Bachelor of Science

in Business. All participants were in a leadership position with an average of 7 years.

Employee positions ranged from a lead/head cashier to a multi-store manager. Fifty

percent of participants identified as male, and 50% identified as female. As Walden’s

IRB required, there were no vulnerable participants.

Table 4

Participant Demographics

Participant Education Title Gender Tenure (yrs) Age

P1 BS District Mgr M 16 38

Enrolled

AAS

Dept. Lead

Sales Lead

Dept. Lead

Head Cashier

Dept. Lead

Asst Mgr.

District Trainer

Data Collection

I collected data from eight participants who met criteria for inclusion in this study.

I verified inclusion criteria information by first viewing their profiles on LinkedIn to

ascertain their work experience and education. I then asked participants by email if they

met inclusion criteria approved by the IRB. Data collection tools were semi-structured

interviews and reflective notes.

I received my initial IRB approval (#09-19-19-0565230) on August 23, 2019, and

an extension on August 24, 2020. Upon receipt, I posted invitation to interview letters on

LinkedIn. I posted approximately once a month beginning September 2019 until I

reached 10 positive responses. Four did not meet inclusivity criteria but agreed to help

recruit participants which led to snowball sampling of two additional responses, bringing

the qualified participant number to eight. When I received a positive response, I

forwarded the informed consent form to participants and questions by email due to lack

of interest in phone or virtual meetings.

Data collection lasted for 15 months, requiring an extension approval from the

IRB, and was deeply affected by the pandemic. COVID-19 affected the subject matter of

LinkedIn posts and responses. During the pandemic, views of and responses to my posts

decreased, and there were several negative responses to my invitation. Fear of retaliation

among retail employees was expressed by P1, who requested assurance that no one would

know of their participation or any employment or geographic location information. Other

respondents chose online messaging to politely request I drop them from the research.

Interviews

I began data collection the same way with each participant. I thanked them for

their interest in contributing to the study and ensured anonymity. I e-mailed each

participant a copy of the informed consent and the interview questions. Those willing to

speak to me were only willing to do so for any follow-up questions, and of the 8

participants that met the criteria, I spoke to 3 individuals to clarify their answers to the

questions. I used the Interview Guide (see Appendix E) as an interview tool and a place

to include comments from participants on follow-up questions as a record of data. The

participants recorded the data and sent it by e-mail, with three responding to follow-up

questions or expanding their answers. This additional data was added to my reflective

journal and transferred to Appendix E in the comment section. Once the participant

agreed to respond to the questions, the return time was prompt, averaging three days.

Clarification of answers was received more quickly, with receipts within a day. The three

participants willing to speak by phone to clarify answers spent an average of 22 minutes

responding to my follow-up questions.

Reflexive Field Notes and Journaling

My reflexive notes associated with the data collected consisted of comments

made in response to the invitation, reaction to the request to record the conversation, and

participants' general avoidance of follow-through. I recorded the responses to the

invitation to interview, positive and negative, in my journal notes to use in my data

analysis because they capture the participants’ reactions, attitudes, and emotions during

the collection process. My notes helped discover patterns of behavior and changing

perceptions of millennials as leaders.

There were unusual circumstances that compounded the hesitancy or outright

non-response to my invitation. Firstly, the retail industry’s busiest sales season began

three weeks after my first posting. Retail leadership had little free time in October,

November, and December, and priorities are centered on 4th quarter sales. Secondly,

COVID increased a reluctance to respond and the lack of time to participate in anything

outside of work due to additional duties with less staff. Personal and environmental

conditions influenced the participants’ hesitancy to participate in virtual or even

telephone interviews, but most were willing to answer the questions by e-mail. Mistrust

of virtual platforms, fear of being recognized in the published research, and an

unbelievable work schedule were two of the reasons cited by the invitees.

As time progressed through the COVID lockdowns and the domino effect of

businesses closing and rising unemployment, the interview responses reflected the fear

and increased reluctance to participate in anything recorded. This constitutes a variation

from the plan for data collection but did not prevent collection as long as e-mail

responses were acceptable. My impressions and observations of the changes in the retail

environment and the participants’ perspectives were noted. All interview responses were

printed out so any reference to the identity could be removed and replaced with a

participant number (P1, P2, …, P8). I reached data saturation after four responses but

continued collecting data because the fifth response came during the height of the

pandemic and showed a change in perspective. I reached a second saturation with the

seventh response, and no new data emerged. Any electronic reference to the participant

identity is saved on an external memory drive and password protected.

Data Analysis

I used thematic analysis of the data collected to study retail industry leaders began

with patterns in the literature centered on the industry's evolvement. Using a bricolage

approach to data collection, commonalities were recognized in the literature, and the

responses formed a theoretical definition of the phenomenon from a social and

psychological viewpoint (Maxwell, 2013). I began with an initial review of the responses

to the interview questions, making notes of phrases or keywords that aligned with the

codes assigned to the conceptual categories. I used manual coding for the interview

responses, which provided the best insight into the participants' perceptions. Based on the

primary data collection source, the semi-structured interview, manual coding is a way to

capture the theoretical propositions and “play with the data” (Yin, 2018). I made

notations as to any discrepant information or outliers in the responses when I created

codes for analysis. Discrepant cases are a contradictory voice in the study, often

challenging construct validity (Maxwell, 2013). Outlying information is merely a

difference of opinion but vital to qualitative research and possibly the voice of future

research.

There are outliers in research, exceptions to the consensus, and the literature

review supported my expectation of discrepant responses. One of the theoretical concepts

is that maturation changes an individual’s perception, as does the environment’s

influence on social behavior. I recognized these differences aligning with the level of

leadership the respondent had achieved. For example, some interviewees disagreed with

the specific problem of a lack of effective leadership influencing voluntary turnover in

the retail industry, but their perspectives remained valuable to this study.

During the second stage of analysis, I identified themes and patterns in the

coding that aligned with the conceptual framework and the overarching research question

of how millennials employed as managers in the retail industry describe their perceptions

and expectations of successful leadership. I consolidated the themes of the responses and

identified the conceptual category that represented how millennials’ perception of

leadership transferred to their expectations and experiences as retail industry leaders.

There were three categories identified in the conceptual framework: societal or

generational behavioral influence, observations that evoke emulation or avoidance, and

millennial characteristics’ congruity with servant leadership. There were 12 themes that

emerged during data analysis.

Themes aligned with societal influence on commonalities of generational

behavior are that millennials expect adaptability, accommodation, authenticity,

transparency, open communication, trustworthiness, ethical and empathetic leadership.

Themes aligned with how observation influences behavior creating a desire to emulate or

avoid include authoritarian, workplace culture, mentorship, task-oriented, and

psychological contracts. Themes aligned with millennial expectations and characteristics

of servant leadership congruity were noted as compassion, mentorship, supportive,

employee-centric, and recognition.

The analysis process is a deconstruction of the participant’s response to identify

phrases or keywords representing the total (Maxwell, 2013). Saldana (2009) defined a

theme as a phrase, or a collection of descriptive words related to the study. This study is a

description of the millennial perception of successful leadership. The results included

descriptions from the respondents about how they are led, how they lead, and the

challenges they faced during the COVID pandemic. Table 5 accounts for the final data

analysis with excerpts from the participant responses, with the corresponding conceptual

category and theme.

Table 5

Conceptual Categories and Themes

Participant Interview excerpt Category Theme P1 A successful leader is adaptable. Able

to overcome adversity.

Societal/generational

influence

Adaptability

P1, P2 When assigning tasks, there is clear

communication around expectations.

Clear communicator

Societal/generational

influence

Authenticity

P2 “I’ve learned that trust is important in

leadership by the way my leader treats me.”

Societal/generational

influence

Trustworthiness

P3 Assigns tasks based on employee’s

strengths

Societal/generational

influence

Accommodation

P3 Trust and open communication set the

tone of the workplace.

Societal/generational

influence

Trustworthiness

P6 “During COVID, we were all (millennials)

thrown into a scramble to keep the stores

open. That time did give us opportunities

to think creatively about serving our

customers.”

Societal/generational

influence

Adaptability

P1 “Personally, I don’t need an engaged

leader to be motivated, but I do need to

know if I’m meeting/exceeding the

expectations.”

Societal/generational

influence

Authenticity

P7 “someone who is trusted and respected

across departments.”

Societal/generational

influence

Trustworthiness

P7 “With current layoffs (due to COVID),

leaders have taken a ‘hands-off’ approach

and trust individuals to complete known,

necessary tasks.

Societal/generational

influence

Adaptability

Accommodation

P8 “Leadership is all about trust. You have to

trust and have faith that when you leave

for the day, or you’re off for the day that the

business runs just as smooth without you or

even better. That’s true leadership.”

Societal/generational

influence

Trustworthiness (trust

works both ways)

P8 “I expect honest, straightforward

feedback…feedback is the key to

growth.” “The retail industry changes

daily, affecting daily goals…you must

Societal/generational

influence

Authenticity

100

be a step ahead to keep afloat.”

FOLLOW UP: “not in retail because of the

lack of recognition for the staff’s success in

spite of COVID restrictions.”

P8 FOLLOW-UP “The biggest challenge

during COVID was how big staff

reduction was. Because of a “whoever

can make it to work is boss today” mentality

of corporate; there was an emergence of

leadership that may have never happened. A

lot of great ideas were born.”

Societal/generational

influence

Adaptability

P1 “I have learned from leaders I didn’t

consider inspirational but were in a

position of authority and had achieved

success.”

Observation

influence

Authoritarian

P1 “I have learned from good, bad, and

indifferent leaders. You learn what to

repeat and what to avoid. What works,

and what doesn’t.”

Observation

influence

Desire to emulate

P1 “evangelist for hope” (communicating

corporate vision in a positive way)

Observation

influence

Charismatic/organization

culture

(Organization is priority)

P1 “I’ve learned not just directly but

watching interactions with other

employees and hearing about their impact.

Observation

influence

Emulation

P2 “…someone who can manage to make

difficult decisions and keeps everyone

on board.”

Observation

influence

Persuasive/Authoritarian

(Organization is priority)

P2 “Leaders assign tasks by what’s important for

the store.”

Observation

influence

Organization is priority

P2 “Voluntary turnover is sometimes just

about better opportunities, not leadership.”

Observation

influence

progress/psychological

contract

P4 “…does the right thing without expecting

validation.”

Observation

influence

Ethical Behavior

P4 “A lot of baby boomer leaders use scare

tactics to get compliance.”

Observation

influence

Authoritarian

P7 “If I am micromanaged, or upper

management plays favorites, my

enthusiasm to perform vanishes.”

Observation

influence

Workplace culture

schism

101

P6 “I expect leadership to not be corrupt.” Observation

influence

Ethical Behavior

P8 “If you don’t have a great relationship

with your team, it will show in your

‘numbers’ and your personal life.”

Observation

influence

Workplace culture

schism

P8 An organization where adequate “tools or

training” to complete a task are ignored

sets the employee up for failure. “I believe

that’s the number one reason why

millennials leave. The stress and workload

combined with no leadership support.”

Observation

influence

Authoritarian (avoid)

P1 “train their team to overcome adversity.” Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Mentor

P2 Listens to others Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Employee-Centric

P2 “My manager was great at breaking

things down, so we understand

completely.”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Mentor

P2 “Learning opportunities took on a

strategic direction to improve my

performance”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Mentor

P3 “A successful leader creates a unified

atmosphere and environment.”

“I’ve found that millennials want

transparency in leadership.”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Inclusivity

Transparency

P3 A successful leader cares for the

employee

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Compassion

P3 “Strengths are encouraged, and weak

areas are addressed with coaching.”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

Mentor

102

characteristics of a

servant leader.

P3 “With open communication about what is

needed to improve performance, there are

chances to advance.”

Observation

influences behavior

creating a desire to

emulate or avoid.

Psychological contract

P4 “…we are not a hard worker generation.

we are a smart worker generation and

look for companies with innovation and

an open mindset to move forward. You

must adapt or be left behind.”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Supportive

Adaptability

P5 “Tasks are assigned by the employee’s

skill and familiarity with the task.”

Voluntary turnover could be reduced by

training by methods that are best or needed

by the staff.

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Employee-Centric

P5 “A successful leader improves the entire

staff’s abilities.”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Mentor

P6 “I expect leaders to care for others.” Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

compassion

P7 “…patient when others are learning and

willing to teach”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Mentor

P8 “My first manager showed me how to

treat every single employee. When they

clock in for work, ask them how they

are doing, how is their day? Then thank

them for being there.”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

compassion

P8 “When I assign a task, I first look at the

employee’s strengths and weaknesses

and see how the task can benefit … If

you don’t think about how this is helping

the employee, you’re not going to be a

successful leader. The leader is only

successful if the team is thriving.”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Employee-Centric

103

P8 “When problem arises in the original

goal plan, which happens often with

COVID restrictions, working together

to find solutions takes away a bit of the

frustration and feelings of isolation.”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Inclusivity

P8 FOLLOW-UP – Q4 – “We felt punished

by the loss of bonuses, 401K match, and

reductions in pay”

Congruity of

millennial

expectations and

characteristics of a

servant leader.

Psychological Contract

(broken)

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Credibility

I achieved credibility in this qualitative study through reflexivity, triangulation,

and member-checking. The questions for validity included whether the methodology

aligned with the research question and whether the research design aligned with the

study's context (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The questions were designed in alignment with

the overall research question and used to prompt the participants’ memories of personal

experiences. Reflexivity required examining and suspending my judgments and personal

beliefs about the problem and instead focused on the participants’ perceptions. Credibility

is based on the believability of the participants (Yin, 2018) and reflexivity involves the

inclusion of responses that conflict with the researcher’s expectations. The reflexivity in

the data analysis established a simple and open addition to the participants’ responses

bolstering the study's credibility.

Triangulation broadened the understanding of the results. Data triangulation

involves several different sources about the same phenomenon (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

This study used archival and current literature, semi-structured interviews of an

embedded group with first-hand information of the phenomenon, and reflective field

104

notes as data triangulation methods. Blending the theoretical with the conceptual and

result of the research strengthens the trustworthiness of results and deepens the

understanding of the phenomenon.

As a collaborator, the participant's involvement allowed me to clarify responses

with follow-up questions. Member-checking was my third method of establishing

credibility. I used the messaging ability of LinkedIn to verify and follow-up participants’

comments. An excerpt of the analysis was made available to the participants for the

opportunity of approval, correction, or additional comments. Additional information was

noted on the original questionnaire and the interview notes.

Transferability

The results of my literature review is transferable to other studies on leadership,

regardless of context. Transferability requires that the participants be part of the

environment under research, and researchers remain within the scope of the research

(Givens, 2008). A qualitative study is transferable when the information offered as

background and synthesized literature is steeped in the possibility for future studies. The

interplay of constructivism and philosophical underpinnings supported the transferability

of this study because the participants shared impressions of an environment that resulted

in generalized results.

The choice of instrumentation, unit of analysis, and the target group aligned with

the researched problem and subsequently provided responses that will support future

inquiries into leadership paradigms in any industry. The interview questions were

105

designed to provoke responses about generational perception and self-awareness in retail

leaders but have research potential in any field of study. The purposeful sampling of

participants chosen for the study met certain criteria aligned with the research design

(Givens, 2008). The transferability of the results of this study benefits future studies in

the field of sociology, psychology, or business leadership because the topic of the study

was based on a generalization of perception and behavior.

Dependability

My dissertation committee's continuous review of the study’s alignment using an

internal audit trail and external audits ensured the dependability. Qualitative studies are

considered dependable when there is consistency in the data and alignment with the

research question (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Triangulation with empirical research, first-

hand accounts provided by participants who meet the inclusivity requirements, and

ensuring the information is understandable by verifying participant responses supports

dependability and limits validity threats.

Confirmability

I established confirmability by implementing strategies to counteract personal

influence in the data collection instrument and the analysis. The value of a qualitative

study is found in the confirmability of the analysis. To be accepted as trustworthy, I

implemented strategies to control my bias during data collection and analysis. My

interview questions and conceptual framework were scrutinized by my committee, the

106

IRB, and my URR to verify the absence of bias or threat of bias. Ravitch and Carl (2016)

mentioned reflexivity to remain vigilant about any pre-conceived results.

My constant reference to my journal and reflexive notes increased the

confirmability of the results and my role as a participant rather than a reporter in the

study. Consistency in the interview questions and follow-up clarifications was necessary

for thematic analysis and controlling my biases. The researcher has to be a credible

witness to the results during the analysis by providing a detailed, thick description of the

coding and themes to ensure rigor and trustworthiness (Nowell et al., 2017). This self-

scrutiny of biases began in the framework and was addressed in the data collection and

throughout the analysis phase.

Study Results

In qualitative studies, there is a depth of significance to the context with results

that challenge paradigms, enlighten causation, and offer an understanding of the problem.

This study answered how millennials employed in the retail industry describe their

perceptions and expectations of successful leadership. As Yin (2018) suggested the case

study design described the perception of millennial leaders within the context of retail

leadership. The results of this study focused on the emerging leadership styles in the

retail industry.

The responses from the semi-structured interviews were categorized by themes

that emerged from the analysis aligned with the literature review of current and seminal

sources of leadership behavior. The methodological guidance of Yin (2018) supported the

107

use of the case study design for studying distinctive portions of an established intangible

dyad, like the leader-follower relationship, based on perception and perspective. Three

concepts formed the basis of the framework for this study and allowed for data collection

from the participants’ perceptions as both followers and leaders.

The first concept was that societal or generational influence determines

commonalities of behavior in a generation. The themes that emerged in the responses to

societal or generational influence were adaptability, authenticity, trustworthiness,

accommodation, ethical behavior, and transparency. These themes arose from responses

to question 1, In the context of the retail industry, how do you describe a successful

leader? In a multi-generational workforce, as often found in retail establishments, the

leader-follower relationship is formed by an unspoken hierarchy determined by

knowledge rather than age (Gruda et al., 2018). The responses in the vein of follower

perceptions and expectations do not necessarily reflect a generational difference but

rather the millennial leaders’ perception or their picture of the type of leader to follow.

The behavior characteristics of each generation reflect a collective perception of the

social values important at that time or generational location, which is notable in the

responses taken during the COVID pandemic.

The second conceptual category of observational influence was designed to

explore characteristic millennial alignment with reciprocity and emulation. Bandura

(1977) established how observation influences behavior and the continuance of the

behavior is dependent on the received response. The themes aligning with observational

108

influence were identified as the organization is priority/authoritarian, desire to emulate,

and organizational culture/workplace culture schism, which came from question 1, and

question 2, when you think of a leader in your workplace, describe how the leader assigns

tasks, revealed both positive and negative responses.

The third and final conceptual category was labeled as the congruity of millennial

expectations and characteristics of a servant leader. The themes that emerged from the

responses were compassion, mentor, supportive, employee-centricity, inclusivity, and

inference to psychological contract failure. Question 4, describe the learning

opportunities that you receive or expect from leadership to advance your career, and

questions 5 and 6 asked for the influence of leader behavior on voluntary turnover and

job satisfaction. Millennials’ upbringing provided them with strong, inclusive behavior,

leaning towards a collective personality to lead a paradigm shift in retail leadership

(Bottomley & Willie Burgess, 2018; Howe & Strauss, 2000). Strong evidence of

inclusive behavior is noted in the responses from a millennial leader perspective.

There is much overlap in the leadership attributes, and no one theory has thus far

had the distinction of the best approach to success, but there were overlapping themes

that emerged in the 45 recorded responses that indicated characteristics of servant

leadership from both follower and leader perspectives. The final portion of my analysis

addressed the data that was either non-conforming or discrepant to the general problem of

millennials employed in the retail industry not finding adequate leadership support and

alignment to meet their career expectations or social beliefs, leading to a high turnover

109

rate in the industry. I identified themes from a follower’s perspective and a leader’s

perspective which are discussed in the following sections.

Emergent Themes from a Follower Perspective

The conceptual categories drawn from the framework guided the data analysis,

which revealed themes in the responses, and the analysis of the data supported the

perception and expectations of millennials as followers and leaders. I organized the

results by the themes that emerged from the responses, which aligned with the conceptual

categories. The analysis included the leadership characteristics that millennials find

unacceptable and the evidence of a paradigm shift resulting from the COVID pandemic.

Adaptability/Accommodation

Adaptability was not included in the original Code Book (Appendix G) but was

used in 11% of the responses to questions aligning with the conceptual code of societal or

generational influence. Responses to Question 1; In the context of the retail industry, how

do you describe a successful leader? Furthermore, Question 3; What or who has

influenced your perception of successful leadership? provided the pattern of the term

adaptable as a description of successful leadership. I attached the meaning of adaptability

as embracing different ways to solve problems, including ideas from diverse sources to

generate something that did not exist or was never a default solution (Uhl-Bien & Arena,

2017). “An adaptable leader is able to overcome adversity” (Participant 1), and the fast-

paced and ever-changing world of the retail industry demands leadership that has the soft

skills of collaboration and critical thinking to focus on influencing change. Northouse

110

(2021) described an adaptive leader not as a problem-solving but as someone who

provides others with the guidance to master adversity. Responses to questions 1 and 3

inferred the importance for leaders to adapt readily to both a normal retail environment

and one that is challenged, i.e., the pandemic.

Northouse’s (2021) assessment aligns with participant 6 (P6), who responded in

the summer of 2020 amidst the COVID pandemic about how “… we were all

(millennials) thrown into a scramble to keep the stores open. That time did give us

opportunities to think creatively about serving our customers.” Participant 7 (P7), also

responding in the summer of 2020, commented that “with current layoffs (due to

COVID), leaders have taken a ‘hands-off’ approach and trust individuals to complete

known necessary tasks.

With the onset of the pandemic and subsequent economic uncertainty,

adaptability was not generationally specific but a result of the blending of age groups

caused by a shared event, which aligned more with societal influence. Participant 8 (P8)

shared in response to the follow-up question to Q2, what procedure is taken if a problem

arises? With the comment, “The biggest challenge during COVID was how big staff

reduction was. Because of a “whoever can make it to work is boss today” mentality of

corporate, there was an emergence of leadership that may have never happened. A lot of

great ideas were born.” “You must adapt or be left behind” (P4).

In response to how tasks are assigned, 4% of the responses listed accommodation

as a characteristic of successful leadership under the concept of societal or generational

111

influence. Participant 1 commented that “when assigning tasks, there needs to be clear

communication around expectations,” while participant 3(P3) noted that a successful

leader would assign tasks based on employees’ strengths. Both observations support the

concept of the best fit principle of assigning tasks to employees, which meant an

increased possibility of task completion. Fiedler conceptualized that effective leadership

is determined by personality traits and employee performance while dependent on

leadership influence (Popp, & Hadwich, 2018) More recently, Gabrielova and Buchko,

(2021) argued that millennials use societal influence to help them develop leadership

skills such as teamwork and adaptability.

Authenticity, Ethical Behavior, Transparency, and Trustworthiness

These four themes share Authentic Leadership characteristics, which is noted as

more of a behavior than a leadership style but is quickly gaining legitimacy as a style

based on best-fit theory (Nikolic et al., 2020). Responses to Question 1; In the context of

the retail industry, how do you describe a successful leader? And Question 2; When you

think of a leader in your workplace, describe how the leader assigns tasks provided a

pattern of the themes under the conceptual code of societal or generational influence.

The study of Authentic Leadership combines certain leadership behaviors that

build a style of leadership that leaves no question as to leader intent. Nikolic et al. (2020)

reported that authentic leadership is multi-faceted with leading by example and

encouraging transparency, thereby installing trustworthiness that reflects a stronger

leader-follower relationship. Authenticity, at 4% of the responses, was represented by

112

participants 1(P1) and P2 citations of “clear communication” and P3’s addition that “trust

and open communication set the tone of the workplace.” Clear communication is cited by

P8 in the comment that “I expect honest, straightforward feedback…feedback is the key

to growth.” P1 added to the point on leader feedback with “Personally, I don’t need an

engaged leader to be motivated, but I do need to know if I’m meeting/exceeding the

expectations.” In a follow-up to Question 4, Where do you see yourself in five years? P8

shared, “not in retail because of the lack of recognition for the staff’s success in spite of

COVID restrictions.” Concerning the expressed expectations of Millennials, the lack of

performance feedback and an unclear career path often leads to voluntary turnover (Gunn

et al., 2017). Communication and honest feedback also underscore an employee-centric

leadership style that promotes follower job satisfaction aligning with a millennial

expectation of leadership behavior.

Ethical behavior in a leader was mentioned in 4% of the responses, with P4

stating quite plainly that a leader “does the right thing without expecting validation.” P6

summed the expectation of ethical behavior with “I expect leadership to not be

corrupt.” Ethical leadership supports the millennials’ expectation of meaningful work

and trustworthiness in leaders and followers. Bhana and Bayat (2020) reported that

ethical leadership had gained recognition as a leadership theory because of constant

reports of corporate and government misdeeds. Distrust of authority prioritizes

millennials to seek and remain with leaders who exhibit authentic leadership

characteristics.

113

At a combined 11% response rate, trustworthiness and transparency are

components of authentic leadership and support a millennial expectation of a successful

leader under the abstract concept of generational influence. Concerning trustworthiness,

P2, P7, and P8 offered insight into the importance of reciprocity in the leader-follower

relationship. “I’ve learned that trust is important in leadership by the way my leader treats

me.” shared by P2 with P7 witnessing trustworthiness as “someone who is trusted and

respected across departments” defines a millennial expectation as a follower. Participant

8 commented that “leadership is all about trust. Employees have to know that you trust

and have faith that when you leave for the day or off for the day, the business runs just as

smooth without you or even better. That’s true leadership.” P8 spoke about

trustworthiness from a leader’s point of view, but the comment also reflects the

follower’s desire to reciprocate good treatment with good behavior (Bandura, 1977).

Emergent Themes from a Leader Perspective

As themes emerged from the participants’ responses, reflexivity was a major

consideration. The responses would reveal a perception of leadership that was different or

improved upon what they experienced as a follower, and yet many responses revealed

leanings toward situational leadership, deferring to the status quo. Putting aside my bias

and “listening” to the responses proved enlightening as to how the millennials used their

experiences as followers to express a compromise of organizational goals and a

leadership style reflective of the generation’s characteristics of ambition, social

dependence, and complete transparency.

114

Authoritarian, Emulation, and Organizational Culture

The majority of the responses aligned with a millennial leader’s perspective were

evident in the concept of observational influence with authoritarian responses at 4%,

emulation at 4%, and organizational culture at 7%. The respondents’ tone shifts to the

voice of a leader with Question 3: What or who has influenced your perception of

successful leadership? and the responses include both positive and negative responses.

Positive Influence. P2 contributed the responses with an authoritarian theme in a

positive light with “…someone who can manage to make difficult decisions and keep

everyone on board.” and “Leaders assign tasks by what’s important for the store.” This

response indicates the observation influence of authoritarian influence on expected

behavior from millennials moving into a leadership role. P2’s responses were collected

pre-COVID, and leadership training was informal observation as a follower. P1 reflected

that “I have learned from leaders I didn’t consider inspirational but were in a position of

authority and had achieved success.” With no challenge of COVID restrictions requiring

at times extreme adaptation of procedures, these responses align with the research

outlining the generational differences in leaders and followers in different situations.

Emulation is the imitation of an observed action or characteristic and was a

response to Q3, what action is taken to influence others in the behaviors of a successful

leader. In leadership, a follower might pattern personal behaviors after something or

someone they regarded as a positive influence. P1 shared that “I have learned from good,

bad, and indifferent leaders. You learn what to repeat and what to avoid. What works,

115

and what doesn’t.” They continued with a follow-up comment, “I’ve learned not just

directly, but by watching interactions with other employees and hearing about the

impact.” While emulation and reciprocity are different terms, they share a common

resource of observational influence. Emulation is the imitation of behavior because of a

belief in a similar outcome when the behavior is applied. Reciprocity involves adopting a

behavior based on environmental or personal beliefs, and emulated behavior influences

the surrounding environment (Du, et al., 2020). An example of reciprocal determinism

(Bandura in Cherry, 2021) was indicated in Participant 1’s comment that a leader should

be an “evangelist for hope,” positively communicating corporate vision and indicating the

influence of behavior to be emulated. This comment would also fall under the theme of

the charismatic or persuasive characteristic of authoritarian leadership, so not necessarily

negative. In retail, it happens quite often before a substantial task for management to lead

a “pep rally.” Words of encouragement when delivering a looming deadline or change in

the process are part of the retail organization culture.

Negative Influence. P4 noted a direct correlation to a generational difference in

leadership styles with the comment, “A lot of baby boomer leaders use scare tactics to get

compliance.” Authoritarian leaders characteristically use threats of repercussion for poor

performance. Du et al. (2020) noted that employees with authoritarian leaders exhibit low

reciprocity and task performance levels. Another observation of negative authoritarian

leadership is cited by Participant 8 with the comment, “In an organization where adequate

“tools or training” to complete a task are ignored sets the employee up for failure. “I

116

believe that’s the number one reason why millennials leave. The stress and workload

combined with no leadership support.”

Organizational culture (OC) is described as the interaction between employees of

a common workplace. OC is behavior-based, and guidelines rise from, at times, unwritten

and unspoken agreements of what is acceptable or unacceptable for a member of the

workplace. The responses to Q2 At times, a leader’s behavior can clash with the OC

resulting in decreased performance and/or morale as stated by P7, “If I am

micromanaged, or upper management plays favorites, my enthusiasm to perform

vanishes.” Participant 8 offered the warning that “If you don’t have a great relationship

with your team, it will show in your ‘numbers’ and your personal life.” The

organization’s culture can be a deciding factor in job choice. P4 noted about the

millennial generation that “…we are not a hard worker generation. we are a smart worker

generation and look for companies with innovation and an open mindset to move

forward,” indicating an organization with a learning or innovating culture would be the

best fit.

Compassion, Mentor, Inclusivity, and Supportive/Employee-Centricity

These remaining emergent themes are characteristic of Servant Leadership with a

mentor or some definition resonating in 16% of the responses. Millennials’ expression of

how they lead others centers on building trust, compassion, inclusivity, and coaching

employees to grow into strong leaders. Compassion, mentor, employee-centricity, and

inclusivity are themes under the conceptual category of congruity of millennial

117

expectations and characteristics of a servant leader. The comments on compassion came

from P3 and P6 with similar caring remarks. P8 expounded on compassion with a

connection to emulation with “My first manager showed me how to treat every single

employee. When they clock in for work, ask them how they are doing, how is their day?

Then thank them for being there.” Bhardwaj (2022) and Fritsch et al., (2018) stated that

millennials value employees and seek to know and care for the people they lead.

Mentoring is notably the highest percentage of responses to interview questions with

several concise responses. Question 3, what or who has influenced your perception of

successful leadership? received the following responses with mention of multiple

influences.

Figure 1

Responses to Question 3

Figure 1 displays the data gathered in response to question 3. Six participants

named a previous supervisor, manager, or leader a strong influence. Three participants

listed their father or family, two remembered a scoutmaster or previous mentor as a good

118

influence, and one participant added books on leadership as a strong influence. This

analysis supports the millennial expectation of continuous training opportunities from

leadership.

One response from P2, “My manager was great at breaking things down, so we

understood completely,” and “Learning opportunities took on a strategic direction to

improve my performance,” was from the follower’s point of view. The remainder of the

responses with the mentoring theme was provided as a leader in response to the follow-up

question “what action do you take to influence others in the behaviors of a successful

leader? As a leader, P1 wrote that they “train their team to overcome adversity” and P3

mentioned that “Strengths are encouraged, and weak areas are addressed with

coaching.” As a mentor practicing inclusivity, “A successful leader improves the entire

staff’s abilities” (P5) and “patient when others are learning and willing to teach” (P7).

Millennials lead with inclusivity to support collaboration and “…a unified

atmosphere and environment.” (P3). Millennials consider themselves a valuable partner

in decision-making, recognizing opportunities for improvement (Stewart, et al., 2017).

Participant 7 added, "Working cohesively with other departments toward a common

goal,” demonstrating inclusive collaboration. Participant 8 noted, “When a problem arises

in the original goal plan, which often happens with COVID restrictions, working together

to find solutions takes away a bit of the frustration and feelings of isolation.

Supportive or Employee-centric behavior involves “listening to others” (P2),

“assigning tasks by the employee’s skill and familiarity with the task” (P5) and added

119

that “Voluntary turnover could be reduced by training with methods that are best or

needed by the staff.” Participant 8 offered an employee-centric themed response to task

assignment with this comment: “When I assign a task, I first look at the employee’s

strengths and weaknesses and see how the task can benefit … If you don’t think about

how this is helping the employee, you’re not going to be a successful leader. The leader is

only successful if the team is thriving.”

The last theme that emerged was psychological contracts and noted by participant

3’s comment, “With open communication about what is needed to improve performance,

there are chances to advance,” and a broken contract shared by participant 8 expanded the

follow-up question “Where do you see yourself in five years?” that contained contempt.

“Not in retail! We felt punished by the loss of bonuses, 401K match, and reductions in

pay. The fact that the store had an increase in sales in the middle of COVID was not

enough to return our sales bonus.”

Summary

The thematic analyses of the eight participants in this study provided sufficient

results to answer the question posed at the onset of this study. How millennials employed

as managers in the retail industry describe their perceptions and expectations of

successful leadership was the basis for the three conceptual categories described in the

conceptual framework and the 12 themes that emerged from the participants’ responses.

This single case study of the retail industry with an embedded group from the millennial

generation was based on three concepts. The first is that societal influence determines

120

commonalities of behavior in a generation, joined by the idea that an individual’s

upbringing shapes adult behavior (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).

The cognitive model of behavior was used to understand how observation

influences behavior, and continuance of the behavior is dependent on the received

response, and the aspects of servant leadership outlined by Barbuto and Gottfredson

(2016, p 62) serves as a model of leadership behavior that mirrors the Millennials’

expectations. The themes that emerged in data analysis were

adaptability/accommodating, authenticity/transparency, ethical behavior, trustworthiness,

authoritarian, desire to emulate or avoid, workplace/organizational culture, compassion,

mentor, supportive, employee-centric, and psychological contracts.

The responses to the interview questions revealed a clear outline of millennial

perceptions of successful leadership as a follower and how they conduct themselves as

leaders in the retail industry. One discrepant response, "Voluntary turnover is sometimes

just about better opportunities, not leadership" (P2), added to the strong feelings of

continuous growth recorded in the literature review. The interpretation of these findings

was compared with the peer-review literature in chapter 2 and the recommendations in

chapter 5 for further research. Chapter 5 concludes with the implications for theory,

social change, professional practice, and my conclusion to the study.

121

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

This qualitative case study involved exploring experiences of millennials

employed as managers in the retail industry and their expectations of successful

leadership. I used a single case study of the retail industry with an embedded group

identified as millennials. A qualitative approach was used for a holistic view on the

phenomena, and the bricolage approach encouraged multidisciplinary inquiry and

multidimensional philosophies. I addressed the gap between purported retail leadership

and millennials’ self-descriptions, my recommendations, and implications for social

change.

Interpretation of Findings

In this section, I interpreted findings of this qualitative case study involving the

retail industry via thematic analysis of responses provided by an embedded group of

millennial leaders. Findings confirm or extend knowledge in the discipline. I categorized

responses from semi-structured interviews as confirming, discrepant, or an extension of

existing knowledge. I discussed societal or generational influence, observational

influence, and congruity of millennial expectations and characteristics of servant leaders.

I identified findings as follower or leader perception of successful leadership.

Societal or Generational Influence

Age and societal influence generational perceptions of leadership. Gruda et al.

(2018) said leadership qualities influence perceptions. Mannheim (1952) said events

shared by a group influence collective perspective. COVID-19 and environmental and

122

social changes were reflected in participants’ responses. Life experiences, perceptions of

those experiences, and leadership expectations resulting from those experiences

comprised millennial leader behavior during the pandemic.

I identified the millennials’ expected successful leadership characteristics,

including transparency, training, mentoring, social consciousness, empathy, open

communication, authenticity, and ethical behavior. One bias that remains is generational

stereotyping. To avoid generational stereotyping, leaders should accommodate

workforces based on societal influence rather than biological age.

Adaptability

Participants expressed they wanted their work to impact their employers and

society. They emphasized flexibility, collaboration, and adequate training for the job to

facilitate a more rapid ascent to leadership roles compared to previous generations. The

desire for professional growth influences millennials’ loyalty to an organization.

P4 said, “we are not a hard worker generation, but a smart worker generation. We

look for companies with innovation and an open mindset to move forward.” Millennials

look for a balance of meeting organizational goals and validating their positional purpose

and openness to inclusive leadership. They are impulsive and often disregard the chain of

command when they have a solution to a problem, but in retail, the customer is more

important than the rules. One observation I noticed during a follow-up interview P7 was

how they adapted quickly to a maintenance problem with an exit door. First, they called

the repair company, and then the corporate office for approval. P7 said, “If I waited for

123

corporate, I would have had to wait until Monday for an appointment or pay double for

the weekend.”

As society’s needs change, the employee became more than a business tool. The

retail industry has adapted to every social change necessary for sustainability, but the

time has come for management to evaluate, reconstruct, and create new leadership

criteria to accommodate the evolution of workers. In describing a successful leader, P1

said, “I have learned from leaders I didn't consider inspirational but were in a position of

authority and had achieved success.” P4 said, “A lot of baby boomer leaders use scare

tactics; to get compliance.” Codrea-Rado (2019) said millennials feel micromanaged

because they are not trusted to perform tasks. Millennials are ambitious about finding a

balance between meeting organizational expectations of leadership and millennial

expectations of adaptability.

Authenticity

Open and frequent communications were noted in most responses and involved

transparency and trustworthiness, which are components of authentic leadership.

Millennials entered the workforce with expectations involving inclusivity(Gabrielova &

Buchko, 2021; Holtschlag et al., 2020; Nolan, 2015; Twenge, 2006). Moreover,

millennials believe respect for leadership is earned, and loyalty is withheld until deemed

worthy (Anderson et al., 2017; Tulgan, 2015). Identified leadership characteristics of the

millennial generation align with emerging authentic and servant leadership theories.

124

I identified authentic leadership themes of communication involving performance

expectations and building trust in the literature review and data collected from the

millennials' interview responses. Millennials view leadership as either a positive or

negative example of performance, depending on the leader's authenticity. If a leader's

information cannot be discounted, then a relationship of trust is formed, and the leader

becomes a positive force. Amunkete and Rothmann (2015) reported that authentic

relational transparency leads to performance improvement and job satisfaction. Jiang and

Men (2017) and Xiong et al. (2016) expounded on authentic leadership as perceived as

transparent and building trust with employees.

More recent input acknowledged that authentic leadership is a philosophy with a

humanistic focus based on a journey of self-awareness culminating in the self-

actualization of an individual and unique purpose in life (Johnson, 2019; Nikolic et al.,

2020). Self-actualization is the pinnacle of success for millennials because they strive to

be part of something bigger than themselves, to make a difference, feel purposeful,

fulfilled, and get paid while changing the world.

I included Maslow's hierarchy of needs in my review of the literature to support a

generational need to progress through stages of personal development (Maslow, 1998).

Responses from participants 1, 2, 3, and 8 offered comments aligned with authentic

communication and supported the millennial expectation of validation to progress in their

personal development (Bilge et al., 2021). "Clear communication around expectations

when assigning tasks" and "Trust and open communication set the tone of the

125

workplace," and "I expect honest, straightforward feedback [from leaders] …feedback is

the key to growth." Millennials see feedback as validation of success or a plan for

improvement. The quicker they master the task, the quicker they can move on to the next

challenge.

Ethical Behavior 

Trustworthiness in leaders and the observation of ethical behavior build

employees' self-efficacy and overall psychological capital. My description of ethical

judgment is a philosophy of right and wrong behavior and how a right decision for one

might result in a wrong decision for all. Enacting the right decision involves careful

thought about the outcome of the decision concerning the whole (Hegarty & Moccia,

2018). A leader's individualistic ethical decision might result in behavior viewed as

unethical for the organization or community or have even further consequences.

Millennial interest in ethical leadership stems from news accounts of corporate

scandals of misbehavior that left employees jobless and financially ruined in the early

2000s. The millennial generation is not unique in its distrust and disdain of unethical

behavior. In the background of the generations in chapter 1, every generation has

experienced a breach of leadership ethics. Participant 4 made the following comment that

as a follower, they expected a leader to "do the right thing without expecting validation."

Participant 6 supported the expectation of a follower with "I expect leadership not to be

corrupt." Hegarty and Moccia (2018) wrote that an ethical environment involves clear

consequences to actions that result in a loss of trust in the leader-follower and follower-

126

follower relationship. Leadership theories include some type of quid-pro-quo that the

employee adopts as external motivation to perform, and a psychological contract is an

example of unethical behavior.

Millennials expect leaders to be ethical in treating followers, e.g., clear, and

concise communication regarding expectations, task assignment, and equality in

mentoring or training. The breakdown of psychological contracts is considered a break in

trust, loss of transparency from leadership, and detrimental to morale. Psychological

contracts are expectations of reward based on performance obligations (Solomon, 2019).

The reaction of P8 to the loss of tangible bonus compensation and the lack of recognition

from superiors for the staff's performance during COVID was a clear example of a

broken contract. The withdrawal of contingent compensation resulted in P8's loss of trust

in leadership and ultimate resignation.  

Observational Influence

I drew the conceptual category of observational influence from Albert Bandura's

work on the cognitive-behavioral model. The Cognitive Model of Behavior contains a

mediational process that involves the individual observing, remembering, determining the

possibility of mimicry, and imitating the behavior (Bandura, 1977). As the responses

from the participants transferred from follower to leader, there was evidence of

observation and emulation of behavior that aligned with millennials' expectations of

successful leadership. In the comment, "I have learned from good, bad, and indifferent

leaders. You learn what to repeat, and what to avoid. What works, and what doesn't,"

127

participant 1 expressed that those lessons about successful leadership came from

"watching interactions with other employees and learning about the impact." The impact

of observational influence on the development of a millennial leadership style came from

a comment by participant 8. In response to the interview question, who or what has

influenced your perception of successful leadership, P8 shared that "My first manager

showed me how to treat every single employee. When they clock in for work, ask them

how they are doing and how is their day? Then thank them for being there." Empathy is

necessary for building trust through honest and open support communication for another

person (Kohl, 2021). Demonstrating empathy is a cornerstone for servant leadership and

a perceived quality of successful leadership by millennials.

Workplace culture

The negative observations are essential lessons in unsuccessful behavior and are

evident in the workplace culture-themed comments from participants with expectations of

partnership in decision making. Participant 8 commented, "If you do not have a great

relationship with your team, it will show in your 'numbers' and your personal life."

Anderson et al. (2017) and Twenge (2006) argued that millennials respect each other's

strengths, offer help to improve performance, and ensure that resources are available for

the task. Participant 8 supports the argument with the observation that "where adequate

tools or training to complete a task are ignored [by management], it sets the employee up

for failure." Millennial leaders value collaboration, empowerment, and creating a

workforce that encourages growth through innovation (Albanese, 2018). I carried these

128

observations over into the development of the millennials' successful leadership style

explained under the conceptual category of the congruity of millennial expectations and

characteristics of a servant leader.

Congruity of Millennial Expectations and Characteristics of a Servant Leader

There has been no single leadership style for millennials emerge, but this study

revealed many aspects of servant leadership (SL) in the participants’ comments. The

literature review of the millennial generation and the characteristics of servant leadership

led to the inclusion of the congruity of millennial expectations and the philosophy that

outlines how consideration of others increases self-and group efficacy (Bilge et al.,

2021). The original idea of SL is a broad concept of putting others before yourself with

the demonstration of altruism, emotional healing, wisdom, encouragement, and

stewardship (Greenleaf, 1977). Subsequent research and accounts expand on Greenleaf’s

descriptions to define the characteristics of SL with specificity to distinct behaviors.

Servant leadership has similarities and outcomes to diverse behavior and

leadership theories that support the overarching guidelines of showing kindness and are

characterized in current literature as authentic, empathetic, compassionate, employee-

centric, mentoring, listening, inclusive, and empowering. Fritsch et al. (2018) argued that

millennials are authentic, promote collaboration, are employee-centric, and are active

mentors, resulting in a more inclusive and connected work culture. Participant 5 noted

that "tasks are assigned by the employee's skill and familiarity with the task." Participant

8 explained employee-centric behavior as being considerate "when assigning a task, I

129

first look at the employee's strengths and weaknesses and see how the task can benefit …

If you don't think about how this is helping the employee, you're not going to be a

successful leader." The leader is only successful if the team is thriving." Millennials bring

a new definition to leadership with continuous feedback and training just as they

expected from a successful leader.

Mentoring

Mentoring had the highest percentage of responses from the participants as a

characteristic of a successful leader. The participants stated the importance of a follower

that "my manager was great at breaking things down, so we understand completely" and

"Learning opportunities took on a strategic direction to improve my performance" (P2).

Millennials expect initial and ongoing training with a mentor dedicated to career

advancement (Anderson et al., 2017), aligning with the ambition to move up the

corporate ladder. Gabriel et al. (2020) reported that millennials want to be mentored as

they gain leadership skills. Participant 1 commented that "mentoring is part of successful

leadership and being a leader means training their team to overcome adversity." Being

mentored and being a mentor develops a loyalty that reduces the need to look to other

companies for the opportunity to gain knowledge and reach personal goals. 

The idea of mentorship as a characteristic of a millennial leader has merit based

on their expectations as a follower combined with strong inclinations for collaboration.

While gaining the needed leadership skills, millennials are influenced by previous

mentors and experiences and use the acquired knowledge to mentor across the

130

generations (Gabriel et al. (2020). Millennials are natural networkers, eager to seek

answers and share knowledge, becoming natural mentors.

Half of the participants responded to who had the most significant influence on

their successful leadership development with a supervisor, manager, or leader with

comments about learning through behavior observation. The observed mentoring

behavior and evidence of emulation were noted in the remarks of a leader's perspective

by participant 3 "strengths are encouraged, and weak areas are addressed with coaching."

Participants 5 and 7 offered their interpretation of mentoring as "a successful leader

improves the entire staff's abilities" and "[being] patient when others are learning and

[being] willing to teach." Senge (2006) included in his research on learning organizations

that for the lesson to be adopted into practice, the teacher must practice what they teach,

stressing the importance of learning as part of teaching. There are no boundaries to

mentoring or being mentored.

Mentoring no longer describes an age-based dyad in a multi-generational

workforce but a knowledge-based relationship. (Gabriel et al., 2020; Hernandez et al.,

2018). Based on reciprocity, millennials mirror the support received from supervisors,

etc., with instruction in areas of knowledge like technology. Through knowledge sharing,

reverse mentoring mirrors the millennials' expectations of an inclusive work environment

and servant leadership.

Inclusivity

131

Inclusive workplace culture is an essential characteristic of successful leadership

by millennial followers, with the stated comment that "a successful leader creates a

unified atmosphere and environment" (P3). Inclusion, by millennial standard, is described

as promoting equal participation in decision-making, collaboration, establishing and

encouraging mentoring, and open (and often) communication (Gabrielova & Buchko,

2021). A significant shift in behavior occurred with the struggles during COVID.

Millennials consider themselves valuable partners in decision-making, recognizing

opportunities for improvement (Stewart et al., 2017). "Sometimes you need to have

problem-solving and critical thinking skills to fix the problem" (P4). The adaptability and

flexibility that millennials noted as successful leadership examples were shared by

participants 6 and 8. "During COVID, we were all [millennials] thrown into a scramble to

keep the stores open. That time did give us opportunities to think creatively about serving

our customers. The biggest challenge during COVID was how big staff reduction was.

Because of a ‘whoever can make it to work is boss today’ corporate mentality, there was

an emergence of leadership that may have never happened. A lot of great ideas were

born." Participants 4, 6, and 8 indicated the shift in retail leadership. According to my

findings, millennials lead with a style that promotes generational expectations and

continued intentions of shifting to a new paradigm.

132

Limitations of the Study

The limitations to trustworthiness arose during the data collection phase of this

study. I began data collection in August 2019 with the distribution of my invitation letter

on the LinkedIn online community platform. My initial distribution included posting a

message asking for help with my research with the invitation and consent attached to 150

connections. I received three positive responses from the initial posting that matched the

inclusion criteria and four that did not but offered to pass it to their contacts.

Snowballing was not the original plan for data collection, but I did receive the

remainder of the participants by this method. Only one followed through of the three

respondents at the onset of data collection, but with reservations about being recorded.

The participant and I agreed to complete the questionnaire online due to work and family

time restraints.

The following limitation was environmental. Before the snowballed recruitment

came to fruition, COVID restrictions and concerns became a psychological issue. During

the turbulent times of COVID quarantines in 2020, answering research questions was not

the welcome diversion I had hoped. During the quarantine, I sent personal messages

through LinkedIn to individuals meeting the inclusion criteria to see if they would

reconsider participating and only received a few well-wishers. I received an extension

from IRB in August 2020 and reposted the invitation to LinkedIn, and the first snowball

result came through. The last of the follow-up interviews were completed in June of

2021. Even with the limitations of sample size, limited access to a participant pool, and

133

the issue of the collection method, I found that the responses were rich with information

despite the limitations.

Recommendations

The fast-paced environment of the retail industry, brought about by an ever-

changing merchandising requirement to meet consumers’ needs, causes difficulty for

leadership to behave in anything but an authoritarian style. Retail leadership was modeled

after the manufacturing industry’s hierarchical organization, with the decisions made at

the top and not questioned at the bottom. Decisions were in the company's best interest

with little regard for the worker’s thoughts or needs, which was fine until the millennial

generation.

Occupations in the retail industry account for 6.3% of the total U.S. workforce,

with over half between 16 and 34 (Anderson, 2020). According to the Deloitte Global

Survey (2021), millennials maintain their belief that people should come before profit,

and they continue to shift the leadership paradigm to include advocacy for social change

(Khilji & List, 2021). The challenge to the decades-old status quo is balancing

sustainability with a generation of leaders who desire employment with an organization

that values innovation and inclusivity.

The literature review from behavior theorists and researchers from the field of

leadership grounded by behaviorists and direct leaders of millennials supported a

consensus of high job turnover due to job dissatisfaction. Research in leadership has

linked job retention with the performance of the leader and the employee. The years of

134

research on job satisfaction as a retention tool leans toward leadership performance. The

workforce has even adopted the mantra of “people quit bosses, not jobs” to solidify that

turnover can be avoided if only we had better leaders. The mantra leads to the following

recommendation.

Accuracy in Research

This study aimed to explore the experiences of millennials employed as managers

in the retail industry and their expectations of effective leadership. My initial literature

review indicated a gap in the accuracy of reporting the consistently above-average

turnover percentage. Retail is not readily considered a career choice but a job that

provides an income while studying for an unrelated career (Broadbridge et al., 2009;

Heidig et al., 2018). Leaving an organization where the employee means only to have a

financial source to fulfill basic human needs to continue a perhaps non-business career

path should not be a leadership flaw. Additionally, the loss of employees who view retail

as a "means to an end" and leave because of career opportunities should not be

considered victims of ineffective leadership. As participant 2 in my research commented,

"voluntary turnover is sometimes just about better opportunities, not leadership." Only in

the current literature has the idea of retail being a transitional and temporary source of

income highlighted the millennials' considerations of successful leadership as having

nothing to do with leading but more with getting out of the way of other's progress.

I recommend that future research in retail leadership use the seminal study of

organizational learning advocated by Senge (2006) as a theoretical approach for

135

organizations to support collaboration, innovation, and continuous learning. Senge (2006)

said:

Deming shared that our prevailing system of management has destroyed our

people. People are born with intrinsic motivation, self-respect, dignity, curiosity to learn,

and joy in learning. The forces of destruction begin with toddlers – a prize for the best

Halloween costume, grades in school, gold stars – and on up through the university.

People, teams, and divisions are ranked on the job, a reward for the top and punishment

for the bottom. Management by Objectives, quotas, incentive pay, business plans, put

together separately, division by division, cause further loss, unknown and unknowable.

(p. xii)

Deming (in Senge, 2006) acknowledged the misalignment of management

practices with the workforce's expectations, realizing the failure stemmed from behaviors

embedded in parental and institutional instruction. Gabrielova and Buchko (2021)

reported that millennials are bringing their life experiences and expectations of behavior

as they establish a leadership style that aligns with the incoming generation Z.

Inclusivity, social consciousness, two-way communication, and collaboration are

characteristics shared by the generations (Khilji & List, 2021). The supposition of

socialized expectations aligns with millennial expectations of successful leadership and

the generational characteristics outlined in my literature review.

Future research in turnover intentions based on career goals should include the

question of reciprocating organizational loyalty for employee-centric behavior.

136

Leadership extends support of the employee's deficiencies and establishes mentoring in

the workplace to signify the existence of essential interpersonal skills (Marbun, 2021).

Holtschlag et al. (2020) explored the connection between a turnover decrease and loyalty

increase with the argument that individuals receiving recognition and encouragement for

their career goals are more likely to remain where personal goals are supported.

Concerning the retail industry, I refer to the research by Broadbridge et al. (2009),

where research participants described a career in retail as "uninteresting and providing

limited advancement," and Heidig et al.'s (2018) research responses included "dull and

poor salary." A current contribution to retail research by Gauri and Grewal (2021)

outlined a proposition of collaboration between academics and practitioners to identify

the problems in retail operations and direct the research to find workable solutions. Gauri

and Grewal continued with praise for several institutions of higher learning that regularly

interact as partners with the retail industry and serve as research centers. The National

Retail Federation established a foundation that sponsors a free program, Rise Up, offering

training and credentialing to train for jobs in the retail industry (National Retail

Federation, 2022). Further research is recommended to continue searching for the balance

of profit and people in an industry that relies on a transient workforce.

An additional recommendation for consideration would be the effect of COVID

on the millennials' perception of leadership. Responses from the participants in this study

commented on behaviors aligned with servant leadership and situational theory. Further

137

research would contribute to the field of leadership and an emerging theory of a

millennial leadership style.

Implications

Positive Social Change

Industry Facts

According to the NRF (2020), the retail industry provides 32 million jobs that are

directly related to the operation of the business and 52 million jobs in total, with a

contribution of $3.9 trillion to the U.S. GDP. Retail supports first the employee by

providing income and position-dependent benefits of health care and retirement. Second,

retail supports the community by providing jobs for the residents and taxes that provide

income for the city. Retail also provides income for the transportation, manufacturing,

and advertising industry. Retail began as a service to the community, a way for

consumers to obtain manufactured goods, and it continues that mission. Still, the cost of

turnover remains the most significant drain on the industry's financial stability.

Generational Influence

The largest consumer group to date, the millennials, have begun to insert their

ideas of successful leadership into organizational operations to align their values with

how they lead. The generation mirroring the millennials in size and buying power is

generation Z (approximately 1996- 2011), and the generations agree on a higher loyalty

to socially conscious businesses. Best and Mitchell (2018) commented that millennials

consider a company's contributions to the community when choosing a job. For retail

138

organizations to continue and flourish in the job market, the work environment needs to

be attractive to potential employees. Choosing retail as a job can depend on the

company's social image and the perception held by the potential employee. P8

questioned, "can I be proud of where I work?" Millennials and Generation Z will support

businesses, internally and externally, if they are giving back to the community.

Recruitment and Retention

Recruitment and retention belong in the realm of social change implications

because reducing the turnover rate in the retail industry will contribute to the “triple

bottom line.” The triple bottom line is defined as widening the focus of business goals

from profit only to including people and the planet (Bohlmann et al., 2018; Miller, 2020).

The latter two, people and planet, comprise the basis of Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR), known as the behavior model for organizations involving awareness of their

influence on the stakeholders, community, and the GDP (Mehedi & Jalaludin, 2020).

Stakeholders, in this context, are potential employees with high levels of social

consciousness that influence their purchases and choice of companies where they work.

Promoting an organization’s pledge to CSR and creating opportunities for

collaboration on CSR projects would increase the positivity of a retail career and

retention (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2017). Ghosh (2016) commented that millennials insist

on CSR to avoid a repeat of the fall of Greece and move toward a more meaningful

approach to the measurement of success. The implications of higher visibility of CSR

139

could create a ripple effect on the GDP, from the direct employment in a community to

the support of suppliers, manufacturers, and logistics providers of the retail industry.

Theoretical Implications

The discussions of the millennials' leadership style are majorly speculative. It is

not easy to establish an opinion of practical theory application when the formation is in

progress. The choice of a single way to lead retail is, in reality, never going to happen

because of the fluctuating environment and the increasing level of knowledge needed to

survive (Blair, 2020; Keevy & Perumal, 2014). Some days, followers are looking for

strong authoritarian leadership, and other times, collaboration is expected. A successful

leader in retail knows the correct approach for each situation, and the authoritarian

approach and hierarchical structure will be difficult to eliminate.

Situational Leadership

The situational leadership theory could have a place in the retail environment

because of the fast pace and continuous changes in products and procedures. During

COVID, leaders used situational leadership to adjust the organization's goals to create

new sources of revenue that aligned with societal needs (Stewart, 2021). Situational

leadership dictates that certain occurrences, internal or external, require the appropriate

leadership style. Graeff (1997) reviewed the evolution of the Situational Leadership

Theory from its inception and found arguments against its robustness, the consensus

being that confidence in one area of performance does not preclude success in another.

Graeff included the theorists' proclamation that "model" would be a better description.

140

There are individuals that, based on behavior and performance, exude an air of

confidence, self-efficacy, and the ability to shift to the appropriate style of leadership

when encountered with change (Stewart, 2021). Participants in this study that responded

during COVID commented on the importance of adaptability in leadership and the ability

to guide staff through adversity effectively.

Servant Leadership

As the philosophical base of the conceptual framework for this study, I connected

the tenets of servant leadership with the millennials' perception of successful leadership.

All definitions of servant leadership are derived from Robert Greenleaf's writings about

serving a higher purpose than yourself and a mantra based on selfless behavior (Langhof

& Guldenberg, 2020). Greenleaf (1977) said:

Does those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become

healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely to become servants?

And what is the effect on the least privileged in society? The natural servant, the

person who is servant-first, serves another's highest priority needs (p. 27)

Millennial characteristics have strong leanings toward servant leadership (SL), but the

attributes of SL should be used as a behavioral approach to the implementation of other

theories (Grisaffe et al., 2016). Greenleaf (1977) did include the leader attribute of a

leader having the courage in times of critical decisions to be first to act instead of

delegating the task. Personal and professional goals are items of importance to the

millennials and do fall under the purview of SL in the category of encouragement and a

141

commitment to a follower's growth. The expectations of millennials to have a work/life

balance aligns with the SL philosophy of taking time to rejuvenate and restore the energy

levels required to serve.

Supporting Theories

Supporting authentic, ethical, and transformational leadership theories are similar

to servant leadership and are mentioned in Greenleaf's original collection of essays.

Authentic leaders know their strengths and weaknesses, communicate with transparency,

are considered trustworthy, and lead with integrity. They inspire trust because of their

transparency and listening skills but demonstrate a little positive effect on employees'

work-life balance (Jiang & Men, 2017). Authentic leaders exhibit the positive attributes

of SL and set the moral compass for the organization but may demonstrate a lack of

empathy and forgiveness when it comes to an employee's ethical misjudgments.

Several terms are used to describe the components of ethical behavior; integrity,

justness, and fairness, with a definition as a guideline of behavior considered proper by

social mores. Greenleaf (1977) described an ethical society as free from manipulation and

mediocrity. An ethical leader refrains from manipulation for their benefit, and mediocrity

is the enemy of growth and performance excellence.

Transformational leadership may work in tandem with SL due to the similarities

in organizational change, commitment, and work engagement. As an organizational

change agent, they are in their element of mentorship, empowerment, development,

support, and care (Bass & Riggio). The transformational leader is inspirational, builds a

142

culture of teamwork, is inclusive, collaborative, uses the feelings of belongingness to

inspire employees toward team or organizational goals, and relies on setting a positive

leadership example in times of change, inspiring followers to envision success (Murtaza

et al., 2021). With additional research into the challenges businesses endured to survive

the pandemic, a study of transformational leadership blended with situational and SL to

meet the crisis would contribute to the CSR and leadership field of study. One negative

aspect of a transformational leader is a primary concern of leader performance, and

followers may mistake charisma for authenticity and trustworthiness.

Recommendations for Practice

Millennial Contribution – The Paradigm Shift

The millennial generation as leaders brings a paradigm shift to the retail industry.

Bottomley and Willie Burgess (2018) reported that among the millennials' leadership

skills, remaining calm and patient in crisis were high on the list of characteristics. The

first-hand reports of the challenges during COVID indicated successful leadership by

millennial leaders. Participants 7 and 8 spoke about the rise of co-leadership and

interdependence aligned with millennial characteristics of a collaborative leadership style

(Gabriel et al., 2020). With the information gathered from literature and interviews, I was

able to align the characteristics of millennial leaders in the retail industry with how their

behavior is shifting the practice of retail leadership.

The shift from a "top-down" involves a reminder that employees are the number

one asset to retail success. Albanese (2018) commented that organizations with a rigid

143

structure of processes limit employees in their personal growth. Langhof and Guldenberg

(2020) reminded readers that Greenleaf's thesis on servant leadership places the

follower's needs ahead of business outcomes which in the literal sense seems detrimental

to organizational survival. The philosophy of servant leadership supports the largest asset

to the sustainability of the retail industry if the actual lines from Greenleaf are followed.

Millennials feel strongly about continuous growth and count it as a reason for

turnover and retention, as mentioned by the participants in this study. "Voluntary

turnover is sometimes just about better opportunities, not leadership" (P2). The future

practice of leadership in the retail industry would benefit from asking employees about

their personal goals and encouraging them in their pursuit. The retail industry can reduce

turnover by simply partnering with employees when they need the flexibility of a retail

schedule. An organization that values the employees' personal goals enacts reciprocity in

loyalty and an increased time of employment (Holtschlag et al., 2020; Naim & Lenka,

2020). Gabriel et al. (2020) commented that millennials want to be leaders and remain

longer with an organization if their development needs are met.

Lifetime employment in retail is as much a career choice born of a calling or

passion as any other vocation. Individuals are drawn to the retail industry for various

reasons, but those that endure have a servant's heart and can fill a desire to help others.

The individual who works part-time, 28% of the labor force, places a higher premium on

the social atmosphere rather than promotion possibilities (Clinebell & Taylor, 2016). The

question arises whether serving the part-time employees with the attitude of thankfulness

144

for their service and invitation of inclusiveness would alter retail's reputation as a "last

resort" job. This population is under-researched and an attractive proposition for future

examination to learn if a servant leadership style would influence their perception of a

career in retail or feel supported while pursuing higher education for their "non-retail"

career goal. The strain on retail leadership to survive the pandemic revealed the strength

of the millennial generation to be the leaders in the industry that can adapt, empower,

empathize, encourage, and maintain organizational goals.

Conclusions

The beginnings of this study of the millennials' expectations of leadership were

designed to discover and compile knowledge to answer one question. The answer to how

millennials employed as managers in the retail industry were described by 8 participants

by interview who supplied their perceptions and expectations of successful leadership.

The turn of events amid this study, COVID-19, had a surprising effect on participants'

responses as they quickly morphed from a follower perspective to a leader perspective in

8 months and expanded this study to a higher level of discovery. The fear that seasoned

retail managers had for the ability of millennials to lead was replaced with awe of the

generation's capabilities to adapt to the industry's challenges. Still, the paradox remains to

be a paradigm shift requiring trust and adaptability, and the generation promoting trust

and adaptability in leadership is not trusted to adapt to organizational expectations.

Previously established hierarchical organizations had placed their faith in proven

techniques of sustaining a standard of operation that maintained a healthy bottom line.

145

The high turnover rate and the implications of such a loss have garnished little research

or reaction from retail leadership. The retail industry's sustainability and continued

growth are essential to their substantial contribution to the United States' GDP. Future

research on a leadership style that addresses the avoidable causes of voluntary turnover

will ensure the generational expectation of successful leaders is met with higher job

satisfaction and continued industry contribution.

The millennial generation leads with a servant's heart; they live with a servant's

attitude. They still have much to learn and insist that someone show them. They still want

to experience life outside of work, find it essential to maintain social relationships, and

seek an inclusive culture in employment choices. They still prefer to text than talk, not

because, as early researchers believed, of a lack of social skills, but texting is faster, and

time is precious. Most of their skills have evolved from life experiences, but unlike

previous reports, they can relate to other generations because of the immense need to

know everything and no fear of asking why. They respect each other’s choices and

believe that people matter more than profit. Their purchasing power has shamed

corporations to improve CSR, and their curiosity will change the face of retail leadership.

The findings in this study confirmed that the correct leadership style for the millennial

generation is the one a follower respects and emulates.

146

References

Akers, K. L. (2018). Leading after the boom: Developing future leaders from a future

leader’s perspective. Journal of Management Development, 37(1), 2–5.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2016-0042

Albanese, J. (2018). Four ways millennials are transforming leadership. Inc.

https://www.inc.com

Alvesson, M., & Blom, M. (2015). Less followership, less leadership? An inquiry into the

basic but seemingly forgotten downsides of leadership. M@n@gement, 18(3),

266–282. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-28509-006

Amunkete, S., & Rothmann, S. (2015). Authentic leadership, psychological capital, job

satisfaction and intention to leave in state-owned enterprises. Journal of

Psychology in Africa, 25, 271-281.

https://www.doi.org/10.1080/143303237.2015.1078082

Anderson, D. A. (2020). Retail jobs among the most common occupations.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/profile-of-the-retail-

workforce.html

Anderson, D. A., & Laughlin, L. (2020). Retail workers: 2018. American Community

Survey Reports, ACS-44, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2020.

www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/acs-44.pdf

Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you

may not work for (Gen)Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new

https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2016-0042

https://www.inc.com/

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-28509-006

https://www.doi.org/10.1080/143303237.2015.1078082

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/profile-of-the-retail-workforce.html

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/acs-44.pdf

147

generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245–260.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001

Arellano, K. (2015). 4/7 - The generational shift in the workplace: Are we ready?

Integral Leadership Review, 144–153. http://integralleadershipreview.com/12937-

47-the-generational-shift-in-the-workplace-are-we-ready/

Arslan, A., & Staub, S. (2013). Theory X and theory Y type leadership behavior and its

impact on organizational performance: Small business owners in the sishane

lighting and chandelier district. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75 (3

April 2013), 102-11. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.012

Babbie, E. R. (2016). The practice of social research (14th ed). Cengage Learning.

Bako, M. (2018). Different leadership style choices, different generations. Prizren Social

Science Journal, 2(2), 127-143.

https://prizrenjournal.com/index.php/PSSJ/article/view/46

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.

Barbuto, J. E. J., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2016). Human capital, the millennial’s reign, and

the need for servant leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(2), 59–63.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21474

Barkema, H. G., Chen, X., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A. (2015). West meets east:

New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 460-

279. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4021

Bawany, S. (2017). The art and practice of servant leadership: Importance of empathy as

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001

http://integralleadershipreview.com/12937-47-the-generational-shift-in-the-workplace-are-we-ready/

https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.012

https://prizrenjournal.com/index.php/PSSJ/article/view/46

https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21474

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4021

148

an emotional & social intelligence competency for servant leaders. Leadership

Excellence Essentials, 34(11), 34–35.

https://www.executivedevelopment.com/art-practice-servant-leadership/

Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal

of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 299-

314.https://doi.org/10.1177/1658051814529993

Berisha, G., & Lajçi, R. (2020). Fit to last? Investigating how person-job fit and person-

organization fit affect turnover intention in the retail context. Organizations and

Markets in Emerging Economies, 11(22), 407–428.

https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2020.11.40

Best, E., & Mitchell, N. (2018, October 24). Millennials, Gen Z, and the future of

sustainability: Two ways to engage the next generation of customers and

employees. https://www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/blog-view/millennials-generation-

z-future-of-sustainable-business

Bhana, A., & Bayat, M. S. (2020). The relationship between ethical leadership styles and

employees’ effective work practices. International Journal of Higher Education

9(4), p 128-137. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n4p128

Bhardwaj, A. (2022). Organizational culture and effective leadership in academic

medical institutions. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 14, 25-30.

https://www.doi.org/10.2147/JHL.S358414

Bilge, H., Virlanuta, F. O., Zungun, D., Barbuta-Misu, N., Comuk, P., & Guven, E. T. A.

https://www.executivedevelopment.com/art-practice-servant-leadership/

https://doi.org/10.1177/1658051814529993

https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2020.11.40

https://www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/blog-view/millennials-generation-z-future-of-sustainable-business

https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n4p128

https://www.doi.org/10.2147/JHL.S358414

149

(2021). Generation Y’s perception of servant leadership and job satisfaction.

Economies, 9(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9010024

Blair, A. (2020). Are today’s retail leaders qualified to manage the post-COVID-19

future? Retail TouchPoints. Retrieved from:

https://www.retailtouchpoints.com/topics/customer-experience/are-todays-retail-

leaders-qualified-to-manage-the-post-covid-19-future

Blakemore, E. (2018, November 19). How 19th-century women used department stores to

gain their freedom. And ditch their chaperones. History.

https://www.history.com/news/how-19th-century-women-used-department-stores-

to-gain-their-freedom

Blumberga, S., & Austruma, S. (2015). Psychological climate, leadership style and

workplace stress at fuel & retail company. Journal of Business Management, 9,

56–62. https://www.riseba.lv/sites/default/files/inline-files/jbm2015.1__0.pdf

Bodenhausen, C., & Curtis, C. (2016). Transformational Leadership and Employee

Involvement: Perspectives from Millennial Workforce Entrants. Journal of

Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(3), 371–387.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2015.1048920

Bohlmann, C., Krumbholz, L., & Zacher, H. (2018). The triple bottom line and

organizational attractiveness ratings: The role of pro‐environmental

attitude. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 25(5),

912–919. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1507

https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9010024

https://www.retailtouchpoints.com/topics/customer-experience/are-todays-retail-leaders-qualified-to-manage-the-post-covid-19-future

https://www.history.com/news/how-19th-century-women-used-department-stores-to-gain-their-freedom

https://www.riseba.lv/sites/default/files/inline-files/jbm2015.1__0.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2015.1048920

https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1507

150

Bolser, K., & Gosciej, R. (2015). Millennials: Multi-Generational Leaders Staying

Connected. Journal of Practical Consulting, 5(2), 1–9. ISSN 1930-806X.

https://www.regent.edu

Bottomley, K., & Willie Burgess, S. (2018). Changing generations in today's workforce:

Leadership skills for Millennials. Employment Relations Today. 2018; 44:5–9.

doi.org/10.1002/ert.21651

Bree, R., & Gallagher, G. (2016). Using Microsoft excel to code and thematically analyse

qualitative data: a simple, cost-effective approach. All Ireland Journal of

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 8(2) 2811-2824. Retrieved from:

http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/ [281]

Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Broadbridge, A. M., Maxwell, G. A., & Ogden, S. M. (2009). Selling retailing to

Generation Y graduates: recruitment challenges and opportunities. The

International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 19(4), 405–

420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593960903331394

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Job openings and labor turnover. https://data.bls.gov

Caius, L. (2018). Rural Market -- Food Retail. Agricultural Management / Lucrari

Stiintifice Seria I, Management Agricol, 20(1), 65-

70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277405489

Castaldo, J. (2017). The death of the department store (1796-2017. Maclean’s, 130(12),

https://www.regent.edu/

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/doi.org/10.1002/ert.21651

http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/%20%5b281%5d

https://doi.org/10.1080/09593960903331394

https://data.bls.gov

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277405489

151

74. https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/the-death-of-the-department-

store-1796-2017/

Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: the interview protocol

refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811+. 

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A456275787/AONE?u=anon~fcfa0591&sid=googl

eScholar&xid=e721ccc1

Cherry, K. (2021). What is reciprocal determinism? Verywellmind.com (May 2, 2021).

The 3 Factors of Reciprocal Determinism (verywellmind.com)

Chinyerere, E., & Sandada, M. (2018). Job related outcomes in relation to servant

leadership. EuroEconomica 1(37) 138-150. http://journals.univ-

danubius.ro/index.php/euroeconomica/article/view/4375/4495 

Clinebell, S., & Taylor, R. (2016). Services marketing: A measure that examines job-

related attitudes of employees in the service sector. Academy of Marketing Studies

Journal 20(2). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312228342

Codrea-Rado, A. (2019). Millennial management: how they lead and want to be led.

Raconteur: Content for Business Decision-makers. Retrieved from:

https://www.raconteur.net/hr/employee-engagement/millennial-management

Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017). The functions of a servant leader.

Administrative Sciences (2076-3387), 7(1), 1–32.

https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci7010005

Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the

https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/the-death-of-the-department-store-1796-2017/

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A456275787/AONE?u=anon~fcfa0591&sid=googleScholar&xid=e721ccc1

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-reciprocal-determinism-2795907

http://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/euroeconomica/article/view/4375/4495

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312228342

https://www.raconteur.net/hr/employee-engagement/millennial-management

https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci7010005

152

workplace: is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology;

Bowling Green, 8(3), 308–323. https://www.doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.15

Cox, C. B., Young, F. K., Guardia, A. B., & Bohmann, A. K. (2017). The baby boomer

bias: The negative impact of generational labels on older workers. Wiley Journal

of Applied Social Psychology 2018;48 71-79 doi: 10.1111/jasp.12491

Črešnar, R., & Jevšenak, S. (2019). The millennials' effect: How can their personal values

shape the future business environment of industry 4.0? Naše gospodarstvo / Our

Economy, 65(1), 57-65, http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ngoe-2019-0005

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Merrill Prentice Hall.

Cucina, J. M., Byle, K. A., Martin, N. R., Peyton, S. T., & Gast, I. F. (2018).

"Generational differences in workplace attitudes and job satisfaction: Lack of

sizable differences across cohorts", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 33

No. 3, pp. 246-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2017-0115

DailyPay. (2021). Retail turnover rates in 2021. Dailypay Resource Center Blog.

https://www.dailypay.com/resource-center/blog/employee-turnover-rates-in-

retail/

Deal, J. J., & Levenson, A. (2016). What millennials want from work: How to maximize

engagement in today’s workforce. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill

Deloitte. (2019). The Deloitte millennial survey 2018: Millennial’s confidence in

https://www.doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.15

doi:%2010.1111/jasp.12491

http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ngoe-2019-0005

https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2017-0115

https://www.dailypay.com/resource-center/blog/employee-turnover-rates-in-retail/

153

business, loyalty to employers deteriorate.

https://www2.deloitte.com/tr/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey-

2018.html

Deloitte. (2021). The Deloitte Global 2021 millennial and gen Z survey.

https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-

deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html

Denzin, N. K. (2002). Social work in the seventh moment. Qualitative Social Work, 1(1),

25–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/147332500200100102

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The sage handbook of qualitative research (5rd

ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014).

Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends

and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005

Dreesmann, A. C. R. (1968). Patterns of Evolution in Retailing. Journal of Retailing,

44(1), 64. ISSN 0022-4359, ZDB-ID 410802-4 Patterns of evolution in retailing -

EconBiz

Drucker, P. (2001). The essential Drucker. New York, NY: HarperCollins

Du, J., Li, N. N., & Luo, Y. J. (2020). Authoritarian Leadership in Organizational Change

and Employees' Active Reactions: Have-to and Willing-to Perspectives. Frontiers

in psychology, 10, 3076. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03076

https://www2.deloitte.com/tr/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey-2018.html

https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html

https://doi.org/10.1177/147332500200100102

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005

https://www.econbiz.de/Record/patterns-of-evolution-in-retailing-dreesmann/10002096798?msclkid=7ab297c1cf1611ecb5aab82377d77037

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/.%20https:/doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03076

154

Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2016). Benevolent leadership and psychological well-

being: The moderating effects of psychological safety and psychological contract

breach. Leadership & Organization Development Journal; Bradford, 37(3), 369–

386. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0129

Ertas, N. (2015). Turnover intentions and work motivations of millennial employees in

federal service. Public Personnel Management, 44(3), 401–423.

http://www.doi.org/1177/0091026015588193

Erts, N. (2020, October 5). Who are the Xennials, how to manage them and why they

matter. Leadership. https://blog.sage.hr/ who-are-the-xennials-how-to-manage-

them-and-why-they-matter/

Flynn, C. B., Smither, J. W., & Walker, A. G. (2016). Exploring the relationship between

leaders’ core self-evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of servant leadership:

a field study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3), 260–271.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815621257

Frey, S. M. (2017). Greenleaf’s legacy: Reflections on being a servant leader. The

Catholic Library World; Pittsfield, 87(4), 243–

253. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323383675_Greenleaf's_legacy_Re

flections_on_being_a_secular_servant_leader_Peer_reviewed_Catholic_Library_

World_874_243-253?msclkid=15cb0c9ccf1711ecb21848a02d8330d4

Friedman, H. H. (2016). Is your organization run by the right kind of leader? An

overview of the different leadership styles. SSRN Electronic Journal.

https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0129

http://www.doi.org/1177/0091026015588193

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/.%20https:/blog.sage.hr/%20who-are-the-xennials-how-to-manage-them-and-why-they-matter/

https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815621257

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323383675_Greenleaf's_legacy_Reflections_on_being_a_secular_servant_leader_Peer_reviewed_Catholic_Library_World_874_243-253?msclkid=15cb0c9ccf1711ecb21848a02d8330d4

155

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2844519

Friedman, H. H., & Gerstein, M. (2017). Leading with compassion: The key to changing

the organizational culture and achieving success. Psychosociological Issues in

Human Resource Management; Woodside, 5(1), 160–175.

https://doi/10.22381/PIHRM

Fritsch, A., Rasmussen, C. M., & Chazdon, S. A. (2018). Old concept, new generation:

Millennials and community leadership programs. Journal of Leadership

Education. https://doi: 10.12806/V17/I4/R6.

Gabriel, A. G., Alcantara, G. M., & Alvarez, J. D. G. (2020). How do millennial

managers lead older employees? The Philippine workplace experience. SAGE

Open Jan-March 2020: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020914651

Gabrielova, K., & Buchko, A. A. (2021). Here comes generation z: millennials as

managers. Business Horizons 64, 489-499. doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.013.

Gaudencio, P., Coelho, A., & Ribeiro, N. (2014). Organisational CSR practices:

Employees’ perceptions and impact on individual performance. International

Journal of Innovation Management 18(4).

https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961450025X

Gauri, D., & Grewal, D. (2021). Navigating the retailing frontier through academic and

practitioner collaboration. Journal of Retailing 97(1,2021) 2-5.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2021.02.005

Gentry, W. A., Deal, J. J., Griggs, T. L., Mondore, S. P., & Cox, B. D. (2011). A

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2844519

https://doi/10.22381/PIHRM

https://doi:%2010.12806/V17/I4/R6

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020914651

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.013

https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961450025X

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2021.02.005

156

Comparison of Generational Differences in Endorsement of Leadership Practices

with Actual Leadership Skill Level. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice &

Research, 63(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023015

Ghosh, K. (2016). Moving toward a better business model for the millennial generation.

Global Studies Journal, 9(3), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-

4432/CGP/v09i03/21-30

Givens, L. (Ed). (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research

methods. (2008). United Kingdom: SAGE Publications

Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review.

Leadership Quarterly 8(2) 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-

9843(97)90014-X

Graybill, J. O. (2014). Millennials among the professional workforce in academic

libraries: their perspective on leadership. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,

40(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.09.006

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Grisaffe, D. B., VanMeter, R., & Chonko, L. B. (2016). Serving first for the benefit of

others: preliminary evidence for a hierarchical conceptualization of servant

leadership. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 36(1), 40–58.

doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2016.1151303

Gruda, D., McCleskey, J., & Berrios, R. (2018). Seems fair to me: dyadic leader

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023015

https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-4432/CGP/v09i03/21-30

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.09.006

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2016.1151303

157

consensus mediates fairness and group performance. Small Group Research,

49(2), 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417740636

Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 29, 75-

91 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02766777

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An

experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006 18:59.

https://www.doi.org/ 10.1177/1525822X05279903

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2014). Introduction to applied thematic

analysis, 3-20 In: Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483384436.

Gunn, F., Lee, S. H., Cappuccitti, A., & Taylor, H. (2017). Profiling people’s perceptions

of retail management careers. The International Review of Retail, Distribution

and Consumer Research, 27(5), 515–532.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2017.1383929

Haski-Leventhal, D., Roza, L., & Meijs, L. C. P. M. (2017). Congruence in Corporate

Social Responsibility: Connecting the Identity and Behavior of Employers and

Employees. Journal of Business Ethics: JBE; Dordrecht, 143(1), 35–51.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2793-z

Hegarty, N., & Moccia, S. (2018). Components of ethical leadership and their importance

in sustaining organizations over the long term. The Journal of Values-Based

https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417740636

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02766777

https://www.doi.org/%2010.1177/1525822X05279903

doi:%2010.4135/9781483384436

https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2017.1383929

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2793-z

158

Leadership: Vol. 11(1) doi.org/10.22543/0733.111.1199

Heidig, W., Dobbelstein, T., Mason, R. G., & Jooste, W. (2018). Preference for a career

in retailing: a question of personality. The International Review of Retail,

Distribution and Consumer Research.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2018.1462236

Hernandez, J. S., Poole, K. G., & Grys, T. E. (2018). Discussion: Mentoring millennials

for future leadership. Physician Leadership Journal, 5(3), 41-44.

https://www.physicianleaders.org/new/discussion-mentoring-millennials-future-

leadership

Holtschlag, C., Masuda, A. D., Reiche, S., & Morales, C. (2020). Why do millennials

stay in their jobs? The roles of protean career orientation, goal progress and

organizational career management. Journal of Vocational Behavior 118

doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103366.

Hortaçsu, A., & Syverson, C. (2015).  The ongoing evolution of US retail: A format tug-

of-war." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29 (4): 89-112.

https://www.doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.4.89

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New

York, NY: Random House

Hu, X., Gilmore, P. L., Tetrick, L. E., Wei, F., & White, A. (2016). On the functioning of

reciprocity in organizations: The moderating effects of relationship orientation

and power distance. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 19(3–4), 123–147.

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/doi.org/10.22543/0733.111.1199

https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2018.1462236

https://www.physicianleaders.org/new/discussion-mentoring-millennials-future-leadership

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103366

https://www.doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.4.89

159

doi:10.1037/mgr0000040

Hurst, J. L., & Good, L. K. (2009). Generation Y and career choice: The impact of retail

career perceptions, expectations and entitlement perceptions. Career Development

International; Bradford, 14(6), 570–593. http://

doi.org/10.1108/13620430910997303

Jiang, H., & Men, R. L. (2017). Creating an engaged workforce: The impact of authentic

leadership, transparent organizational communication, and work-life enrichment.

Communication Research 44(2) 225-243. doi: 10.1177/0093650215613137

Johnson, A. (2019). Humanistic and holistic learning theory. In essential learning

theories. applications to teaching situations. New York, NY: Rowman &

Littlefield.

https://www.academia.edu/44387193/humanistic_and_holistic_learning_theory

Karakas, F., Sarigollu, E., & Manisaligil, A. (2013). The use of benevolent leadership

development to advance principles of responsible management education. The

Journal of Management Development, 32(8), 801–822.

http://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2011-0102.R1

Katz, S. (2017). Generation X: A critical sociological perspective. Generations, 41(3),

12–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26556295

Keevy, Z., & Perumal, J. (2014). Promoting transformational leadership practices of

retail managers. The Journal of Management Development, 33(10), 919-931.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-05-2012-0057

doi:%2010.1037/mgr0000040

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/doi.org/10.1108/13620430910997303

doi:%2010.1177/0093650215613137

https://www.academia.edu/44387193/HUMANISTIC_AND_HOLISTIC_LEARNING_THEORY

http://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2011-0102.R1

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26556295

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-05-2012-0057

160

Keith, K. M. (2016). Definition of servant leadership. To Serve First

http://toservefirst.com/definition-of-servant-leadership.html

Khilji, S. E., & List, C. E. (2021). Humanizing to address the grand challenge of rising

inequalities: Leadership in a post-COVID world. Academia Letters, Article 215.

https://doi.org/10.20935/AL215.

Kilber, J., Barclay, A., & Ohmer, D. (2014). Seven tips for managing generation Y.

Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(4), 80–91. http://www.na-

businesspress.com/JMPP/BarclayA_Web15_4_.pdf

King, E., & Badham, R. (2018). Leadership in uncertainty, Organ Dyn.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.08.005

Klenke, K. (2016). Qualitative interviewing in leadership research. In Qualitative

research in the study of leadership (pp. 123-150). Bingley: Emerald Group

Publishing Limited.

https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78560-651-920152007

Kohl, G. (2021). For millennials, leadership means trust, empathy, empowerment.

Brunswick Group. https://www.brunswickgroup.com

Korten, D. C. (2015). Change the story, change the future. Oakland, CA: Berrett-

Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Landis, E. A., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. R. (2014). A synthesis of leadership theories and

styles. Journal of Management Policy & Practice, 15(2), 97–100.

http://www.digitalcommons.www.na-

http://toservefirst.com/definition-of-servant-leadership.html

https://doi.org/10.20935/AL215

http://www.na-businesspress.com/JMPP/BarclayA_Web15_4_.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.08.005

https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78560-651-920152007

https://www.brunswickgroup.com

http://www.digitalcommons.www.na-businesspress.com/JMPP/LandisEA_Web15_2_.pdf

161

businesspress.com/JMPP/LandisEA_Web15_2_.pdf

Langhof, J. G., & Guldenberg, S. (2020). Servant leadership: A systematic literature

review - toward a model of antecedents and outcomes. German Journal of Human

Resource Management 34(I) 32-68. doi: 10.1177/2397002219869903

Lee, T. W., Hom, P. W., Eberly, M. B., Li, J., & Mitchell, T. R. (2017). On the Next

Decade of Research in Voluntary Employee Turnover. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 31(3), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0123

Leibowitz, J. (2013). How did we get here? A short history of retail. LinkedIn. June 7,

2013. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130607115409-12921524-how-did-we-

get-here-a-short-history-of-retail/

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 Annuals 13(1). 148-187.

https://doi.org/10.5465/annuals.2016.0121

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Chenwei, L., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant Leadership and

Serving Culture: Influence on Individual and Unit Performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034

Lindblom, A., Kajalo, S., & Mitronen, L. (2016). Does a retailer’s charisma matter? A

study of frontline employee perceptions of charisma in the retail setting. Journal

of Services Marketing, 30(3), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-05-2015-

0160

http://www.digitalcommons.www.na-businesspress.com/JMPP/LandisEA_Web15_2_.pdf

doi:%2010.1177/2397002219869903

https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0123

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130607115409-12921524-how-did-we-get-here-a-short-history-of-retail/

https://doi.org/10.5465/annuals.2016.0121

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-05-2015-0160

162

Little, B., & Winch, A. (2017). Generation: The politics of patriarchy and social change.

Semantic Scholar. doi:10.3898/136266217821733679

Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of

the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 35, 139-157. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/job

Lyons, S., Urick, M., Kuron, L., & Schweitzer, L. (2015). Generational differences in the

workplace: there is complexity beyond the stereotypes. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.48

Maier, T., Tavanti, M., Bombard, P., Gentile, M., & Bradford, B. (2015). Millennial

Generation Perceptions of Value-Centered Leadership Principles. Journal of

Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 14(4), 382–397.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2015.1008386

Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations In P. Keeskemeti (Ed.), Karl

Mannheim: Essays. 276-322; 22-24 (introduction). Oxfordshire, UK:Routledge.

www.history.ucsb.edu

Marbun, C. (2021). Millennial in the workplace: Relationship between intrapersonal

skills and leadership performance. International Journal of Scientific and

Research Publications, 11(2).

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.02.2021.P11084.

Marks, L. (2015). Beyond service: Equipping change agents through community

leadership education. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2015(148), 17–

doi:10.3898/136266217821733679

https://www.doi.org/10.1002/job

https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.48

https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2015.1008386

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/www.history.ucsb.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.02.2021.P11084

163

31. doi: 10.1002/yd.20150.

Martin, T. N., & Ottemann, R. (2015). Generational Workforce Demographic Trends and

Total Organizational Rewards Which Might Attract and Retain Different

Generational Employees. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management;

Glendale, 16(2), 91–115. https://jbam.scholasticahq.com/article/1160.pdf

Maslow, A. (1998). Maslow on management. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE

Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2015). Motivating language theory. Effective leader talk in

the workplace. Cham, Switzerland:Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-

66930-4

McArthur, E., Weaven, S., & Dant, R. (2016). The Evolution of Retailing: A Meta

Review of the Literature. Journal of Macromarketing, 36(3), 272–286.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146715602529

McCleskey, J. A. (2018). Millennial leadership expectations, shared leadership, and the

future of organizations. Journal of Management Science and Business

Intelligience, 2018,3-2 50-52. https://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1495541

McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Mehedi, S., & Jalaludin, D. (2020). Application of theories in CSR research focusing

study context and corporate attributes. International Journal of Ethics and

Systems, 36(3), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-09-2019-0146

doi:%2010.1002/yd.20150

https://jbam.scholasticahq.com/article/1160.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66930-4

https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146715602529

https://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1495541

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-09-2019-0146

164

Mekraz, A., & Rao Gundala, R. (2016). Leadership style and retail store performance - A

case study of discount retail chain. Journal of Business & Retail Management

Research, 10(2), 1–10. https://jbrmr.com/cdn/article_file/i-23_c-211.pdf

Mertel, T., & Brill, C. (2015). What every leader ought to know about becoming a

servant leader. Industrial and Commercial Training: Guilsborough, 47(5), 228-

235. https://doi/10.1108/ICT-02-2015-0013.

Metcalf, M. (2014). Building Authentic Leadership by Innovating How You Lead. 14(3),

105–112. http://integralleadershipreview.com/11868-919-building-authentic-

leadership-innovating-lead/

Migliaccio, J. N. (2018). Call me anything you want... Just don’t call me a millennial.

Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 72(4), 24–29. ISSN 1537-1816

Miller, K. (2020). The triple bottom line: What it is & why it’s important. Harvard

Business School Online. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-the-triple-

bottom-line

Moyer, M. S. (1962). The roots of large scale retailing, Journal of Marketing. doi:

10.2307/1248340.

Murshed, F., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Thinking orientation and preference for research

methodology. 33(6), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2016-1694

Murtaza, R., Rizvi, T., & Mahjabeen, A. (2021). The impact of transformational

leadership on employee retention: The role of job satisfaction and

communication. Journal of Managerial Sciences 1(4)5

https://jbrmr.com/cdn/article_file/i-23_c-211.pdf

https://doi/10.1108/ICT-02-2015-0013

http://integralleadershipreview.com/11868-919-building-authentic-leadership-innovating-lead/

https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-the-triple-bottom-line

doi:%2010.2307/1248340

https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2016-1694

165

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356776291

Naim, M. F., & Lenka, U. (2020). Organizational learning and gen Y employees’

affective commitment: The mediating role of competency development and

moderating role of strategic leadership. Journal of Management and

Organization, 26(5), 815-831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.19

Nair, M. S., & Salleh, R. (2017). Linking trust and turnover intention: A conceptual

framework. Global Business & Management Research, 9, 281–288.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.154

National Retail Federation. (2020). The economic impact of the retail industry.

https://nrf.com/retailsImpact

National Retail Federation. (2022). NRF Foundation Rise Up. https://nrffoundation.org

Ng, E. S., & Parry, E. (2016). Multigenerational research in human resource

management. Human Resources Management 34(1-41). doi: 10.1108/S0742-

730120160000034008

Nikolic, G., Kvasic, S. G., & Grbic, L. (2020). The development of authentic leadership

theory. Scientific Review UDK 005.5:159.9.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343915712

Nolan, L. S. (2015). The roar of millennials: Retaining top talent in the

workplace. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 12(5), 69–75.

http://na-businesspress.homestead.com/JLAE/NolanLS_Web12_5_.pdf

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: theory and practice,(9th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356776291

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.19

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.154

https://nrf.com/retailsImpact

doi:%2010.1108/S0742-730120160000034008

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343915712

http://na-businesspress.homestead.com/JLAE/NolanLS_Web12_5_.pdf

166

Sage Publishing.

https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/chapter_10._servant_leadership_0.pdf

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis:

Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria, International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 16, 1-13. doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847l.

Oates, W. E. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: the facts about work

addiction. World Publishing

O’Connell, W., & Gibbons, D. (2016). At your service-leadership that truly

Inspires. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 38(4), 27–

30. http://search.proquest.com

Paas, J., Poell, R. F., & Batistic, S. (2020). The elephant in the room: exploring the

motivational antecedents of servant leadership. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal 41(5). doi: 101.1108/LODJ-01-2019-0042

Padma, P., & Wagenseil, U. (2018). Retail service excellence: antecedents and outcomes.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(5), 422-441.

https://www.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-09-2017-0189

Petrucelli, T. (2017). “Winning the “cat-and-mouse game” of retaining millennial talent”,

Strategic HR Review, 16(1), 42-44. doi.org/10.1108/SHR-08-2016-0078

Plato. (n.d.). Apology. Magill, F. (Ed). In Masterpieces of world philosophy pp 33-41.

HarperCollins

Popp, M., & Hadwich, K. (2018). Examining the effects of employees’ behaviour by

https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/chapter_10._servant_leadership_0.pdf

doi:%2010.1177/1609406917733847l

http://search.proquest.com/

doi:%20101.1108/LODJ-01-2019-0042

https://www.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-09-2017-0189

167

transferring a leadership contingency theory to the service context. Journal of

Service Management Research (SMR), 2(3), 44–59.

https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2018-3-44

Purhonen, S. (2016). Generations on paper: Bourdieu and the critique of

"generationalism". Social Science Information. 55. 94-114.

10.1177/0539018415608967.

Pyöriä, P., Ojala, S., Saari, T., & Järvinen, K.-M. (2017). The Millennial Generation.

SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017697158

Ramaswarmy. (2018, September 19). Shopping Then and Now: Five Ways Retail Has

Changed and How Businesses Can Adapt. Think with Google.

https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/advertising-channels/mobile-marketing/five-

ways-retail-has-changed-and-how-businesses-can-adapt/

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual,

theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.

Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students (2nd ed). Los

Angeles, CA: SAGE

Rielly, D. (2018). The evolution of retail over the last century. Mi9 Retail, March 26,

2018. https://mi9retail.com/evolution-retail-last-millennium/

Roberts, C. M. (2010). A practical and comprehensive guide to planning, writing, and

defending your dissertation (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE

Rodriguez, A., & Rodriguez, Y. (2015). Metaphors for today’s leadership: VUCA world,

https://doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2018-3-44

file:///C:/Users/pj's%20desktop/Desktop/FINAL/10.1177/0539018415608967

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017697158

https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/advertising-channels/mobile-marketing/five-ways-retail-has-changed-and-how-businesses-can-adapt/

https://mi9retail.com/evolution-retail-last-millennium/

168

millennial and “Cloud Leaders.” The Journal of Management Development;

Bradford, 34(7), 854–866. https://www.sciencegate.app/document/10.1108/jmd-

09-2013-0110

Rolfe, G. (2006). Judgements without rules: towards a postmodern ironist concept of

research validity. Nurs Inq. 2006 Mar;13(1):7-15.

https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2006.00298.x. PMID: 16494662

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.

Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2018). Leadership and generations at

work: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 44–57.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.004

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Saleem, H. (2015). The impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction and mediating role

of perceived organizational politics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,

172, 563–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.403

Sanner-Stiehr, E., & Vandermause, R. K. (2017). Can’t We Just Get Along? A Dual-

Theory Approach to Understanding and Managing the Multigenerational

Workplace. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 17, 103-110. http://www.na-

businesspress.com

Sarwono, R., & Bernarto, I. (2020). Leading millennials to 4.0 organization. Management

Science Letters, 733–740. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.10.024

https://www.sciencegate.app/document/10.1108/jmd-09-2013-0110

https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2006.00298.x.%20PMID:%2016494662

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.004

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.403

http://www.na-businesspress.com

https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.10.024

169

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Boss

Schram, T. H. (2006). Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research (2nd ed.).

Lewiston, NY: Pearson

Schwepker, C. H., & Schultz, R. J. (2015). Influence of the ethical servant leader and

ethical climate on customer value enhancing sales performance. Journal of

Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(2), 93–107.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2015.1010537

Schyns, B., Felfe, J., & Schilling, J. (2018). Is It Me or You? - How Reactions to Abusive

Supervision Are Shaped by Leader Behavior and Follower Perceptions. Frontiers

in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01309

Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating

ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific,

interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching 5(9).

https://www.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning

organization. New York, NY:Currency Doubleday

Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Levy-Gazenfrantz, T. (2016). The multifaceted nature of

mentors’ authentic leadership and mentees’ emotional intelligence: A critical

perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(6), 951–

969. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215595413

https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2015.1010537

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01309

https://www.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215595413

170

Smith, J., & Garriety, S. (2020). The art of flexibility: bridging five generations in the

workforce. Strategic HR Review 19(3), 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-01-

2020-0005

Solomon, M. (2019, January 29). You’ve Got Millennial Employees All Wrong; Here Are

The Four Things You Need To Know Now. Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/micahsolomon/2016/01/26/everything-youve-heard-

about-millennial-employees-is-baloney-heres-the-truth-and-how-to-use-it/

Stahl, M. J. (1995). Management. Total quality in a global environment, pg 316.

Cambridge, MA:Blackwell Publishers.

Stewart, C. (2021). Staying alive: Leadership in COVID-19 world. Journal of

Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 18(4), 86-92.

doi:10.33423/jlae.v18i4.4613

Stewart, J. S., Oliver, E. G., Cravens, K. S., & Oishi, S. (2017). Managing millennials:

Embracing generational differences. Business Horizons, 60(1), 45–54.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.08.011

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to

2069. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Swanzen, R. (2018). Facing the generation chasm: The parenting and teaching of

generations Y and Z. International Journal of Child, Youth, and Family Studies

9(2) 125-150. doi: 10.18357/ijcyfs92201818216

Taylor, G. (2018). The millennial worker: Strategies to train and retain. Millennials and

https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-01-2020-0005

https://www.forbes.com/sites/micahsolomon/2016/01/26/everything-youve-heard-about-millennial-employees-is-baloney-heres-the-truth-and-how-to-use-it/

doi:10.33423/jlae.v18i4.4613

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.08.011

doi:%2010.18357/ijcyfs92201818216

171

Retail - The Workforce Challenge, 2018. https://www.retailtouchpoints.com

Teng, L. S. (2020). Bracing for the Multi-Generational Workforce: What We Need to

Know. Management Revue, 31(3), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-

2020-3-324

Thorpe, R., & Holt, R. (2008). Reflexivity in The SAGE dictionary of qualitative

research. doi:10.4135/9780857020109.n86

Tian, A. W., Cordery, J., & Gamble, J. (2016). Returning the favor: positive employee

responses to supervisor and peer support for training transfer. International

Journal of Training and Development 20(1). doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12066

Tulgan, B. (2015). Leading millennials in the workplace. Speaking.com: Remarkable

Speakers for Memorable Events. https://speaking.com/blog-post/managing-

millennials-in-the-workplace-with-bruce-tulgan/

Tunji, J. (2022). Trust: An essential factor for effective leadership and the development

of an exemplary organization. Academia Letters, January2022.

https://doi.org/10.20935/AL4718

Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: why today’s young Americans are more confident,

assertive, entitled – and more miserable – than ever before. New York,

NY:FREE PRESS

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and

organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 9–20.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.12.001

https://www.retailtouchpoints.com/

https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2020-3-324

doi:10.4135/9780857020109.n86

doi:%2010.1111/ijtd.12066

https://speaking.com/blog-post/managing-millennials-in-the-workplace-with-bruce-tulgan/

https://doi.org/10.20935/AL4718

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.12.001

172

Urban, J. B., & van Eeden-Moorefield, B. M. (2018). Designing and proposing your

research project. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Valenti, A. (2019). Leadership preferences of the millennial generation. Journal of

Business Diversity 19(1). https://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v19i1.1357

Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2015). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of

servant leadership: An integration of previous theorizing and research. Journal of

Business Ethics 128(1), 119-131. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2085-z

Wells, T., & Graafland, J. (2012). Adam Smith’s Bourgeois Virtues in Competition.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 319–350.

https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201222222

Wibberley, C. (2017). Bricolage research methods. In E.A. Glasper & C. Rees (Eds),

Health Care Research: at a glance. Ch 52 pp 106-107. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Willis, J. (2019). Daily life in the 1960s counterculture. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-

CLIO,LLC

Xiong, K., Lin, W., Li, J. C., & Wang, L. (2016). Employee trust in supervisors and

affective commitment: The moderating role of authentic leadership.

Psychological Reports, 118(3), 829–848.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116644370

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Zabel, K. L., Biermeier-Hanson, B. B. J., Baltes, B. B. , & Shepard, A. (2017).

https://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v19i1.1357

doi:%2010.1007/s10551-014-2085-z

https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201222222

https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116644370

173

 Generational differences in work ethic: Fact or fiction? Journal of Business

Psychol 32, 301–315 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5

174

Appendix A: Retail Trade Subsections

The retail trade sector consists of these subsectors: • Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers: NAICS 441

• Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores: NAICS 442

• Electronics and Appliance Stores: NAICS 443

• Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers: NAICS 444

• Food and Beverage Stores: NAICS 445

• Health and Personal Care Stores: NAICS 446

• Gasoline Stations: NAICS 447

• Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores: NAICS 448

• Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores: NAICS 451

• General Merchandise Stores: NAICS 452

• Miscellaneous Store Retailers: NAICS 453

• Nonstore Retailers: NAICS 454

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019)

175

Appendix B: Semi-Structured Interview Questions

Q1. In the context of the retail industry, how do you describe a successful leader?

The interviewee’s response provided insight into their perception of leader behavior that

influences job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and desire to emulate. This question was aligned

with the specific problem that millennials are leaving organizations because of

job/leadership dissatisfaction (Mekraz & Rao Gundala, 2016). Millennials entered the

workforce with expectations of similarity to childhood, when the reason behind a request

was explained and respected, and everyone’s opinion was valuable and freely offered

(Nolan, 2015; Twenge, 2006). The behavioral differences that influence leadership style

are constructed from social influence and are supported by the seminal work of

Mannheim (1952); who argued that the events shared by a group influence a collective

perspective. Life experiences, perceptions of those experiences, and expectations of

leadership as the result of the experiences comprise the characteristics of leader behavior.

The cognitive model of behavior contains a mediational process that involves the

individual to observe, remember, determine possibility of mimicry, and imitate the

behavior (Bandura, 1977). A positive behavior will continue and expand if there is an

increase in self-efficacy through positive feedback that the individual perceives as sincere

(Bandura, 1977).

Q2. When you think of a leader in your workplace, describe how the leader

assigns tasks. The second question prompted a narrative response of a daily activity and

assess the type of leadership received and practiced. Follow-up questions like How are

176

processes to the task determined? or What procedure is taken if a problem arises?

clarified the leadership style. Anderson, et al. (2017), Bodenhausen & Curtis (2016),

Nolan (2015), and Stewart et al., (2017) stressed the importance of involving employees

in the daily operations to increase job satisfaction and reported that Millennials consider

themselves a valuable partner in decision-making, able to recognize opportunities for

improvements, and worthy of the necessary training to advance. Conversely, the retail

industry adopted the transactional leadership style because of the fast-paced environment,

and the challenge of managing multiple location with consistency (Mekraz & Rao

Gundala, 2016). The concept of installing the responsibility of a task is empowerment

and related to the five aspects of servant leadership: altruism, emotional healing, wisdom,

encouragement, and stewardship outlined by Barbuto & Gottfredson, (2016).

Q3. What or who has influenced your perception of successful leadership? This

question prompted the interviewee to share experiences of someone in a position to

influence their perception and form expectations. Millennials grew up with news reports

of shamed leaders with unethical behavior, and questionable morals. The interviewee’s

narrative response assessed the value of transparency and authenticity. A follow – up

question was What action is taken to influence others in the behaviors of a successful

leader? This question was supported by the reported expectations of transparency,

authenticity, and ethical behavior amongst organization leadership and aligned with

aspects of servant leadership (Grisaffe, VanMeter, & Chonko, 2016; Zou, Tian, & Liu,

2015). Employees’ perception of leadership is based on consensus regarding the

177

emergence of leader qualities in an individual or individuals within the group (Graybill,

2014; Gruda, McCleskey, & Berrios, 2017). Conceptually, the cognitive model of

behavior was used to understand how observation influenced behavior and continuance

of the behavior is dependent on the received response. In this context, how did a previous

leader’s behavior influence the Millennial’s perception of successful leadership and is the

perception their reality?

Q4. Describe the learning opportunities that you receive or expect to receive from

leadership to advance your career. This is a request for a descriptive analysis of

Millennials’ expectations of advancement. Millennials expect initial and on-going

training with a mentor dedicated to career advancement (Anderson, et al., 2017), which

aligns with the ambition of moving up the corporate ladder. The concept of serving others

before yourself through encouragement and sharing knowledge supports the exploration

of the millennials expectation of mentoring and career advancement. The aspects of

encouragement and wisdom found in servant leader behavior aligned with reported

expectations of the millennial employee. Follow up was Where do you see yourself in five

years? This follow up question was supported by the statistics from the Deloitte

Millennial Survey that reported 73% of Millennials changed organizations after five

years.

Q5. Research indicates job dissatisfaction is highest amongst the millennial

generation. Answering in terms of how you are led, describe how leader behavior does or

does not influence job dissatisfaction? Question 5 provided insight into the respondent’s

178

perception of unsuccessful behavior. Literature supporting this question also supported

the specific problem of a leader’s failure to connect the consideration of employees’

needs to voluntary turnover results in unsuccessful leadership (Mekraz & Rao Gundala,

2016). Millennial disappointment with the lack of opportunity for advancement, broken

psychological contracts about work/life balance and disapproval of leader behavior was

examined as possible causes of voluntary turnover (Arellano, 2015; Ertas, 2015; Grisaffe,

et al., 2016; 2016; Mekraz & Rao Gundala, 2016; Petrucelli, 2017). Included as support

for Question 5 was the concept that integrated factors of characteristic development

impact perception and behavior and led to stereotypical generalization when other

factors, such as industry changes or career progression stages should be considered

(Lyons, Urick, Kuron, & Schweitzer, 2015). The offered narrative of perceived causes of

voluntary turnover should align conversely with the perceptions of successful leadership.

Q6. Research indicates voluntary turnover is highest amongst the millennial

generation. Answering in terms of how you are led, describe how leader behavior does or

does not influence voluntary turnover? Question 6 provided insight into the respondent’s

perception of unsuccessful leader behavior. Literature supported this question also

supported the specific problem of a leader’s failure to connect the consideration of

employees’ needs to voluntary turnover, resulting in unsuccessful leadership (Mekraz &

Rao Gundala, 2016). Millennial disappointment with the lack of opportunity for

advancement, broken psychological contracts about work/life balance and disapproval of

leader behavior was examined as possible causes of voluntary turnover (Arellano, 2015;

179

Ertas, 2015; Grisaffe, et al., 2016; Mekraz & Rao Gundala, 2016; Petrucelli, 2017).

Included as support for Question 6 was the concept that integrated factors of

characteristic development impact perception and behavior lead to stereotypical

generalization when other factors, such as industry changes or career progression stages

should be considered (Lyons, Urick, Kuron, & Schweitzer, 2015). The offered narrative

of perceived causes of voluntary turnover should align conversely with the perceptions of

successful leadership.

180

Appendix C: Invitation to Interview Letter

Good day,

My name is Phyllis Atwood and as a doctoral candidate with Walden University, I

would like to invite you to participate in my research about leaders in the retail industry.

My research is about a problem with leadership support, career expectations, and social

beliefs. The purpose of this study is to talk with individuals that match certain

characteristics of birth years 1980 to 2000; enrolled in or graduated from a business

program; and possess at least 3 years of retail leadership to learn what is expected

leadership behavior. If you possess the inclusive requirements and have a few minutes to

share your ideas about retail leadership, your insight will add to the research into a

standard style of leadership for the retail industry that will address the high turnover rate

due to job dissatisfaction. I believe the social significance of this study will be a practical

and successful leadership style in the retail industry to reduce voluntary turnover,

influence sustainability, and support millions of American jobs.

The 20-30 minute interview by Skype will include 6 questions that will explore

your opinions of successful leadership in the retail industry. I have attached an Informed

Consent to interview form that I ask you to read so you understand the guidelines and

details of the study. The consent form allows me to use the information you provide in as

data in my research. It also explains the precautions to protect your privacy.

If you have an interest in taking part in this study, please respond by return e-mail

with the statement “I consent” with your name and e-mail address as the message, answer

181

the three questions listed below, list two dates and times of availability for the interview

and return the consent form to [email protected]. I will respond to set a time

to interview convenient to your schedule. Thank you for your time and interest.

Q1: What is your birth year?

Q2: Are you enrolled in or graduated from a business curriculum?

Q3: Have you at least 3 years of leadership experience in the retail industry

Please include two dates and times for possible interviews.

1. 2.

mailto:[email protected]

182

Appendix D: Interview Protocol Outline

Name of Study: Millennial Leadership in the Retail Industry

Basic Information:

• Voluntary turnover in the retail industry rates three times higher than other

generations.

• The retail industry contributes to the U. S. Gross Domestic Product over

$2Trillion per year.

• The purpose of this study is the exploration of the perception and expectation

of leadership in the retail industry.

Verify receipt of permission.

Date:____________________

Time:____________

Interviewer: Phyllis Atwood

Interviewee:___________________________________

Location of the interview: _________________________________________________

(Add notes about the setting, e.g., “Interviewer and interviewee were sitting next to each

other on a couch, the TV was on, and children were playing in the background.”)

Data Collection

I can devote my attention to your answers if I record the interview. I will send you a

transcription to review for clarification or additions you may want to make.

Do you have any objection to my recording this interview? ___________

Thank you for your time and interest to speak with me. My name is Phyllis Atwood, and

I am a doctoral candidate with Walden University conducting research on the perceptions

and expectations of leadership in the retail industry. Do you have any questions about the

Informed Consent you signed and returned? _______ I want to repeat that you may stop

the interview at any time or withdraw your contribution at any time before publication.

Shall we continue? ____________

183

• How did you come to work in retail?

• What do you like most about working in retail?

• Have you worked for other retail companies other than your present employer?

______. How many?___________ (“safe” comments.)

• The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the experiences of

Millennials employed as managers in the retail industry, their perceptions, and

expectations of leadership. Exploration of the expectations of Millennials who chose

retail as a career may add insight into a viable and transferable leadership style for

the retail industry and address the gap between purported retail leadership and

misalignment with Millennials’ self- description.

• I have developed six interview questions that I will ask you. There is no right or

wrong answer because my goal is to understand your opinion of successful

leadership.

Ask if there are any questions.

184

Appendix E: Interview Guide

QUESTION COMMENT OBSERVATION

1 In the context of the retail

industry, how do you describe

a successful leader?

2 When you think of a leader in

your workplace, describe how

the leader assigns tasks.

FOLLOW UP

How are processes to the task

determined?

FOLLOW UP

What procedure is taken if a

problem arises?

3 What or who has influenced

your perception of successful

leadership?

FOLLOW UP

What action is taken to

influence others in the

behaviors of a successful

leader?

4 Describe the learning

opportunities that you receive

or expect to receive from

leadership to advance your

career.

FOLLOW UP

Where do you see yourself in

five years?

185

Ending Instructions

• Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. Your insights and opinions

are important to the research conducted currently in retail leadership.

• Everything you shared here today will be treated with the upmost respect for

your privacy. A copy of the interview transcription will available to you in the

next week for any corrections or additions you wish to make. Please return it as

quickly as possible.

• A copy of the results of this study will be shared upon request.

• My contact information is [email protected], and yours is

___________________________________________________.

• Ask if the interviewee has any questions.

• Thank the interviewee for participating again.

5 Research indicates non-

seasonal, voluntary turnover is

highest amongst the millennial

generation. Answering in

terms of how you are led.

Describe how leader behavior

does or does not influence

voluntary turnover?

6 Research indicates job

dissatisfaction is highest

amongst the millennial

generation. Answering in

terms of how you are led.

Describe how leader behavior

does or does not influence job

satisfaction?

186

Appendix F: Code Book

CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY

CODE

ACCOMODATING/APPROACHABLE AC

AUTHENTIC/TRUSTWORTHY AC

AUTHORITARIAN/MILITARILISTIC AU

CHARISMATIC/PERSUASIVE CH

DEVISIVE BEHAVIOR DB

EMPATHY EM

ETHICAL BEHAVIOR ET

EMPLOYEE-CENTRIC/INCLUSIVE EC

MENTOR/SUPPORTIVE M

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT PC

UNINVOLVED/LAIZZE-FAIRE U

ProQuest Number:

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality

and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata

associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA

29212305

2022