quantitative research

Please direct inquires about this manuscript to: Johnny Robinson, [email protected] College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 35(2), pp. 70-84 ISSN 2381-2338 Copyright 2017 Southern Association for College Student Affairs All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

NEXT GENERATION LEADERSHIP: THE CHANGING CULTURE OF LEADERSHIP IN THE SENIOR STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICER (SSAO) POSITION

Johnny Robinson The University of Texas at Arlington

The purpose of this quantitative study was to identify and compare dif- ferences in leadership behaviors of senior student affairs officers (SSAOs) based on their generational cohort (Baby Boomer, Generation X, Millenni- al). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was used to measure nine leadership behaviors and three leadership outcomes. Surveys were administered electronically to 3,361 individuals identified as a chief student affairs officer or director of student affairs in the Higher Education Online Di- rectory (2014). There were 449 respondents including 246 Baby Boomers, 192 Generation Xers, and 11 Millennials. The findings showed that whereas generation x SSAOs exhibited more transactional leadership behavior, baby boomers were more transformational. The results of this study have impli- cations for the field of student affairs as research and practice support the need for more transformational leaders in senior administrative positions in higher education.

Next Generation Leadership 71

The field of higher education can often be described as an ever changing en-vironment. Over the course of the next several years, the hierarchy of our campus administrators could witness some change with the impending retirement of the Baby Boomer generation, which was previously the largest working generation in the work- force. Leubsdorf (2006) argued that Baby Boomers will continue to vacate campus leadership positions, including student af- fairs. As these positions are vacated, Gen- eration X and Millennials will bring their own leadership behaviors to the position of the SSAO. The change from Baby Boomer to subsequent generations will impact staff, campus communities, and stakeholders of colleges and universities. As a new genera- tion of SSAOs assume positions of authority, it is important that they have the leadership and management skills to succeed. As Baby Boomers retire, it will be imperative to un- derstand whether or not the Generation X and Millennial populations will be motivated by different leadership behaviors.

As stated, the Baby Boomer gener- ation, born between 1946 and 1964, has been one of the largest contributors to the American workforce totaling over 70 million people (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Addition- ally, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics es- timated that between 2004 and 2014, over 6,000 administrative positions within post- secondary educational institutions would become vacant (Leubsdorf, 2006). With a large number of Baby Boomers retiring from these positions, the next two largest gener- ation groups: Generation X, born 1965 to 1980 and Millennials, born 1981 to 2002, will transition into positions of authority within the higher education environment. As new generations are transitioning into SSAO roles, it is important to understand their leadership behaviors in order to plan for their professional and personal growth and to comprehend the impact they will have on higher education, student affairs, and the campus community. However, with the expected retirement of Baby Boomer

SSAOs, Generation X and Millennial SSAOs could be assuming many of these roles, and little is known about their leadership.

In our nation’s history, the Baby Boom- ers who have held many of these leadership roles within higher education and other fields have been characterized as being dedicated to their work (Gibson, Greenwood, & Mur- phy, 2009; Kaplan & Taoka, 2005; Gibson, 2009; Lancaster & Stillman, 2003), em- bracing change (Crampton & Hodge, 2007; Smola & Sutton, 2002) and practicing per- sonal, face-to-face, communication (Gib- son, 2009). The results of this study can aid the field of higher education, including student affairs professional organizations, to understand the leadership behaviors of a new generation of SSAOs in comparison to their Baby Boomer peers that have his- torically assumed these roles while adding to the breadth of knowledge on the topic of SSAOs.

Literature Review Previous literature has noted various

differences between generational cohorts across industries within the United States workforce. However, much of the literature has focused on the subjective perceptions and qualitative research (Macky, Gardener, & Forsyth, 2008). While Deal, Peterson, and Gailor-Loflin (2001) argued that little empir- ical research existed to validate such gen- erational differences in the workplace en- vironment. Although, Herbst and Conradie (2011) conducted a quantitative study on the perceptions of transformational leader- ship behaviors of managers within a South African university. Their findings concluded that colleges and universities have a need for more transformative leaders in senior campus roles and organizations should seek to develop leadership development pro- grams to assist in leader’s growth and de- velopment. In further support of transfor- mational leadership, Astin and Astin (2000) stated that campuses should utilize such leaders in a time of change for higher ed- ucation organizations. Meriac, Woehr, and

72 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 35, No. 2, 2017

Banister (2010) found significant difference in respondents’ work-related attitudes and behaviors while Rodriguez, Green, and Ree (2003) found significant differences in all leadership behaviors between baby boom- ers and Gen Xers. Furthermore, Sessa, Ka- bacoff, Deal, and Brown (2007) suggest- ed that differences in leadership attributes existed across generational cohorts; and Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak (1999) found differences in leadership preferences based on generational cohorts while Yu and Miller (2005) did not find any differences in lead- ership styles of higher education educators but did find differences related to machine workers based on generational membership.

These findings gave support and a foun- dation for exploring the leadership behavior of a new generation of leaders within stu- dent affairs. Much of the literature related to effective leadership behaviors of SSAOs has sought to explore leaders with years upon years of experience within the field which could be argued are characterized as Baby Boomers and are leaving the field of higher education at a high rate (Leubsdorf, 2006). With the influx of retirements within the field of higher education and beyond, this study sought to compare and contrast leadership behaviors of a multi-generation- al population of SSAOs and potential impli- cations for the future of higher education and student affairs administration. In addi- tion, as argued by Astin and Astin (2000) and Herbst and Conradie (2011), there is a growing need for senior campus admin- istrators to practice transformational lead- ership within the field of higher education. The question arises, however, as to whether or not Generation X and Millennials exhibit the influence and characteristics of trans- formational leaders to effectively lead their student affairs organizations.

Furthermore, there were considerable gaps in the literature with very few stud- ies that concentrated on generational dif- ferences in the higher education workplace and even fewer related to student affairs. As stated previously, leadership has been

studied thoroughly within the field of stu- dent affairs and higher education although few studies have drawn comparisons be- tween leadership behaviors and genera- tional membership within the student af- fairs environment. The findings of this study could add the breadth of literature on stu- dent affairs administration, leadership, and generational membership. Additionally, this study comes at a critical time as a genera- tion of Baby Boomers begin to depart the workforce and younger generations start to serve in SSAO positions at colleges and uni- versities. Findings of this study could help campuses and the field of student affairs better understand a new generation of SS- AOs that could impact campus culture and governance.

Methodology This quantitative study used a sur-

vey research design to identify leadership behaviors of persons employed as SSAOs at colleges and universities in the United States. An established survey instrument, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 2000) was utilized to collect data to address the research ques- tions. This survey design was cross-section- al because data was collected at one point in time versus longitudinally (Creswell, 2009). A cross-sectional design seeks to collect data from more than one case on two or more variables for examination of possible patterns of association (Bryman, 2012). This association was of potential interest to compare the leadership behaviors of differ- ent generations of SSAOs and the potential impact the results may have to higher ed- ucation and organizational culture. By em- ploying inferential statistics, generalization can be made related to SSAOs and their associated leadership behaviors through a generational comparison.

The research questions were: 1. Is there a statistically significant dif- ference in leadership behaviors between SSAOs classified as Generation X, Mil- lennial, and/or Baby Boomer?

Next Generation Leadership 73

2. If there is a statistically significant difference in leadership behaviors based on SSAO generational membership, which leadership behaviors differ?

Variables of Interest The construct of leadership behavior

was represented by nine sub-constructs/de- pendent variables: Idealized Influence-At- tributes, Idealized Influence- Behaviors, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stim- ulation, Individualized Consideration, Lais- sez-Faire, Management-by-exception-Pas- sive, Management-by-Exception- Passive, and Contingent Reward. The three indepen- dent variables represented the generational classification of the SSAO. The independent and dependent variables are presented in Table 1. As it was expected the nine mea- sures were correlated with each other, a multivariate approach to modeling was pre- ferred when looking at their relationship

with the independent variable generation. The Multifactor Leadership Question-

naire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 2000) was cho- sen as the data collection instrument which was designed to measure nine leadership behaviors associated with the full range of leadership model (FRL). The full range of leadership model (FRL) which served as the theoretical framework of this study includes the leadership behaviors of laissez-faire lead- ership, transactional, and transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The MLQ “is considered the best validated measure of transformational and transactional lead- ership” (Ozaralli, 2003, p. 338). The MLQ asks respondents to rate their frequency of their own leadership behavior on a 5-point Likert scale (0-4) on 45 standardized items. The nine leadership behaviors associated with the FRL model were assigned numeric values based on mean responses and serve as the dependent variables of the study.

Table 1: Independent and Dependent Variables

Category Name Abbreviation Scale Range

Independent Baby Boomer BB Categorical

Independent Generation X GX Categorical

Independent Millennial MM Categorical

Dependent Idealized Influence: Attributes IA Continuous 0-4

Dependent Idealized Influence: Behaviors IB Continuous 0-4

Dependent Inspirational Motivation IM Continuous 0-4

Dependent Intellectual Stimulation IS Continuous 0-4

Dependent Laissez-Faire LF Continuous 0-4

Dependent Management by Exception: Passive MBEP Continuous 0-4

Dependent Management by Exception: Active MBEA Continuous 0-4

Dependent Contingent Reward CR Continuous 0-4

74 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 35, No. 2, 2017

The researcher sought to compare and an- alyze the transformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant leadership behaviors amongst SSAOs generational groups.

The population for this study was SS- AOs listed in the 2014 Higher Education Di- rectory. The publication was utilized to send to all represented in the population. Within the Higher Education Directory there were 2,164 individuals categorized as chief stu- dent affairs officers at four-year institutions (1484-private; 670 public). Furthermore, there were 1,197 (714 private; 483-public) individuals categorized as director of stu- dent affairs with a variety of titles such as assistant vice president, dean of students, and associate vice chancellor who may serve in a SSAO role which were determined by pre-qualifying questions explained later. Therefore, a combined population of 3,361 of student affairs administrators (chief stu- dent affairs officers & director of student af- fairs) was utilized for this study of SSAOs.

An electronic invitation was sent to the entire population of chief student affairs officers and directors of student affairs at four-year institutions within the 2014 High- er Education Directory. The invitation email included the informed consent, a brief de- scription of the problem and purpose of the study and a link to complete the survey. The researcher also included demographic questions for each participant prior to be- ginning the MLQ which helped collect data for eligibility for participation (i.e., gener- ational classification; job title; gender; in- stitution type; race; years of experience). The respondents had six weeks to complete the survey with reminders sent every two weeks.

The analysis itself was conducted in two sections. First, descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables, including means and standard deviations for continuous vari- ables and frequencies and percentages for categorical ones. Pearson’s correlation coef- ficients were generated to assess the rela- tionship between the continuous variables. This method helped the researcher deter-

mine any inter-correlation between the con- tinuous variables (Urdan, 2010). A MANOVA was conducted to determine whether or not there were statistically significant differenc- es between the nine dependent variables based on the independent group variables. MANOVA allows for examining differences in the means of several continuous variables based on levels of some categorical variable (Stevens, 2002). In addition, MANOVA is a more notable model in comparison to ANO- VA as it provides some control of inflated alpha levels and committing a Type I error while also investigating multiple variables helps the researcher capture a more broad- ened understanding of phenomenon being studied (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006).

Much like ANOVA, MANOVA makes the assumption that within-group covariance matrices are equal which if there is an un- balance with the number of observations in- cluded in the study then Box’s M test should be utilized to assess the equivalence-of-co- variance matrices for each dependent vari- able. A statistical significant at p<.05 indi- cates heterogeneity or inequality which may require data transformation of dependent variables (Meyers et al., 2006). Further- more, if the omnibus MANOVA model in- dicates a statistical significance differences, then post-hoc tests will be run to determine where the difference exist amongst the var- ious groups.

Results Unfortunately, there were only 11 se-

nior student affairs officers (SSAOs) identi- fied from the millennial generational group. Therefore, after considering this group’s contribution to unequal sample sizes, the decision was made to remove them from the dataset and further analysis. Additionally, utilizing the method for missing Likert data as discussed by Downey and King (1998), there were 68 surveys with more than 20% of item responses incomplete. Therefore, these participant responses were also re- moved from the dataset leaving a total use- able sample size of 438 for the study.

Next Generation Leadership 75

Post hoc power analysis utilizing G*Pow- er 3.1.9.2 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buch- ner,2007) was conducted to determine the actual power achieved based upon the final sample. Using the same parameters re- lated to effect size (.02), alpha level (.05), number of independent variables (3), and sample of 438, a power level of .715 was achieved, Additionally, based upon a pop- ulation of 3,361 and sample of 438, the re- sults of the survey have a margin of error of +/- 4.37%.

Frequency distribution tables for the categorical demographic variables are presented in Table 2. Of the sample, 246 self-reported as Baby Boomers while 192 were classified as Generation X. The gender of participants was distributed almost even- ly with approximately 49% males and 50% females. The majority identified as Cauca- sian (81%). SSAOs identified completing a terminal degree by either a Ph.D (35%) or Ed.D (27%) or Master’s Degree (33%). The

professional experience varied from 5 to 36 or more years with 21-25 years (23%) as the majority. Finally, private school SSAOs were identified as 59% compared to their public school counterparts (39%).

Table 3 presents the Pearson correla- tion coefficients for the continuous depen- dent variables. The correlations between the transformational leadership behaviors (IA, IB, IM, IS, and IC) were moderate and positive and statistically significant at alpha .001. The transactional leadership behavior of Contingent Reward (CR) was also mod- erately and positively correlated (p≤.001) with the five transformational leadership behaviors (IA, IB, IM, IS, and IC). This find- ing is consistent with previous research by Bycio, Allen, and Hackett (1995) who found

Table 2: Frequencies and Percentages of SSAOs

Category N %

Gender Male 215 49.1

Female 219 50.0

Transgender 1 .2

Prefer not to an- swer

3 .7

Total 438 100

Race/Ethnicty African American 47 10.7

Caucasian 355 81.1

Asian 4 .9

Hispanic 24 5.5

Native American 2 .5

Not Listed 3 .7

Prefer not to an- swer

3 .6

Total 438 100

Generation Group

Baby Boomer 246 56.2

Generation X 192 43.8

Total 438 100

Education Ph.D 154 35.2

Ed.D 120 27.4

J.D. or Professional Degree

11 2.5

Master’s Degree 148 33.8

Bachelor’s Degree 4 .9

No Response 1 .2

Total 438 100

Professional Experience

5-9 years 18 4.1

10-15 years 47 10.7

16-20 years 68 15.5

21-25 years 103 23.5

26-30 years 80 18.3

31-35 years 65 14.8

36 or more years 56 12.8

No Response 1 .3

Total 438 100

Institution Type

4-year private 260 59.4

4-year public 170 38.8

No Response 8 1.8

Total 438 100

Table 2, Coninued: Frequencies and Percentages of SSAOs Category N %

76 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 35, No. 2, 2017

Contingent Reward and transformational leadership variables highly correlated. Avo- lio and Bass (2004) found similar correla- tions and argued that leaders that exhibit Contingent Reward through building trust over time by establishing developmental expectations with their followers.

Furthermore, the leadership behav- iors of management by exception passive (MBEP) and laissez-faire (LF) were weak and negatively correlated (p ≤ .001) with the five transformational leadership behav- iors and contingent reward. MBEP and LF also showed a moderate and positive cor- relation (p ≤ .001) with one another. The correlation with each other and the five transformational leadership behaviors could be explained by the fact that at times, MBEP leaders take no action until complaints are received while LF can be described as an avoidance or absence of leadership (Bass &

Riggio, 2006). MBEP is considered a trans- actional leadership behavior yet it may have a negative reaction towards followers as it could be mistaken for a lack of leadership. In contrast, transformational leadership be- haviors and contingent reward are quite the opposite while always showing a high need for the actions of their followers.

A MANOVA was utilized to determine if statistically significant differences existed between the nine leadership behavior con- structs of senior students affairs officers from the Multifactor Leadership Question- naire instrument. An initial interpretation of MANOVA involves the testing of equality of variances and co-variance matrices. Much like Levene’s test in the univariate case, MANOVA involves a much more sensitive test for equality among the co-variances of the dependent variables. The Box’s M test was statistically significant, F (45, 553617)

Table 3: Correlation Matrix- Dependent Variables of Full Range Leadership Model

n=438

Variables IA IB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF

IA -

IB .489** -

IM .495** .588** -

IS .405** .503** .505** -

IC .441** .450** .477** .510** -

CR .431** .398** .484** .405** .394** -

MBEA .089 -.012 -.067 -.073 -.122* .061 -

MBEP -.210** -.216** -.248** -.250** -.201** -.229** -.014 -

LF -.275** -.224** -.279** -.213** -.296** -.242** .043 .411** -

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

Next Generation Leadership 77

= 1.415, p=.035, at alpha .05 indicating a violation of the equality of co-matrices vari- ances assumption. However, Field (2009) notes that Box’s M is highly sensitive to data normality, so its outcome may or may not truly reflect equality of the co-variance ma- trices. Therefore, a visual inspection of the dataset was performed to determine any potential violations of normality. SPSS (IBM Corp, 2012) was utilized to produce Q-Q plots, or a visual depiction of the dependent variables quartiles again the quartiles of a normal distribution. Plots in which the val- ues that fall on or close to a positive 90° di- agonal are considered normal (Field, 2009).

Finally, Levene’s tests to check for the equality of variances in each dependent vari- able were conducted. The Levene’s tests of univariate equality of variances between the groups were not statistically significant and are presented in Table 4.

Discussion The first research question sought to

understand if any significant differences ex- isted between SSAOs based on their iden- tified generational group. The results from research question one, displayed in Table 5, indicated statistical significance based on results of the Box M’s test F (45, 553617) = 1.415, p =.035 and Hotelling’s Trace test at alpha .05, p =.040, F(9, 428) = .030, partial e2 = .040 which indicated significant differences of leadership behaviors between Baby Boomers and Generation X. These re- sults are consistent with findings from Me- riac et al. (2010); Rodriguez et al. (2003); Sessa et al. (2007); Zemke et al. (1999) re- lated to the differences of leadership based on generational membership and failed to offer support to the partial findings by Yu and Miller (2005). However, while the re- sults of the MANOVA did indicate signifi-

Table 4: Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances

Leadership Construct F df1 df2 P

Idealized Attributes .846 1 436 .358

Idealized Behaviors .686 1 436 .408

Inspirational Motiva- tion

.813 1 436 .368

Intellectual Stimula- tion

.943 1 436 .332

Individual Consider- ation

.528 1 436 .468

Contingent Reward .706 1 436 .401

Mgmt By Exception Active

2.690 1 436 .102

Mgmt By Exception Passive

.152 1 436 .697

Laissez-Faire 1.424 1 436 .233

78 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 35, No. 2, 2017

cant differences between Baby Boomers and Generation X, this could have been the result of a small effect size and moderate power. Although, the significance of the two groups does have considerations on future research which will be discussed in greater detail later.

The second research question sought to examine which leadership behaviors SSAOs differed on based on generational member- ship. The results from the MANOVA of factor scores in Table 6 indicated significant dif- ferences on four of the nine leadership con- structs which included idealized attributes, idealized behaviors, intellectual stimula- tion and management by exception active. The characteristics of these four leadership behaviors articulated by Bass and Avolio

(2004): Idealized Influence. (Attributes and Be- haviors)-Leaders are often admired, re- spected and trusted while being relat- able to the followers which they serve. Additionally, leaders often exercise the needs of their followers over their own while consistently achieving high ethics and morals. Intellectual Stimulation. Leaders en- courage their followers to be creative and innovative by not following the sta- tus quo to address problems. Addition- ally, leaders do not publicly criticize or ridicule followers for their mistakes. Management-by-Exception Active. Leader identifies and creates stan- dards for all followers and holds these

Table 5: Full Range Leadership Model Descriptive Statistics- Factor Scores

Baby Boomer N=246

Generation X N=192

Leadership Construct M SD M SD

Idealized Attributes .10 1.00 -.13 .99

Idealized Behaviors .09 .99 -.12 1.00

Inspirational Motiva- tion

.04 1.03 -.06 .96

Intellectual Stimula- tion

.09 .97 -.11 1.03

Individual Consider- ation

.07 .98 -.09 1.02

Contingent Reward .05 .96 -.07 1.04

Mgmt By Exception Active

-.10 .94 .13 1.06

Mgmt By Exception Passive

-.04 1.01 .05 .98

Laissez-Faire -.08 .94 .10 1.06

Next Generation Leadership 79

individuals accountable for ineffec- tive performance which may include punishment. Leaders closely monitor followers for errors and mistakes and takes action quickly as needed. Additionally, three of the four of these

leadership behaviors (idealized behaviors, idealized attributes, and intellectual stim- ulation) are classified as transformational leadership behaviors with management by exception active as a transactional leader- ship behavior.

The results suggested that Baby Boom- er SSAOs were more transformational while Generation X SSAO means were higher in some transactional and all passive/avoidant leadership styles. This finding does not sup- port Herbst and Conradie (2011) and As- tin and Astin (2000) who argued for more transformational leaders in higher educa- tion administrative roles but suggests that a new generation of SSAOs led by Generation

X could be more transactional. Furthermore, transactional leaders less often get involved with the development of their followers and utilize a management-by-exception philos- ophy with predetermined rewards and con- sequences for meeting organizational ob- jective and goals (Bass, 1985; Bass 1990; Howell & Avolio, 1993). The results of this study suggested that Generation X SSAOs had more transactional leadership behav- iors which could have an impact at institu- tions of higher education currently and in the future if such a trend continues.

Transformational leaders are often seen as leaders who attend to their needs of their followers by providing charisma, intellectual stimulation, influence, and inspirational mo- tivation (Avolio, Waldman & Einstein, 1988; Barbuto, 1997; Bass, 1990; Hunt, 1999). However, the findings of this study not- ed differences between Baby Boomers and Generation X on four of the nine leadership

Table 6: MANOVA- Leadership Constructs

Leadership Construct Df F P hp 2 D

*Idealized Attributes 1 6.08 .014 .014 .69

*Idealized Behaviors 1 5.06 .025 .011 .61

Inspirational Motivation 1 1.13 .288 .003 .19

*Intellectual Stimulation 1 4.53 .034 .010 .56

Individual Consideration 1 3.08 .080 .007 .42

Contingent Reward 1 1.59 .208 .004 .24

*Mgmt by Exception Active 1 6.05 .014 .014 .69

Mgmt by Exception Passive 1 .83 .362 .002 .15

Laissez-Faire 1 3.55 .060 .008 .47

80 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 35, No. 2, 2017

behaviors with Baby Boomer SSAOs being identified as more transformational.

Leaders within educational institutions who are transformational make an impact by identifying organizational priorities, em- powering others, mentoring followers, and recognizing the leadership capacity in peo- ple (Tierney & Foster, 1998). The findings of this study suggested that Baby Boomer SS- AOs have more transformational leadership behaviors in relation to their Generation X counterparts which could have implications for higher education and student affairs.

Implications for Practice Previous literature sought to illustrate

the relationship that Baby Boomers have had on the field of student affairs and high- er education by characterizing such individ- uals as transformational leaders in the work they have done and continue to do so on college campuses. The results of the study justified and supported previous findings as noted in the summary of findings. Howev- er, there are larger implications on the staff that serve as followers to the SSAO posi- tion. The staff of student affairs adhere to the vision of SSAOs who as depicted in this study and previous research of Baby Boom- ers who are transformational. However, the results of this study suggested that Genera- tion X SSAOs are not as transformational as and more transactional than Baby Boomers. Therefore, it could be assumed that SSAOs will be more transactional leaders until they receive the necessary development and ex- perience.

Additionally, there are potential impli- cations for SSAOs currently serving in this role on college and university campuses throughout the nation. Those that identify as Baby Boomer SSAOs have a responsibil- ity to mentor and develop younger genera- tions that are currently serving as a SSAO or have interest in such a position to assure noted transformational leadership behaviors are developed appropriately with a new gen- eration of SSAOs. Additionally, Generation X SSAOs should comprehend the findings of

this study so they may seek opportunities to help develop their leadership behaviors to strengthen areas of weakness related to the full range leadership model used as the framework of this study.

There are also implications for the uni- versity presidents or supervisors of SSAOs. College presidents desire SSAOs with in- tegrity, conflict resolution skills, and deci- siveness in their roles as campus leaders (Randall & Globetti, 1992). The findings for the study may help college presidents/ SSAO supervisors understand the dispari- ties between Baby Boomer and Generation X SSAOs leadership styles and behaviors. Additionally, the findings of this study may assist college presidents/SSAO supervisors in making decisions related to hiring. These results could also assist university presi- dents/SSAO supervisors in evaluating the performance, leadership style, and behav- iors of those they supervise to ensure max- imum performance of SSAOs at their insti- tutions.

Furthermore, the findings of this study has relevance for those that are aspiring to become SSAOs. As stated by Leusbdorf (2006), there is a growing need both cur- rently and in the future to fill administrative positions in higher education. As more Baby Boomers retire, Generation Xers and Millen- nials are the next generation in line to as- sume positions at the top of the higher edu- cation hierarchy. Therefore, those assuming such positions of authority should be able to assess their skills and behaviors. The find- ings of this study may help reveal to those that aspire to become SSAOs the intricacies of the Baby Boomer and Generation X lead- ership behaviors that could be emulated, but also those behaviors that should be avoid- ed. Additionally, professional associations should support the leadership development of aspiring SSAOs including but not limit- ed to SSAO mentor/mentee programs, new SSAO institutes, and/or additional research and literature related new SSAOs.

Finally, there are implications of this study related to research, specifically as it

Next Generation Leadership 81

relates to generational cohorts and leader- ship of the SSAO. As stated previously, much of the research related to the differences of generational cohorts is subjective and quali- tative (Macky et al., 2008). Thus, this quan- titative study may add to the breadth of the literature on the topic of multi-genera- tional differences in the workforce. In addi- tion, the topic of leadership of the SSAO has been thoroughly investigated by research- ers. However, much of the literature dis- cussed in this study is related to seasoned leaders in the field of student affairs from the Baby Boomer generation and beyond. Through this study, the attempt was to gain a perspective not only from Baby Boomers but also Generation X and Millennials. The data collected related to Generation X SS- AOs will help begin a comprehension and understanding of a new generation of SS- AOs as they begin to lead student affairs in the future. The perspective of Millennials that was not addressed in this study will be illustrated in the next section related to fu- ture research.

Limitations The goal of this research was to com-

pare leadership behaviors of SSAOs across generational groups to determine if signif- icant differences existed. Additionally, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was selected to measure the leadership be- haviors of SSAOs. However, the MLQ, while valid and reliable, measures nine lead- ership factors and three leadership out- comes of transformational, transactional, and non-leadership behaviors. It does not measure the infinite and diverse number of leadership behaviors that could be identi- fied using other theories or models. Thus, the findings for this study were limited to illustrating the leadership behaviors within a theoretical framework of the full range lead- ership model (FRL). Data collected from SS- AOs were self-reported and cannot be ver- ified with regard to accuracy. Also, due to low effect size and moderate power of this study, it is difficult to generalize this study

to the entire population of SSAOs from a generational comparison.

Recommendations for Future Research Future research on the leadership be-

haviors of SSAOs should attempt to include Millennials in the analysis once there are more individuals in this generation which assume such leadership roles within insti- tutions of higher education. Additionally, as stated previously, this study achieved mod- erate power with a small effect size. Future researchers should achieve a larger effect size to be able to generalize to all SSAOs. Throughout this study, the professional as- sociation of NASPA was readily available to help and interested in the study. Those that determine to replicate the study should uti- lize listservs available by professional as- sociations to promote the study with goal of achieving a more representative sample. However, the findings did identify some sig- nificant differences in each group of SSAOs. Future research should explore these differ- ences from a qualitative perspective by for- mulating interview questions that are sim- ilar to the quantitative questions asked in the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire. By investigating through a qualitative lens, future researchers may gather a deeper understanding of why such difference may exist between SSAOs from differing gener- ations.

Future research should also gain an un- derstanding of the relationship of factors such as institution type, gender, and/or years of experience may have on leadership behaviors of SSAOs. This study collected de- mographic information from all participants but was not explored in the data analysis. Future research should investigate these to help comprehend and more in depth understanding of generational differences amongst SSAOs.

Conclusions The findings from this study identified

that there were significant differences relat- ed to the leadership behaviors of SSAOs at

82 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 35, No. 2, 2017

both public and private institutions in U.S. from a generational perspective. Specifical- ly, Baby Boomer and Generation X SSAOs differed on four of nine leadership behav- iors (idealized attributes, idealized behav- iors, intellectual stimulation, and manage- ment by exception active). Additionally, this study suggested that Baby Boomer SSAOs were more transformational while Genera- tion X SSAOs were more transactional while Millennial SSAOs were excluded from study. The findings supported previous research by Meriac et al. (2010) & Rodriguez et al. (2003) who found that differences in lead- ership existed based on generational group- ing while Sessa et al. (2007) and Zemke et al. (1999) found differences of leader- ship style and preferences across genera- tions. Although, the findings of this study contrast, Yu and Miller (2005) who found no differences in preferred leadership styles of educators in higher education. The findings of Yu and Miller (2005) could possibly be explained due to the significant differenc- es in the population as the study sought to explore generational difference in the Tai- wan workplace. It can be concluded that the United States education system is signifi- cantly different than the Taiwan education system which could have led to differing re- sults between Yu and Miller (2005) and the findings of the study.

The results of this study have implica- tions to the field of student affairs to sup- port the assertion of Herbst and Conradie (2011) and Astin and Astin (2000) the need for more transformational leaders in senior administrative roles. The findings of this study should be shared with professional associations, student affairs practitioners, and university presidents in an effort to bet- ter develop Generation X SSAOs with the skills to move towards a more transforma- tional leadership style and away from trans- actional and avoidance of leadership styles. By utilizing this study various internal and external campus constituents may gain an understanding how SSAOs lead currently based on their generational category. Fur-

ther research on the topic should seek to illustrate if such differences between gener- ational groups change over time and/or why such difference exist between generational groups.

References

Astin, W. A., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leader- ship reconsidered: Engaging higher edu- cation in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D.A ., and Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational leadership in management game simulation. Group & Organization Studies, 13, 59-79.

Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership. Jour- nal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 689-697.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and perfor- mance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s hand- book of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006) Transfor- mational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research meth- ods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Bycio, P., Allen, J. S., & Hackett, R. D. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 468-478.

Colby, S. L. & Ortman, J. M. (March 2015). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. Cur- rent Population Reports, 1-13. U.S. Cen- sus Bureau.

Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (2007). Generations in the workplace: Under- standing age diversity. The Business Re- view, 9(1), 16-23.

Next Generation Leadership 83

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deal, J. J., Peterson, K., & Gailor, Loflin, H. (2001). Emerging Leaders: An annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Downey, R. G., & King, C. V. (2010). Missing data in likert ratings: A comparison of re- placement methods. The Journal of Gen- eral Psychology, 125(2), 175-191.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statisti- cal power analysis program for social, be- havioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav- ior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics us- ing SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Pub- lications.

Gibson, J. W., Greenwood, R. A., & Murphy, E. F. (2009). Generational differences in the workplace: Personal values, behav- iors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diver- sity Management, 4(3), 1-7.

Gibson, S. E. (2009). Intergenerational communication in the classroom: Recom- mendations for successful teacher-stu- dent relationships. Nursing Educational Perspectives, 30(1), 37-39.

Herbst, H. H, & Conradie, P. (2011). Lead- ership effectiveness in higher education: Managerial self-perceptions versus per- ceptions of others. SA Journal of Industri- al Psychology, 37(1), 867-881.

Howell, J. W. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Trans- formational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consoli- dated business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/char- ismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144.

IBM Corp. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Kaplan, M., & Taoka, K. (2005). You are spe-

cial: Recognizing the gifts you bring to on- cology nursing. Clinical Journal of Oncolo- gy Nursing, 9(3), 313-316.

Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2003). When generations collide: Who they are. Why they clash. How to solve the gen- erational puzzle at work. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Leubsdorf, B. (2006). Boomers’ retirement may create talent squeeze. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/ article/Boomers-Retirement-May-Cre- ate/5562.

Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work: Intro- duction and overview. Journal of Manage- rial Psychology, 23(8), 857-861.

Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic: An examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 315- 324.

Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transforma- tional leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership & Organi- zation Development Journal, 24(6), 335- 344.

Randall, K. P., & Globetti, E. (1992). Desired competencies of the chief student affairs officer as perceived by college presidents. College Student Affairs Journal, 11(3), 54-61.

Rodriguez, R. O., Green, M. T., & Ree, M. J. (2003). Leading gen x: Do the old rules apply? Journal of Leadership & Organiza- tional Studies, 9(4), 67.

Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differenc- es in leader values and leadership behav- iors. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10(1), 47-74.

Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Gen- erational differences: Revisiting genera- tional work values for the new millenni-

84 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 35, No. 2, 2017

um. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363-382.

Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Tierney, W. G., & Foster, W. (1989). Intro- duction: Educational leadership and the struggle for the mind. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(3), 1-4.

Urdan, T. C. (2010). Statistics in plain En- glish (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Vinger, G. (2009). The restructuring of a uni- versity: A call for the exhibition of trans- formational leadership behaviours. The International Journal of Learning, 16(10), 267-286.

Yu, H., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The X generation and Baby boomers com- pared in different cultural contexts. Lead- ership & Organization Development Jour- nal, 26(1), 35-50.

Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: AMA- COM.

Copyright of College Student Affairs Journal is the property of Southern Association for College Student Affairs and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.