comparing generation x and generation y on their preferred ... · personnel management of...

Generations and Leadership Style

Comparing Generation X and Generation Y

on their Preferred Emotional Leadership Style

MBA Master`s Thesis at the University of Applied Sciences

Kempten

Submitted by

Markus Dominik Kraus

Salzburg, December 2016

Abstract i

Abstract

There are currently three generational cohorts working side by side in today’s workforce, two

of which will work together for at least the next 20 years. These two generations are Generation

X and Generation Y. The purpose of this master’s thesis is to explore whether employees of

Generation X differ from those of Generation Y and whether these generations prefer different

emotional leadership styles. Through understanding the differences and similarities between

Generations X and Y, managers can better apply their leadership style according to the

preferences of these generations.

This master’s thesis uses popular academic literature to describe and analyze the

similarities and differences between Generations X and Y and the development of different

leadership styles over the last decades. The theoretical section reveals that there are indeed

differences between Generations X and Y, but there seems to be a growing tendency towards

there being more similarities than differences between them. In the course of the quantitative

research, the author conducts an online survey and uses data from 105 employees of different

organizations to examine potential differences in the emotional leadership style preferences of

Generations X and Y. The results of the empirical part demonstrate statistically significant

differences between these generational cohorts concerning the visionary leadership style, in

favor of Generation Y.

This thesis concludes that generational differences and leadership style preferences

are an issue that organizations need to recognize and understand in order to be more productive

and generate a competitive advantage. The author recommends that researchers continue to

examine generational differences and emotional leadership styles to understand their effects on

organizations today.

Keywords: Generation X, Generation Y, Leadership, Leadership Style Preferences, Emotional

Intelligence, Emotional Leadership Styles.

.

Dedication ii

Dedication

This master`s thesis is dedicated to my family and my girlfriend who gave me the necessary

support, even when times were rough. For that support, I will always be thankful.

Acknowledgement iii

Acknowledgement

Time flies by. After two exciting years of study at the University of Applied Sciences in

Kempten, including two awesome months at the Queensland University of Technology in

Brisbane (Australia), the MBA-Program International Business Administration does end with

this master`s thesis.

The study and the presented master`s thesis required a lot of effort, patience and a large amount

of time. At this point, I would like to thank all people who encouraged and supported me during

my educational endeavor. Without you, it would have been so very difficult.

First, I would like to thank my family, which played such a major role in my development

throughout my whole live. I will always be indebted to them.

A special thank you goes to my girlfriend Stefanie, who played the most important role in the

fulfillment of this thesis. Thank you for your understanding and support during intense times.

And to Markus, thank you for encouraging me and reminding me that I was smart enough to

get through my program, even when I sometimes disagreed.

Thank you to Prof. Dr. Christoph Desjardins, who offered me the possibility to write this master

thesis and for his helpful guidance.

I also appreciate all the people who participated in the survey, without your responses to the

questionnaire it would have not been possible to complete the research.

Table of Contents iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... i

Dedication .................................................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iv

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Problem .................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Purpose and Research Questions ............................................................................. 2

1.4 Structure................................................................................................................... 3

2 Literature Review............................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Generational Cohorts ............................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2 Generation X ............................................................................................................. 7

2.1.3 Generation Y ............................................................................................................. 8

2.1.4 Differences and similarities .................................................................................... 12

2.1.5 Summary ................................................................................................................. 14

2.2 Leadership ............................................................................................................. 15

2.2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 15

2.2.2 Leadership vs. management .................................................................................... 16

2.2.3 Evolution of leadership theories ............................................................................. 17

2.2.4 Relation between leadership and emotional intelligence ........................................ 21

2.2.5 Summary ................................................................................................................. 26

2.3 Hypotheses............................................................................................................. 26

3 Research Methodology .................................................................................................... 29

3.1 Participants ............................................................................................................ 29

3.2 Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 30

Table of Contents v

3.3 Questionnaire Design ............................................................................................ 31

3.4 Analytic Procedure ................................................................................................ 32

4 Data Analysis and Results ............................................................................................... 33

4.1 Hypothesis Testing ................................................................................................ 33

4.1.1 Hypothesis 1............................................................................................................ 33

4.1.2 Hypothesis 2............................................................................................................ 34

4.1.3 Hypothesis 3............................................................................................................ 35

4.1.4 Hypothesis 4............................................................................................................ 36

4.1.5 Hypothesis 5............................................................................................................ 37

4.2 Summary ................................................................................................................ 46

5 Discussion and Conclusion .............................................................................................. 48

5.1 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 48

5.1.1 Theoretical part ....................................................................................................... 48

5.1.2 Empirical part.......................................................................................................... 50

5.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 53

5.3 Further Research Opportunities ............................................................................. 54

5.4 Practical Implications ............................................................................................ 55

5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 55

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vi

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ xiii

References .............................................................................................................................. xvii

Appendices ............................................................................................................................. xxii

Consent Form ........................................................................................................................ xxxi

Introduction 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The importance of human resources to modern organizations seems to be continuously

growing. In times of globalization, organizations are open and active systems that must

constantly adapt to the requirements of their environment in order to secure their existence. In

2011, the German Corporation for Human Resource Management (DGFP) published a study

emphasizing that a wide range of trends affect organizations, including: demographic

development, changes in values, IT-Revolution, globalization, and resource scarcity. The study

points out that demographic development and changes in values have a serious impact on the

personnel management of organizations (Armutat, 2011). A great deal of research has been

conducted to help the organization overcome these challenges and achieve its goals. Human

capital, the employees’ qualification and motivation, seems to be the key for success in every

organization.

Never before in history have so many different peoples and cultures been in contact

with one another. At present, in Germany, three generations are working together in

organizations: the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. These generations grew

up in different time periods, and it is no surprise that they therefore have different worldviews,

expectations, and values. These differences result in different preferred methods of working

and interaction (Glass, 2007). Managing generational differences in the workforce has become

a topic of increasing interest for managers and researchers over the last decades. Much of this

interest is based on the assumption that generations differ significantly in their goals,

expectations, and work values (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008).

Since employees are the focus of organizations, and organizations are characterized

by a generationally diverse workforce, the situation for modern leaders seems to have become

complex. No longer able to rely on traditional structures and approaches, modern leaders must

develop expertise in human behavior. Organizations have focused their attention on effective

leadership and employee satisfaction as potential influences on organizational success

(Salahuddin, 2010). This research makes clear that increasing emotional intelligence could be

one solution for modern leaders to achieving effective leadership. According to Lancaster and

Stillman (2004), the solution to successfully leading a generationally diverse workforce is

relatively simple: Recognize, understand, and respect the strengths of different generations in

today’s workforce (Lancaster & Stillman, 2004). In order to implement that, leaders need to

react in an emotionally intelligent way.

Introduction 2

1.2 Problem

Much has been written in the popular literature about the differences and similarities in the

characteristics of different generations. There are many perceptions and assumptions about

each generation, but there is little empirical evidence (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Lester,

Standifer, Schultz, & Windsor, 2012; Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, & Brown, 2007). Furthermore,

no empirical study concerning the preferred emotional leadership styles of Generations X and

Y has been conducted. Therefore, it is in the interest of the author to investigate the

characteristics of Generations X and Y from a theoretical point-of-view. Moreover, it is

explored, through an empirical study, whether Generations X and Y prefer different emotional

leadership styles.

1.3 Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this master’s thesis is to explore whether employees of Generation X differ

from those of Generation Y and whether they prefer different emotional leadership styles. The

main research question is:

What are the differences and similarities between employees of Generation X and Generation

Y and do these generations prefer different emotional leadership styles?

To answer the main research question, this thesis addresses four sub-questions. Sub-questions

(1) and (2) have their focus on the theoretical part and sub-questions (3) and (4) have their

focus on the empirical part.

Sub-questions:

(1) Do employees of Generation X differ from Generation Y in terms of their characteristics?

(2) How do emotional leadership styles differ and what are their main characteristics?

(3) Do Generation X and Generation Y differ in their perception of the importance of perceived

leadership and preferred leadership style?

(4) Is there a difference between Generation X and Generation Y with respect to their preferred

emotional leadership style?

Introduction 3

1.4 Structure

This thesis is organized into five chapters, beginning with the introduction. The introduction

introduces the reader to the purpose and objective of the thesis. Following the introduction,

Chapter 2 contains the literature review. Here, the reader receives deep insight into the two

main topics of this thesis: generational cohorts and leadership. The hypotheses are also

presented in the literature review chapter. Chapter 3 presents the research methodology

pertaining to data collection and the empirical research. Chapter 4 is the empirical part, where

the data is analyzed and the hypotheses are tested. Finally, in Chapter 5, the major findings are

discussed and some recommendations are provided. Figure 1 depicts an outline of the structure

of the thesis.

Figure 1. Outline of the Structure

Figure 1. Individually developed.

Chapter 1 • Introduction

Chapter 2 • Literature Review

Chapter 3 • Research Methodology

Chapter 4 • Data Analysis and Results

Chapter 5 • Discussion and Conclusion

Literature Review 4

2 Literature Review

2.1 Generational Cohorts

This sub-chapter is intended to provide an overview of the theories of generations, which are

widely used by researchers and social scientists in the literature. First, the term “generation” is

explored. Then, the current generations are briefly discussed and differentiated. After that, the

focus shifts to the characteristics of Generations X and Y; these two generations are given

priority because they directly pertain to the main research question. Finally, the similarities and

differences between Generations X and Y are investigated according to the present theories.

2.1.1 Overview

Over the last decades, much has been written about the presence of different generations in the

workforce and the conflicts caused by their different views and values. This so-called

multigenerational workforce has major effects on organizations, especially for managers and

leaders, who must be able to handle the diversity in order to operate productively (Salopek,

2006). The importance of generational differences within the field of organizational behavior

has grown over the years. This growth has resulted in the recognition that generational

characteristics play a significant role in how employees prefer to be led and managed

(Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Salahuddin, 2010). Jeffries and Hunte (2004) address the same

issue by stating that the unique characteristics of generational groups provide leaders and

managers with a starting point from which to achieve greater understanding of their employees

and their employees` leadership preferences (Jeffries & Hunte, 2004).

Generational research reaches back to 1952, when the sociologist Karl Mannheim

described a generational group, often referred to as cohort, as a collective group of people born

and raised in a similar location, who have experienced similar historical and social events

(Kupperschmidt, 2000; Mannheim, 1970; Pilcher, 1994). According to this description of Karl

Mannheim, people from different generations share common experiences that influence their

thoughts and behavior. Therefore, a discussion of generational differences often considers the

characteristics and values of each generation (Mannheim, 1970). Research on generational

differences has grown over the years, but the definition of the term generation and the context

it is used in have remained much the same. This consistency is reflected in the work of Smola

and Sutton (2002), who describe a generational group as a group of people who are born in the

same time span and share the same historical and social life events and life experiences.

Therefore, people of the same generation may experience the world in similar ways and share

common values and views (Patterson, 2007; Smola & Sutton, 2002). This point of view is

Literature Review 5

shared by Johnson and Johnson, who define a generation as “a group of individuals born and

living contemporaneously, who have common knowledge and experiences that affect their

thoughts, attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors” (Johnson & Johnson, 2010).

Of course, making general statements regarding characteristics of groups or

generations invites criticism. One point of critique is that by grouping individuals into

generations and describing general characteristics, we are stereotyping. Every human being is

an individual and it cannot be assumed that people of a generation think or act in exactly the

same way (Jeffries & Hunte, 2004). Another common criticism related to generational

differences is that there is a lack of empirical research to validate the significance of these

differences (Salahuddin, 2010). Additionally, the assumption that individuals are more

influenceable in their younger years is supported by research, but the assumption that all

individuals of a generation experience the same early events in the same way is not fully

supported (Giancola, 2006).

However, the author agrees with Smola and Sutton (2002), who argue that it is

unavoidable to recognize that people who are born in the same time span have common

influential experiences that lead to similar views and values. As a consequence, such life

experiences are what tend to distinguish one generation from another. This view is often

referred to as generational cohort theory (Sessa et al., 2007; Smola & Sutton, 2002). According

to Sessa et al. (2007), generational cohort theory is defined by social change and six

characteristics help determine the scope of a generation: “(1) a traumatic or formative event

such as a war, (2) a dramatic shift in demography that influences the distribution of resources

in a society, (3) an interval that connects a generation to success or failure (e.g. the Great

Depression), (4) the creation of a ‘sacred space’ that sustains a collective memory (e.g.

Woodstock), (5) mentors or heroes that give impetus and voice by their work (e.g. Martin

Luther King), and (6) the work of people who know and support each other (e.g. Bill Gates,

Steven Jobs)” (Sessa et al., 2007). On the other hand, a few researchers have presented two

major arguments against generational cohort theory: the “cusp effect” and the “crossover

effect”. The cusp effect refers to people born at the beginning and end of generations, or “on

the cusp”. These people are often called “tweeners”. Therefore, these “tweeners” might have

the same defining and memorable events in their lives as one generation, but are categorized

into a different generational cohort according to their birth year (Arsenault, 2004). The

crossover effect, defined by Schewe and Noble (2000), describes the assumption that very

significant events (e.g. John F. Kennedy’s assassination or the Challenger incident) effect

everyone, no matter what generation they belong to (Schewe & Noble, 2000). Although some

Literature Review 6

researchers may say that these two effects lead away from generational differences, the author

agrees with Arsenault (2004), who states that these effects can be used positively to

demonstrate that there are similarities between different generations (Arsenault, 2004).

Before exploring the characteristics of the current generations in the workforce, it is

necessary to consider the inconsistency among researchers regarding how to best group and

name the generations. The boundaries of generational groups are generally defined by year of

birth or age, but current research is inconclusive as to when one generation ends and a new one

begins (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). The eldest

generational group is the Traditionalists, also called Veterans or the Silent Generation. The

birth scope for this generation is variously reported as beginning in 1925 and earlier and ending

in 1945. The next generational group is the Baby Boomer generation, often called Boomers.

There is little agreement on the birth year of the Boomers; it is variously reported as beginning

between 1940 and 1946 and ending anywhere between 1960 and 1964. The following

generational group is the Generation X or Xers. There is even less agreement on the time span

of the birth year of this generation. The birth year begins somewhere in the early 1960s and

ends anywhere between 1979 and 1982. The next generational group is Generation Y, also

called Millennials or Nexters. The birth year of this generation is variously stated as beginning

between 1979 and 1982 and ending in the late 1990s (Jeffries & Hunte, 2004; Kupperschmidt,

2000; Patterson, 2007; Smola & Sutton, 2002). The latest generational group is Generation Z

or the Mobile Generation. The birth year of this generation is mostly reported to be after the

year 2000 (Ozkan & Solmaz, 2015). Consequently, the definitions of generational boundaries

are inconsistent in the literature. For the purpose of this study, the following generally accepted

boundaries are used:

(1) Traditionalist, born 1925 – 1945

(2) Baby Boomers, born 1946 – 1964

(3) Generation X, born 1965 – 1980

(4) Generation Y, born 1981 – 2000

(5) Generation Z, born after 2000

Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that people who are born during the transition years

between generations can adopt characteristics from either generation or a mixture of those from

both. Furthermore, it is still important to not generalize the characteristics of each generation

because individuals are unique (Madera, Kapoor, Kapoor, & Solomon, 2011).

Literature Review 7

2.1.2 Generation X

The first generation that is examined is Generation X. According to Mangelsdorf (2015), there

were approximately 17.8 million Xers in Germany in 2015. Their defining historical and social

life events are the oil crisis in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the arms race between the East

and West, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Challenger accident, the RAF, IRA, and ETA

terrorism in Europa, and the fall of the Berlin Wall, among others (Mangelsdorf, 2015, p. 22).

As summarized by Smola and Sutton (2002), members of Generation X grew up with

financial, family, and social insecurity, rapid change, and great diversity, which led to a sense

of individualism over collectivism (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998; Smola & Sutton, 2002).

Therefore, they are more skeptical, less loyal, and fiercely independent (Glass, 2007). This

point-of-view is supported by the fact that Generation X’s childhood was defined by both

parents working fulltime or by only one parent supporting them due to the increased divorce

rate. This situation created a generation of children who were forced to take care of themselves

(Kupperschmidt, 2000) and have therefore learned to be quite self-reliant and adaptable to

change (Patterson, 2007).

The family and social situations of the Xers in their younger age also seems to be

responsible for their perception of work. This generation wants to balance their private and

professional lives rather than spending all of their time at work (Bennett, Pitt, & Price, 2012;

Patterson, 2007; Sessa et al., 2007). This is emphasized in the work of Glass (2007), who writes

that Xers are likely to change jobs if a new one offers flexible working hours that allows greater

work/life balance (Glass, 2007). However, this does not necessarily mean that they are only

‘me’ orientated or selfish. In fact, they seek to find balance between doing a good job and at

the same time maximizing their own individual goals (Johnson & Johnson, 2010). This is

emphasized by a study by Smola and Sutton (2002), which points out that Xers feel strongly

that an indication of one’s worth is how hard they work (Smola & Sutton, 2002). Nevertheless,

they may have more commitment to their own careers than to their organizations and tend to

be more loyal to their profession than to their employer (Yu & Miller, 2005). The reason for

their loyalty to their profession may be that Xers are very interested in personal satisfaction

and look for any opportunity to improve their working skills (Sessa et al., 2007).

Kupperschmidt (2000) describes Generation X in the workplace as technologically

competent and very comfortable with diversity, change, and competition (Kupperschmidt,

2000). This is supported by Lester et al. (2012), who states that members of Generation X are

experienced with technology that is common today in the workplace. However, they are not

experienced with certain aspects of technology that developed after they entered the workforce,

Literature Review 8

like interactive and/or social media (Lester et al., 2012). An important characteristic of the Xers

in the workplace is that they are very result-orientated and focus on the outcome above the

process of work (Glass, 2007). Additionally, they bring well-honed, practical approaches to

problem solving and prefer an autonomous working style (Kupperschmidt, 2000). According

to Salahuddin (2010), workers of Generation X can be motivated by a flexible working

schedule, an informal work environment, and a balanced amount of supervision (Salahuddin,

2010). The reason for these preferences may tie into the Xers’ attitude towards work; they are

more likely to feel that one should work hard even when a supervisor is not around (Smola &

Sutton, 2002). This is proven in a study by Jurkiewicz (2000), who has found that Xers value

“freedom from supervision” more than Baby Boomers (Jurkiewicz, 2000).

In summary, Generation X can be characterized by adaptability, independence,

autonomy, and creativity (Salahuddin, 2010). Additionally, they are egalitarian and do not

generally respect authority. They value honesty, fairness, competence, and straightforwardness

from their supervisors (Sessa et al., 2007) and focus on skill development and productivity

rather than on status and tenure (Smola & Sutton, 2002). Overall, the image of Xers is often

negative in the literature, where they are labelled selfish. However, it is important to recognize

that what may be viewed as selfish may also be viewed as independent and autonomous

(Jurkiewicz, 2000).

2.1.3 Generation Y

Generation Y, often referred to as Millennials, Nexters, or the Net-Generation (Sessa et al.,

2007), is the youngest generation in the current workforce. There is little agreement on the span

of their birth year (Sessa et al., 2007). For the purposes of this research paper, the author agrees

with Jeffries and Hunte (2004), who claim that this generation was born between 1981 and

2000 (Jeffries & Hunte, 2004). According to Mangelsdorf (2015), there were approximately

14.8 million Xers in Germany in 2015. The defining historical and social events that shaped

the common experiences of this cohort are globalization, climatic change, 9/11, the Iraqi War,

Bin Laden, the euro currency, the Asian Ocean Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, smart phones, and

Facebook, among others (Mangelsdorf, 2015, p. 22).

In the literature, the picture of Generation Y is very different from those of previous

generational cohorts. Howe and Strauss (2009) describe this generation as affluent, educated,

and ethnically diverse. They are the first generation to become a worldwide group due to the

availability of technology and the opportunity to move across borders and travel all over the

world (Howe & Strauss, 2009; Jeffries & Hunte, 2004). In particular, seven characteristics

Literature Review 9

describe this generation: team-orientated, special, achieving, pressured to do well, confident,

conventional, and sheltered (Howe & Strauss, 2009). For his study, “The Net Generation: a

Strategic Investigation”, Tapscott (2008) interviewed 9,442 people (including 7,685 members

of Generation Y) from 12 different countries. According to this study, collaboration, freedom,

customization, personalization, need for speed, integrity, entertainment and fun, scrutiny, and

innovation characterize Generation Y (Tapscott, 2008). Members of this generation are

regarded as having a fundamentally different work style and belief system than any other group

of young people in the last 50 years (Glass, 2007). Therefore, it is assumed that they will have

a huge impact on organizations and will change the present work environment (Zemke et al.,

2000). However, the common opinion that members of Generation Y have different desires

and expectations from their work and career goals than previous generational cohorts is viewed

by some writers as a myth (Pfau, 2016). One example therefore is the study of Mencl and Lester

(2014), to which we will refer to in Section 2.1.4. Consequently, there are some differences in

how Generation Y is regarded by scholars and researchers. In the following paragraphs, the

author takes a closer look at this generation.

The life experiences that shaped Millennials formed a generation that believes in

collective action, optimism about their future, and trust in centralized authority (Jeffries &

Hunte, 2004; Salahuddin, 2010). This is emphasized by the nature of their childhood, which

was marked by relative peace and prosperity (Patterson, 2007). However, Patterson (2007)

states that experiences like 9/11 have lowered their optimism and taught them to be more

restrained regarding their expectations for the future. Members of this generation grew up with

a focus on family (Patterson, 2007). They experienced a childhood where their parents tried to

arrange a balance between work life and private life. Furthermore, parents of the Millennials

believed that the well-being and education of their children were priority issues. Thus, their

parents were more available to them and many members of Generation Y still have a very good

relationship with their parents. Even though they are grown up, their parents still tend to help

them with words and deeds in every situation, which has led to the term “helicopter parents”.

Like helicopters, these parents circle over their children, overseeing their work and social

activities (Glass, 2007; Mangelsdorf, 2015, p. 19).

Generation Y is the first generation born into a technologically based world (Smola &

Sutton, 2002). These so-called “digital natives” have never experienced a world without

technology (Patterson, 2007). They have never known a world without e-mail, mobile phones,

smartphones, laptop computers, digital cameras, and social media platforms (Mangelsdorf,

2015, p. 19). This is emphasized by Martin (2005), who states that Generation Y is techno-

Literature Review 10

savvy and uses technology in nearly every aspect of their lives, from work to play to simply

passing time (Martin, 2005). According to Glass (2007), members of Generation Y are unafraid

of new technologies because they grew up with constantly developing technology; they are

therefore often called “first adapters” – the first to try, buy, and recommend new

gadgets/technologies (Glass, 2007). Accordingly, different researchers in the literature agree

on the impact that technology has had on members of Generation Y; it seems to be one of the

greatest differences between this generation and other generational cohorts.

Millennials in the workplace are often seen as less independent and requiring

structure, supervision, and guidance in their work environment. Yet, these requirements must

be combined with the right amount of autonomy and flexibility in order for them to get the job

done effectively and efficiently (Bennett et al., 2012; Martin, 2005; Reisenwitz & Iyer, 2009).

Another important issue is their need for feedback. Members of Generation Y tend to like and

expect constant feedback from their supervisors (Patterson, 2007), which is likely a

consequence of the parental direction in their childhood (Glass, 2007). Furthermore, Yers like

collective action (Sessa et al., 2007) and working for companies where there is collaborative

decision-making (Glass, 2007). All of these characteristics lead to the assumption that this

generation needs mentoring programs in order to feel comfortable in their working

environment. This is confirmed by the literature. According to Patterson (2007), members of

Generation Y enjoy being mentored and learning from others (Patterson, 2007). Bennett (2012)

goes even further and states that Millennials actively look for mentors, seeking advice,

feedback, or guidance, which results in more productivity and satisfaction (Bennett et al.,

2012). This idea is proven by “The 2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey”, a study that explores the

factors that underlie the loyalty challenge. The findings clearly highlight the positive impact of

mentorship with regard to Millennials’ loyalty to their employers. Among those who have

somebody acting as their mentor, 83% are satisfied with this aspect of their working lives

(Deloitte, 2016). Another issue pointed out by Patterson (2007) is that Yers are idealistic and

have high expectations (Patterson, 2007), which manifests in their desire for a successful career

(Jeffries & Hunte, 2004). For Millennials, a successful career entails a meaningful role in the

workplace as well as doing meaningful work in teams of highly committed coworkers. “The

2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey” found that values guide where Millennials work. Millennials

want to contribute to a positive impact that they believe their business has on society.

Simultaneously, they wish to stay true to their personal values. As a result, it has been suggested

that Yers choose employers whose values reflect their own (Deloitte, 2016). Nevertheless,

meaningful work is not everything. Members of Generation Y also seek meaning in their


private lives and place significant importance on a healthy work/life balance (Dwyer &

Azevedo, 2016). Consequently, Yers are more willing to change jobs if they are not satisfied

with the balance between their personal and professional lives (Helyer & Lee, 2012). Another

major reason that Millennials leave a job is not feeling fully engaged. Although they have a

strong aspiration for growth and success, they tend to leave jobs when they feel low

engagement in the workplace (Reisenwitz & Iyer, 2009). This is supported by a recent Gallup

report on the Millennial generation. Gallup has found that the majority of Millennials (55%)

are not engaged in their workplace, leading all other generations in this category (Adkins,

2016a).

In summary, Generation Y can be characterized as being idealistic, optimistic,

independent, and self-confident. Yers want to be a part of change and are not afraid of it. They

are constantly looking for opportunities where they are able to learn, increase their skills, and

gather experience that will serve them in the future (Martin, 2005). This is emphasized by the

Gallup report “How Millennials want to work and live”, which states that 87% of Millennials

believe that professional development and career growth opportunities are very important in a

job (Adkins, 2016b). Additionally, they believe that hard work and goal-setting will lead to the

achievement of their dreams (Reisenwitz & Iyer, 2009; Zemke et al., 2000). The pace of this

generation has increased with the increasing pace of technology, which most differentiates this

generation from others (Glass, 2007; Patterson, 2007). Table 1 provides a brief overview of the

current findings regarding Generation X and Generation Y.


Table 1

Overview of the Current Findings

Generation X Generation Y

Birth Year 1965 – 1980 1981 – 2000

Defining

Moments

Oil crisis (1970s), arms race (East –

West), Chernobyl nuclear disaster,

challenger accident, RAF, IRA, and

ETA terrorism (Europe), fall of the

Berlin Wall.

Globalization, climatic change,

9/11, Bin Laden, euro currency,

Hurricane Katrina, smart phones,

Facebook.

Characteristics

Skeptical, less loyal, independent,

self-reliant, technologically

competent, adaptable, flexible,

autonomous.

Affluent, educated, ethnically

diverse, idealistic, self-confident,

optimistic, techno-savvy,

idealistic, high expectations, seek

for meaning in life.

Value

Honesty, fairness, competence,

work/life balance,

straightforwardness, skill

development, productivity.

Freedom, collaboration,

autonomy, personalization,

integrity, entertainment, fun,

family, meaningful work,

work/life balance, personal &

career growth, learning.

Work Ethos

Result-orientated, focus on outcome,

autonomous working style,

pragmatic, hard working.

Less independent, need for

supervision and guidance

combined with autonomy and

flexibility, need feedback,

collaborative decision-making.

Note. Individually developed based upon the literature review.

2.1.4 Differences and similarities

As mentioned above, Generation X and Generation Y embody a wide variety of different

characteristics, attitudes, and beliefs. Nevertheless, researchers hold varying opinions

concerning the differences between generational cohorts. The results of research over the last

decades reflect the varying views held in the common literature. Furthermore, there is a

growing view that more similarities between generational cohorts may exist than previously

thought (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Lester et al., 2012; Mencl & Lester, 2014).

In a study focused on the three prevalent generations in today’s workforce, Mencl and

Lester (2014) explored whether there are actually more similarities than differences with

respect to what these generations desire in their workplace. In their study, they use 10

characteristics associated with “the best places to work” list, namely: teamwork and

collaboration, flexible work arrangements, a challenging job, involvement in decision making,

a financially rewarding job, work–life balance, a climate of diversity, continuous learning,


career advancement, and immediate feedback and recognition. Mencl and Lester (2014) have

found that generations share more similarities than differences regarding the extent to which

they consider work factors important. The only three value differences found relate to career

advancement, a climate of diversity, and immediate recognition and feedback. The most

significant generational difference lies with career advancement opportunities, which are

valued to a greater extent by Generation Y than Generation X. The other seven characteristics

do not vary by generation, according to their study (Mencl & Lester, 2014).

A previous study by Lester et al. (2012) has investigated actual versus perceived

generational differences in the perception of workplace factors, based on 15 different items.

They hypothesized that actual generational differences exist regarding the extent to which

technology, face-to-face communication, e-mail communication, social media, formal

authority, and fun-at-work are valued. Their hypothesis was partly supported, as they found

significant differences with respect to three out of the five investigated characteristics.

Concerning Generation X and Generation Y, there were just two differences regarding social

media and fun-at-work. Additionally, they found a significant difference in the characteristic

continuous learning, which was not part of the hypothesis, but was valued to a greater extent

by Generation Y than Generation X. Finally, the second hypothesis, that perceived differences

would significantly outnumber actual differences among the three generations in terms of what

they valued, was strongly supported. In summary, this study by Lester et al. (2012) has

demonstrated that the number of actual generational differences is far fewer than the number

of perceived differences (Lester et al., 2012). Even though there were slightly mixed results in

the findings of Lester et al. (2012) as well as those of Mencl and Lester (2014), this is simply

an indication of the need of further research.

In a study aimed at determining whether there are differences in work values between

the three generational cohorts currently working in the workforce, Cennamo and Gardner

(2008) have found significant generational differences for individual work values concerning

status and freedom, but not for extrinsic, intrinsic, social, and altruism-related values.

According to the study, Generation Y values freedom-related items more than Generation X

and therefore tends to seek work opportunities that supply freedom and autonomy.

Nonetheless, Millennials may leave organizations if these needs are not met (Cennamo &

Gardner, 2008).

In contrast, Lyons, Duxbury, and Higgins (2005) found that the four generations differ

significantly with respect to the set of five work values that they measured, namely intrinsic,

extrinsic, altruistic, social work, and prestige work-related value. The study has revealed that


social work values are valued to a greater extent by Generation Y, who place more importance

on the social aspect of work compared to any other generation. Therefore, Millennials

emphasize the social and fun aspects of work and the working environment. According to the

study, on the one hand, members of Generation Y also place greater importance on prestige in

comparison with older generations. On the other hand, Generation X was found to place the

most importance on intrinsic work values relative to all other generations, including Generation

Y. This finding is consistent with the stereotype that Generation X is addicted to learning and

improving their working skills. Altruistic work values were found to have decreased in

importance with each generation, with Generation Y placing the least importance on altruism

work values compared to the older generations. Finally, little generational differences were

found regarding the importance of extrinsic work values, such as salary, benefits, and job

security. In summary, Lyons and colleagues (2005) found generational differences among four

of the five work values they studied (Lyons, Duxbury, & Higgins, 2005).

Although many perceptions and assumptions exist for each generation regarding the

characteristics and values discussed in this sub-chapter, the frequency of conflicting results in

the literature makes it difficult to make firm conclusions about each generational cohort.

Researchers have expressed concern about the paucity of empirical research concerning

generational stereotypes associated with each cohort (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Sessa et al.,

2007). Nevertheless, there is a tendency towards the opinion that more similarities between

generational cohorts may exist than previously thought and simultaneously that there is a need

for more research in this area (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Lester et al., 2012; Mencl & Lester,

2014). However, the lack of empirical evidence often results in the critique that generational

cohort theory is more relevant to popular culture than social science (Giancola, 2006).

2.1.5 Summary

The author has noted the presence of different generations in the workforce today, which has

effects on the organization itself as well as on the leaders and managers within the organization.

It is important to recognize that it is not without risk when grouping individuals into

generational cohorts to describe general characteristics. This approach often draws criticism

from researchers and scientists. Nevertheless, one must recognize that those who are born in

the same time span have common influential experiences that lead to similar views and values

(Smola & Sutton, 2002). In the literature review thus far, the author has noted different

perceptions of different researchers about the same generational cohorts. Therefore, it is

difficult to draw explicit conclusions for each generation. However, Generations X and Y share


some similar characteristics, which have been identified in the available literature. The results

are summarized in Table 1. In fact, over the last three decades, the literature has shifted from

clearly distinguishing Generations X and Y from each other to highlighting more and more

similarities between them with respect to work factors and work values. Thus, it can be stated

that research opportunities regarding generational cohorts have not yet been exhausted. There

is definitely a need for more research in this area, especially since Generation Z will enter the

workforce soon.

2.2 Leadership

This sub-chapter provides insight into the vast body of literature concerning leadership in

general and leadership styles specifically. First, the term leadership is explored and

differentiated from the term management. Then, the dominant models of leadership styles are

briefly discussed in chronological order. Afterwards, aspects of leadership and emotional

intelligence are combined before exploring the six emotional leadership styles. A summary of

the most important findings closes this sub-chapter and the literature review ends with a

description of the hypothesis in Sub-Chapter 2.3.

2.2.1 Overview

The study of leadership, like the study of generations, has been an important and central part

of the literature on management and organizational behavior for several decades. The books,

articles, and papers on the subject of leadership number in the several thousands and can be

found in several disciplines, including management, psychology, sociology, political science,

public administration, and educational administration (Yukl, 1989). Today, the interest in

leadership research remains keen. For instance, the Harvard Business Review alone has

published nearly 500 articles since 1923 that reference leadership in their abstracts. Leadership

is a complex phenomenon that has inspired many theories and definitions. However, there is

no single definition of leadership that is universally applicable. In fact, there has been a wide

range of definitions, theories, and models within this field, but little consensus among

leadership theorists (Lorsch, 2010). This section provides a brief overview of leadership in

order to convey why this field is so broad and complex at the same time.

According to Yukl (1989), there are many definitions of leadership. It has been

defined in terms of leader behavior, individual traits, interaction patterns, follower perceptions,

role relationships, influence on organizational culture, influence on task goals, and influence

over followers. Yukl (1989) argues further that most definitions involve a social influence


process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people to structure

the activities and relationships in a group or organization. However, researchers usually define

leadership according to their individual points of view and the aspect of the phenomenon that

is of most interest to them. This results in discrepancies between the definitions and a lack of

conceptual agreement among researchers regarding leadership, which makes it a complex,

multifaceted phenomenon (Yukl, 1989). Burns (1978), cited in Yukl (1989), similarly remarks

that "leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth." This

problem arises not only in understanding the operation of the theory, but also in its definition.

This is emphasized by Stogdill (1974), cited in Yukl (1989), who concludes after a

comprehensive review of leadership literature that "there are almost as many definitions of

leadership as those who have attempted to define the concept". We agree with Yukl (1989),

who states that it is better to use the various conceptions of leadership as a source for different

perspectives on a complex phenomenon than to resolve the controversy over the appropriate

definition of leadership (Yukl, 1989). For the purposes of this paper, leadership is defined,

according to Yukl (2010), as “the process of influencing others to understand and agree about

what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective

efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (Yukl, 2010, p. 26). This definition takes into account

several aspects that determine the success of collective effort by members of a group or an

organization to accomplish meaningful tasks. According to this definition, the question arises

as to how this process of influencing can be realized. Before the author devotes time more

detailed to this question and introduces the theories of leadership, it is necessary to differentiate

leadership from management.

2.2.2 Leadership vs. management

In the literature, there is continuing controversy about the difference between leadership and

management. Even though the terms manager and leader are often used interchangeably, there

seems to be a difference between the concepts. Most researchers agree with the assumption

that leading and managing are not equivalent, but the degree of similarity between the two

concepts is a point of disagreement. It is obvious that a person can be a leader without being a

manager (e.g. informal leader) and vice versa (Yukl, 1989). Yukl (2010) argues further that the

essential distinction appears to be that leaders influence commitment, whereas managers

merely carry out position responsibilities and exercise authority. On the one hand, leaders deal

with interpersonal interactions in order to motivate their followers to fulfill a certain task and

achieve a certain goal. Furthermore, leaders seem to have a long-term perspective with regard


to objectives and strategies. On the other hand, managers are more impersonal with their

subordinates and focus on their underlying work, such as planning, investigating, coordinating,

evaluating, and supervising with a focus on short-term results (Yukl, 2010, p. 25). However,

associating leading and managing with different types of people is not supported by empirical

research because individuals cannot be stereotyped. Furthermore, the leadership’s

responsibility is to achieve organizational goals (Yukl, 2010) and the leader cannot therefore

be only people-orientated without considering the task and vice versa. Consequently, in this

research paper, leadership and management are seen as complementary and holistic. The

essence is to keep in mind the different opinions on leadership and management as well as the

various definitions of leadership when looking at the existing models of leadership.

2.2.3 Evolution of leadership theories

In this section, the dominant models of leadership are described chronologically. The theories

are grouped according to the research approach that characterizes them. The five categories

selected in this study are the trait, behavioral, situational, transformational, and charismatic

approaches. The aim is to describe the models and the author will not delve into criticizing,

approving of, or disapproving of any them because analyzing all of the existing leadership

theories is beyond the scope of this thesis and would not serve its purpose.

According to Yukl (1989), the trait approach was one of the earliest approaches used

to study leadership and endured up until the late 1940s. This approach emphasizes the attributes

of leaders, such as personality, motives, values, and skills. The underlying assumption of this

approach is that certain people have characteristics that make them a better leader than others

(Yukl, 1989). Trait theories are often referred to as “Great Man” theories because they assume

that leadership ability arises from innate, internal traits. Some people have leadership ability

and others simply do not (Glynn & DeJordy, 2010). To assess this theory, hundreds of trait

studies were conducted during the 1930s and 1940s, but the search for definitive and universal

leadership traits met with only limited success. It remained unclear which traits are most

important and which are not important. Additionally, the degree of overlap was not clarified

(Yukl, 2010, p. 31). As a result, researchers’ attention turned to other explanations and their

focus shifted from the traits of leaders to the behavior of leaders.

From the late 1940s to the late 1960s, the behavioral approach became dominant. It

emphasizes that leadership has to do with the behavior of leaders, typically categorized into

task-orientation and people-orientation. On the one hand, task-related issues emphasize the

achievement of work goals and organizing structures and rules. On the other hand, people-


related issues emphasize interpersonal relationships and consideration of followers. This

approach has its origin in the Iowa studies, which define three basic leadership styles:

autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. About twenty years later, researchers at University at

Michigan suggested that there are two distinct styles of leadership, production-oriented and

employee-centered. At the same time, Ohio State researchers explored initiating structure

(whereby leaders define and structure the work) and consideration (whereby leaders show

respect for subordinates and sensitivity to subordinate feelings). More theorists continued to

explore leaders’ behaviors and action, such as Stogdill (1963) with his Leader Behavior

Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) or Blake and Mouton (1964) with their managerial grid

theory, among others. However, researchers found that no behavioral style is universally

effective. Rather, the best style to use is dependent on the situation. Thus, researchers began to

search for more situationally specific theories of leadership (Glynn & DeJordy, 2010).

From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, the situational approach became popular. This

approach suggests that leadership is dependent on the situation and that there may not be a

universally effective leadership style. Much more, these theories assume that different contexts

may call for different kinds of leadership, which means that an effective leader has to choose

his attributes and behavior from a repertoire of leadership styles according to the demands of a

specific task situation (Glynn & DeJordy, 2010). Theories describing this relationship are often

called “contingency theories” of leadership (Yukl, 2010, p. 33). According to Van Seters and

Field (1990), the three most noteworthy contingency theories are the contingency theory, the

path-goal theory, and the normative theory (Van Seters & Field, 1990). Fiedler’s contingency

theory (1964) suggests that the performance of a leader depends upon the favorableness of the

situation, assessed by the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale, which is supposed to measure

whether the leader’s behavior is task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Hence, leadership

effectiveness is predicted by how receptive the followers are to the leader’s preferred

orientation (Glynn & DeJordy, 2010). House’s path-goal theory (1974) proposes that leader

behavior influences subordinates’ effort and satisfaction. The degree of influence depends on

certain aspects of the situation, including task characteristics and subordinate characteristics.

The latest version of this theory contains four basic leadership behaviors, namely directive,

supportive, participative, or achievement-oriented, which are applied as they fit the work

environment and followers’ needs (Yukl, 1989, 2010). The normative model by Vroom and

Yetton (1973) differs from the previous models. This model focuses explicitly on the decision-

making behavior of the leader in relation to the situation and the need for decision acceptance

and/or quality (Van Seters & Field, 1990). These theories are commonly criticized for their


fairly local and narrow context – they focus on a leader’s particular work situation or immediate

subordinates – and their high level of complexity, which makes them difficult to apply (Glynn

& DeJordy, 2010).

In the 1980s, researchers focused more on charismatic leadership and the

transformation of organizations. They regarded leadership as a change process and the leader

as a primary catalyst for change. These recent approaches convey how leaders influence

followers to put the needs of the organization above materialistic self-interests. The theories of

charismatic and transformational leadership describe this important aspect of leadership and

are often used interchangeably by many writers. A number of these approaches build on and

extend the earlier approaches of trait, behavioral, and contingency theories (Yukl, 1989; 2010,

pp. 262-263). According to Burns (1978), cited in Yukl (1989), transformational leadership

theorizes the interaction between followers and leaders and refers to the process of building

commitment to the organization’s mission, objectives, and strategies. The outcomes of this

“leadership process” are changes in the culture and strategy of an organization. However,

House (1977), cited in Yukl (1989), regards charismatic leadership with a focus on an

individual leader as an idol or superhuman hero rather than on a leadership process that may

be shared by multiple leaders. Two major theories of charismatic leadership are Conger and

Kanugu’s attribution theory and House’s charismatic leadership theory. Conger and Kanugu’s

attribution theory is based on the assumption that charisma is an attributional phenomenon.

Followers attribute charismatic qualities to a leader based on the leader’s behavior, expertise,

aspects of the situation, and related outcome. House’s charismatic leadership theory identifies

how charismatic leaders behave, how they differ from other leaders, and which conditions are

optimal for their successful performance. The theory specifies the indicators of charismatic

leadership that involve attitudes and perceptions of followers about the leader’s ideology and

that have intense and unique effects on the followers (Yukl, 1989). The theory of

transformational leadership originates in Burns’ theory of transforming leadership. Burns, cited

in Yukl (2010), states that transforming leadership appeals to higher ideals and moral values

of followers with the goal of raising their consciousness about ethical issues in order to reform

organizations. Burns contrasts transforming leadership with transactional leadership, in which

followers are motivated by appeals to their self-interest and the exchange of benefits.

Transactional leadership is more instrumental, using pay and other benefits to motivate

followers’ efforts (Yukl, 2010, p. 263). Bass (1990) proposes a more detailed theory to describe

transformational processes in organizations as well as to distinguish between charismatic,

transformational, and transactional leadership. Bass defines transformational leadership in


terms of the leader’s effect on followers. The focus is on raising the awareness of the

importance and values of task outcomes and moreover on the leader’s ability to inspire trust,

loyalty, and admiration in followers, who then subordinate self-interest to the interest of the

organization (Bass, 1990). According to Bass, cited in Yukl (1989), transformational

leadership is compromised of the following dimensions: idealized influence (charisma),

individualized consideration (includes support, guidance, and encouragement), intellectual

stimulation (involves increasing follower awareness and an understanding of problems), and

inspirational motivation (implies giving meaning to work). For Bass, transformational

leadership is more than just another term for charisma and differs from Burns’ transforming

leadership in that it does not necessarily have to appeal to positive moral values. Additionally,

he defines transactional leadership in broader terms than Burns, including not only the use of

benefits to influence followers’ effort, but also clarification of the work needed to obtain

rewards (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989). Yukl (2010) states in his book “Leadership in

Organizations” that one of the most important issues for leadership scholars is the extent to

which transformational leadership and charismatic leadership are similar and compatible. As

mentioned in this section, some researchers use the two types of leadership interchangeably,

whereas other researchers view them as distinct, but overlapping processes (Yukl, 2010, p.

287). Another aspect of transformational leadership is that the leader takes into consideration

the emotional needs of the followers (Pinos, Twigg, Parayitam, & Olson, 2006). A prerequisite

for a leader to realize this aspect is being able to recognize and have control over his own

emotions and relationships with others (Goleman, 2004).

Finally, it is important to mention that the many theorists that address leadership styles

and/or behavior do not agree on one, universal point-of-view. Furthermore, some authors reject

the concept of leadership styles because they see the distinction between styles as

dysfunctional. Distinguishing between leadership styles leads to a conceptual distinction of the

basic leadership tasks, which they see as functionally inseparable. As mentioned above, the

prime responsibility of the leader is to achieve organizational goals. Therefore, leadership is

about tasks, which are the necessary process steps that must be taken to achieve organizational

goals, and leaders are therefore always task-orientated (Desjardins, 2012). On the other hand,

tasks need to be conducted by people being led; therefore, all leadership activities are related

to the question of how to get people to perform, which basically means that leaders are also

people-orientated (Mastrangelo, Eddy, & Lorenzet, 2004). Consequently, task-orientation and

people-orientation cannot be seen as separate and should be seen as holistic and independent

of leadership style (Desjardins, 2012).


2.2.4 Relation between leadership and emotional intelligence

According to George (2000), emotions play a crucial role in the workplace, especially in the

leadership process because leadership is essentially an emotional process wherein leaders

display emotion and attempt to evoke emotions in followers (George, 2000). Therefore, it is

vital for leaders to be emotionally intelligent. Leadership behavior can affect a wide range of

emotions in followers, from optimism and joy to frustration and anger (Zineldin & Hytter,

2012). All of these emotions affect the behavior of followers. Goleman (2001, 2004) has found

that a leader’s emotional intelligence creates a certain culture and work environment, which

are dependent upon the degree of his emotional intelligence. Research has indicated that a high

level of emotional intelligence creates a climate in which information sharing, trust, and

learning flourish. On the other hand, a low level of emotional intelligence creates a climate of

fear and anxiety. Despite the controversy in the literature about the advantages of emotional

intelligence, it appears to be an important attribute of effective leadership (Goleman, 2004;

Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001). Emotional intelligence helps leaders to not only

recognize their own emotions, but also the emotional needs of their followers (Peterson &

Luthans, 2003) as well as to identify the relationships amongst employees and leaders

(Goleman, 2004). Effective leaders are able to generate positive emotions in their followers

and can reduce negative emotions in times of crisis (Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007).

Emotional intelligence has the potential to contribute to effective leadership in multiple ways

because leadership is an emotion-laden process, both from a leader and a follower perspective

(George, 2000).

It is not in the scope of this paper to explore the concept and theories of emotional

intelligence in detail. Nevertheless, it is necessary to provide some basic information to convey

the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership in the workplace. From a

content-related point of view, emotional intelligence can be structured into three models: the

ability model, the trait model, and the mixed model. Whereas some authors, such as Mayer and

Salovey (2002) state that emotional intelligence is built upon cognitive abilities (Caruso,

Mayer, & Salovey, 2002), other authors, such as Dulewicz and Higgs, focus on personality

traits while measuring emotional intelligence (Dulewicz & Higgs, 1999; Dulewicz, Higgs, &

Slaski, 2003). Yet, other authors like Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee use a mixed model,

which includes both ability and personality traits as well as competencies (Goleman, 2000a;

Goleman et al., 2001). All three models have their pros and cons in the literature and research,

but the author will not evaluate these in this paper. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that

emotional intelligence is still at an early stage in terms of research development and hypothesis


testing. Much of the theoretical work has explored differences between the major models,

which is important, but there is considerable overlap among the models, too. For example, all

models recognize that emotional intelligence involves two broad components: awareness and

management of one’s own emotions and awareness and management of others’ emotions

(Cherniss, Extein, Goleman, & Weissberg, 2006). The author decided to apply the mixed model

of emotional intelligence from Goleman et al. (2001), which is holistic and includes cognitive

as well as non-cognitive abilities. Furthermore, this model is used in the context of the

workplace and six leadership styles can be derived from it. Therefore, this model fits best for

the purposes of this paper.

Goleman et al. (2001) define emotional intelligence as a person’s ability to recognize

personal feelings and those of others to manage emotions within themselves and their

relationship to others (Goleman et al., 2001). Table 2 represents the current version of the

emotional intelligence framework of Goleman and colleagues.

Table 2.

A Framework of Emotional Competencies

Self

(Personal Competences)

Other

(Social Competences)

Recognition

Self-Awareness

- Emotional self-awareness

- Accurate self-assessment

- Self-confidence

Social Awareness

- Empathy

- Service orientation

- Organizational awareness

Regulation

Self-Management

- Self-control

- Trustworthiness

- Conscientiousness

- Adaptability

- Achievement drive

- Initiative

Relationship Management

- Developing others

- Influence

- Communication

- Conflict management

- Leadership

- Change catalyst

- Building bonds

- Teamwork & collaboration

Note. Emotional intelligence framework by Goleman, D. (2000a). An EI-based theory of performance. In

Goleman, D. & Cherniss, C. The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select for, Measure, and

Improve Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups, and Organizations (pp. 27-44). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

This model is a refinement of the model that Goleman used in 1998. The earlier model applied

five dimensions of emotional intelligence: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation,

empathy, and social skills. The first three dimensions described personal competencies, that is,

knowing and managing one’s own emotions. The last two dimensions described social


competencies, that is, knowing and managing others’ emotions. The current model reflects

recent statistical analyses by Richard Boyatzis, which support reducing the five dimensions

into four, as depicted in Table 2: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and

relationship management (Goleman, 2000a). Self-awareness is the ability to read one’s own

emotions and intuitively know how they affect others. It allows people to know their strengths

and limitations and feel confident about their self-worth. Self-management is the ability to

control one’s own emotions and act with honesty and integrity in reliable and adaptable ways.

It allows people to know where a bad mood is coming from and how long it might last. Social

awareness includes the key capabilities of empathy and organizational intuition. It allows

people to understand how their words and actions affect others, and what impact the words

have on them. Relationship management includes the abilities to communicate clearly and

convincingly, disarm conflicts, and build strong personal bonds (Goleman et al., 2001). A study

by Cavallo and Brienza (2006), which was presented at the Consortium for Research on

Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, demonstrates the correlation between emotional

intelligence and leadership. Three hundred fifty-eight managers worldwide within Johnson &

Johnson were consulted through a survey to find possible leadership competences that

distinguish high performers from others. The investigation revealed that all high performers

had higher self-awareness, self-management capabilities, and social skills than others. These

are all essential parts of emotional intelligence (Cavallo & Brienza, 2006). A similar

relationship between the emotional intelligence strengths of a leader and business results has

been found by McClelland (1998). According to McClelland, leaders with a strength in

emotional intelligence competencies outperformed yearly revenue targets by 15 to 20%

compared to leaders with weak emotional competencies (McClelland, 1998).

At this point, based on the emotional intelligence framework of Goleman, a bridge is

built to the subject of leadership style, which emphasizes the relation between emotional

intelligence and leadership. The emotional leadership style was chosen deliberately because

this leadership style directly relates to the emotional intelligence competencies of a leader, a

fact which is supported by several studies (Goleman, 2000a). Furthermore, this leadership style

is practice-orientated and has gained attention in popular literature and research over the last

decade. The core of this leadership theory is a development built on Goleman’s earlier

emotional intelligence framework described above. In their book “Primal Leadership:

Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence”, Goleman et al. (2013) state that “great

leadership works through emotions” (p. 3) with the aim of generating excitement, optimism,

and passion for the job ahead, as well as cultivating an atmosphere of cooperation and trust


(pp. 29-30). The authors describe a holistic approach, which includes the basics of emotionally

intelligent leadership, how leaders can develop into emotionally intelligent leaders, and how

emotional intelligence can be implemented into an organization (Goleman, Boyatzis, &

McKee, 2013). This approach has its origin in a study conducted by the consulting firm

Hay/McBer, which drew on a random sample of 3,871 executives selected from a database of

more than 20,000 executives worldwide. The study found six distinct leadership styles, each

springing from different components of emotional intelligence. Each style seems to have a

direct and unique effect on the working atmosphere as well as on the climate and makes use of

the key components of emotional intelligence in different combinations. Furthermore, the best

leaders do not have just one style of leadership, but a repertoire and the flexibility to switch

between styles as the circumstances require (Goleman, 2000b). This aspect of emotional

leadership style is of particular interest in this thesis. In order to work efficiently with different

generations, a leader must be able to identify the needs of his employees and apply the

appropriate leadership style.

Four of the six leadership styles are known as the resonant styles. The resonant styles

are the visionary, the coaching, the affiliative, and the democratic styles and all have a positive

effect on the climate and results and create a resonance that boosts performance (p. 53). The

other two styles, the pacesetting and the commanding styles, are known as the dissonant styles

and may have a negative effect on the climate and generate dissonance when used incorrectly

(Goleman, 2000a; Goleman et al., 2013, pp. 53-54). The visionary style’s primary objective is

providing long-term direction and vision for subordinates. A leader defines the overall goal,

but gives followers the freedom to choose their own way of achieving it. This style is most

effective when changes require a new vision, or when a clear direction is needed. It is least

effective when the leader is working with experts who are more experienced than he is. The

coaching style has the primary objective of the long-term professional development of

subordinates. This style works well to help subordinates improve performance by building

long-term capabilities, but not when they are resistant to changing their ways. The affiliative

style has the primary objective of creating harmony among subordinates and between leaders

and subordinates. This style is particularly useful for motivating people during stressful times

or for strengthening connections, but it is not useful when negative performance feedback is

needed to improve standards and refocus objectives. The democratic style has the primary

objective of building commitment and consensus among subordinates. This style is appropriate

for building buy-in consensus or for gaining valuable input from subordinates. It is not useful

when subordinates have no training in consensus-building and democratic decision-making.


The pacesetting style has the primary objective of accomplishing tasks to a high standard of

excellence. This style is most effective for obtaining high-quality results from motivated

individuals in crises. It is least effective with subordinates who want feedback and development

plans to improve their performance. The commanding style has the primary objective of

immediate compliance of subordinates. This style is appropriate in turnaround situations, crisis

situations, or when working with problem subordinates. However, in most situations, this style

inhibits the organization’s flexibility and dampens subordinates’ performance (Goleman,

2000b; Goleman et al., 2013, p. 55). Table 3 summarizes the leadership styles.

Table 3

Summary of the Emotional Leadership Styles

Leadership

Styles EI Competencies

Climate

Impact Objective When Appropriate

Visionary

Self-confidence;

empathy; change

catalyst

Most

positive

Mobilize

others to

follow a

vision

When change requires a

new vision, or when a

clear direction is

needed.

Coaching

Developing others;

empathy; emotional

self-awareness

Highly

positive

Build

strengths for

the future

To help an employee

improve performance or

develop long-term

strengths.

Affiliative

Empathy, building

bonds; conflict

management

Highly

positive

Create

harmony

To heal rifts in a team,

or to motivate during

stressful times.

Democratic

Collaboration; team

leadership;

communication

Highly

positive

Build

commitment

through

participation

To build buy-in or

consensus, or to obtain

valuable input from

employees.

Pacesetting

Conscientiousness;

drive to achieve;

initiative

Highly

negative

Perform

tasks to a

high standard

To get quick results

from a highly motivated

and competent team.

Commanding

Drive to achieve;

initiative, emotional

self-control

Strongly

negative

Immediate

compliance

In a crisis, to kick-start a

turnaround, or with

problem employees.




CA: Jossey-Bass.


In summary, it should be mentioned that many leaders mistakenly assume that leadership style

is a function of personality rather than a strategic choice. The more styles a leader has in his

repertoire, the better. In particular, being able to switch among the different styles according to

the appropriate conditions creates the best organizational climate and therefore boosts business

performance (Goleman, 2000b). This aspect is what differs the emotional leadership theory

from any other leadership theory mentioned in Sub-Section 2.2.3 and is what makes it useful

for the purpose of this research.

2.2.5 Summary

It can be argued that there is a wide range of definitions, theories, and models within the field

of leadership, but little consensus among leadership theorists (Lorsch, 2010). Researchers

usually define leadership according to their individual points-of-view and the aspect of most

interest to them. This has resulted in a lack of a universal definition. Nevertheless, nearly all

definitions of leadership have something in common: There is a need for someone to organize

the individual efforts of a group towards cooperative accomplishment of a task. This person is

the so-called leader. Furthermore, we have found that leadership overlaps with management

and both include people-orientation as well as task-orientation to some degree. Therefore, these

terms can be seen as complementary and holistic. In the evolution of leadership theories, one

can observe a clear development from the opinion that a leader is “naturally born” and has an

inherent set of traits and personality to the opinion that leadership is dependent upon the

situation and context to the opinion that leadership can be learned through the development of

emotional intelligence through life experience. Current researchers understand that leaders can

be made as well as born and that leadership style is not a function of personality, but rather a

strategic choice (Goleman, 2000b).

2.3 Hypotheses

Before the hypotheses are proposed, it is helpful to recall the purpose of this thesis, which is to

explore whether employees of Generation X differ from those of Generation Y and whether

these generations prefer different emotional leadership styles.

According to our literature review, today’s multigenerational workforce has major

effects on organizations, and especially on managers and leaders, who must be able to handle

the diversity to operate productively (Salopek, 2006). The author has determined that

Generation X and Generation Y both value leadership in general, even if there may be some

differences in the their preferred leadership styles, which we do not know yet. Thus, it is


expected that Generation X and Generation Y value the importance of leadership to the same

extent. Therefore, the author hypothesizes the following:

Hypothesis 1: There is no difference between Generation X and Generation Y in terms of their

perception of the importance of perceived leadership.

Furthermore, the author has noted in the literature review that generational characteristics play

a significant role in how employees prefer to be led and managed (Salahuddin, 2010). We have

found that Generations X and Y differ somewhat in their characteristics as well as in their work

factors/values and that these differences may affect their preference for a certain leadership

style. Irrespective of whether or not Generations X and Y prefer different leadership styles, the

author expects that both generations value the importance of being led according to their

preferred leadership style. Therefore, the author offers the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: There is no difference between Generation X and Generation Y in terms of their

perception of the importance of being led according to their preferred leadership style.

The definition of leadership in this thesis takes into account several aspects that determine the

success of collective effort by members of a group or an organization that aims to accomplish

meaningful tasks. This definition leads to the question of how the process of influencing can

be realized. Thus, leadership styles also come into question. It is assumed that there is a

relationship between the importance of perceived leadership in general and the importance of

being led according to the preferred leadership style. This assumption is based on Hypothesis

1 and Hypothesis 2. Therefore, the author hypothesizes the following:

Hypothesis 3: The importance of perceived leadership correlates positively with the

importance of being led according to the preferred leadership style.

According to the literature review, there is no perfect leadership style that suits all conditions

and all employees. A leader should have a repertoire of leadership styles and the flexibility to

switch between them according to the demand of the situation as well as to the needs of his

employees. The more styles a leader has in his repertoire, the better (Goleman, 2000b).

Superiors seem to have their own leadership style, which they use continuously in every

situation without regard for the needs of their employees. Therefore, the following hypothesis

was formulated:


Hypothesis 4: Current superiors do not lead their subordinates according to their preferred

leadership style.

The question also arises as to how the different characteristics of Generations X and Y affect

their preference for a certain emotional leadership style. In the literature review, the author

identified six emotional leadership styles, each of which is appropriate for different conditions

and the different needs of the employees. Each also has a direct impact on the organization’s

climate. Thus, it would be particularly interesting if Generations X and Y tend to prefer

different emotional leadership styles. According to the characteristics of these generational

cohorts, the author expects that they do indeed prefer different emotional leadership styles.

Therefore, the following hypothesis is offered by the author:

Hypothesis 5: Generation X and Generation Y prefer different emotional leadership styles.

Methodology 29

3 Research Methodology

The purpose of the empirical part is to address the following sub-questions using an explorative

study: (3) Do Generation X and Generation Y differ in their perceptions of the importance of

perceived leadership and preferred leadership style? (4) Is there a difference between

Generation X and Generation Y with respect to their preferred emotional leadership style?

More precisely, the task of the empirical part is to validate the theoretical assumptions about

generational differences concerning the two generations’ preferred leadership style. Therefore,

the five hypotheses laid out in Sub-Chapter 2.3 need to be verified. In order to obtain the

necessary empirical information to address the research questions in this thesis, a quantitative

research approach in the form of an online survey was chosen.

3.1 Participants

This study focuses on members of Generation X and Generation Y who are currently employed

in organizations and have a direct superior (e.g. department leader, team leader, project leader,

etc.). Therefore, this target group can be defined as the population. According to the German

Federal Statistical Office, there were nearly 43 million people employed in Germany in 2015.

Of these, 14 million were from Generation X and 12 million were from Generation Y.

Therefore, the population is roughly 26 million people. These numbers were calculated

according to data collected from the Federal Statistical Office (Appendix A). The consecutive

G Power - power analysis (G Power Version 3.1.9.2) for fixed effects ANOVAs with two

groups (which we conducted in this study that compares Generation X and Generation Y)

revealed, considering a mean effect size (0.35) providing at a power of 95% and a two-sided

alpha of 5, a minimum sample size of 110.

One hundred twenty-one employees participated in the online survey. Of these

employees, 108 completed the whole survey. However, data from three additional respondents

were discarded because they were born before 1965 and therefore in the generational cohort of

the baby boomers, which are not the subject of this research. Hence, the final sample consisted

of 105 individuals. Of these, 45 were members of Generation X and 60 were members of

Generation Y, which is illustrated in Figure 2. Table 4 depicts demographic information as a

function of generation. Most participants were male with (n = 69), which accounts for nearly

two thirds of the participants. About half of the participants (n = 52) had up to 10 years of

practical experience in a profession and the other half (n = 53) had more than 10 years of

experience. Most participants had no military background with (n = 74). Of these, 39 (86.7%)

were part of Generation X and 35 (58.3%) were part of Generation Y.

Methodology 30

Figure 2. Frequency Distribution of Generations X and Y

Figure 2. Individually developed pie chart.

Table 4

Demographic Information


n = 45 % n = 60 %

Gender

Male 28 62.2 41 68.3

Female 17 37.8 19 31.7

Total 45 100 60 100

Military Background

Yes 6 13.3 25 41.7

No 39 86.7 35 58.3

Total 45 100 60 100

Practical Experience

< 5 years 3 6.7 20 33.4

5-10 years 5 11.1 24 40

11-15 years 4 8.9 14 23.3

16-20 years 23 51.1 2 3.3

> 20 years 10 22.2 0 0

Total 45 100 60 100

Note. Individually developed.

3.2 Data Collection

An online survey was established and conducted to gather the quantitative data over the internet

using the online survey creation tool from www.umfrageonline.com. This website is well

known throughout the academic and business world, with over 500,000 users from all over the

world ("UmfrageOnline," 2016). At first, the link to the online survey was posted on Facebook

4560


http://www.umfrageonline.com/

Methodology 31

with a short description of the purpose as well as the topic of the survey. On the one hand, the

author chose this approach to reach a broad range of people with different academic as well as

professional backgrounds. On the other hand, this approach was chosen in order to obtain a

random sample with approximately equal numbers of participants from Generation X and

Generation Y. After two weeks, 89 individuals had taken part of the online survey. Of these,

31 were within the Generation X and 58 were within Generation Y. Because there was an

imbalance in the numbers representing each generation, the author decided to send the link to

the survey to friends and family in the extended circle of acquaintances in order to obtain more

participants from Generation X. This measure was taken to ensure a more balanced sample.

The author conducted a telephone follow-up after one week to ensure that the respondents

received the link to the survey, to answer all possible questions, and to remind them to complete

the survey. Finally, after four weeks from the beginning of the survey, 121 had taken part. All

121 questionnaires were checked for their usability before the data was used to test the

hypotheses.

3.3 Questionnaire Design

The online survey was conducted in English (Appendix 2) and took individuals approximately

10 minutes to complete. By clicking the link to the online survey, the participants were

connected to the webpage of the survey provider “UmfrageOnline”. First, they were confronted

with a brief description of the purpose of the survey and the requirements for participation (e.g.

a birth year between 1965 and 2000 and being currently employed). The survey contained a

total of 41 questions, largely based on multiple-item measurement scales. These items were

categorized into multiple sections. The first section contained two opening questions asking

for general information about the participant in order to gain trust and foster openness. The

second section contained three overall rating questions concerning the subject of perceived

leadership and preferred leadership style in order to create an initial linkage to the topic. The

participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Scale values: 1=very unimportant,

2=unimportant, 3=neither/nor, 4= important, 5=very important). The fourth and last question

in this section concerned the participants’ satisfaction with the leadership style of their current

superior. The participants responded using a dichotomous scale (Scale value: 1=yes, 2=no).

The main section of the survey aimed to determine the preferred leadership style of the

participants and whether there is a difference between Generations X and Y. Therefore, the

participants were asked the extent to which they personally agree with 30 different items that

could be representative of their superior’s leadership behavior. All items were based on the six

Methodology 32

emotional leadership styles laid out by Goleman and colleagues. The author has adapted the

items from the book “The new Leaders: Transforming the Art of Leadership into the Science

of Results” (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Each leadership style contained five items.

The participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Scale values: 1=strongly

disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither/nor, 4= agree, 5=strongly agree). Additionally, there were two

more questions in this section concerning the ideal leadership behavior of the participant’s

superior. For each question, the participants had to rank six statements on a scale of 1 to 6

(1=most important and 6=least important). Each statement described one of Goleman’s six

emotional leadership styles, also adapted from the book “The new Leaders: Transforming the

Art of Leadership into the Science of Results” (Goleman et al., 2002). In the last section of the

questionnaire were three questions related to demographic information (e.g. gender and birth

year). The birth year was a mandatory question and necessary for placing the participants in

the appropriate generational cohorts.

3.4 Analytic Procedure

The descriptive statistic feature SPSS 23.0© (IBM Statistics) was used to analyze the mean,

standard deviation, and range of the data provided by the participants through the questionnaire.

The data included the number of years of practical experience in their profession, their

background, their gender, and their birth year. Furthermore, several univariate analyses of

variance (ANOVA) as well as multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted

to analyze the differences between Generation X and Generation Y. The author decided to

consistently apply a one-way ANOVA instead of a T-Test to compare the group means

throughout the whole empirical part. In the case of this study, there was no difference if a one-

way ANOVA or a T-Test was conducted, because there were only two groups compared. Thus,

the result remained the same. The one-way ANOVA was just more elegant and therefore in

preference of the author. In order to analyze the relationship between the importance of

perceived leadership and the importance of being led according to the preferred leadership

style, a Pearson correlation and a regression analysis were conducted. To analyze differences

in the satisfaction of perceived leadership between the generational cohorts, a chi-square

analysis was conducted.

Analysis and Results 33

4 Data Analysis and Results

4.1 Hypothesis Testing

This chapter reports the results related to the five hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 to 4 are associated

with Sub-Question 3: Do Generation X and Generation Y differ in their perception of the

importance of perceived leadership and preferred leadership style? Hypothesis 5 is the main

subject and is associated with Sub-Question 4: Is there a difference between Generation X and

Generation Y with respect to their preferred emotional leadership style?

4.1.1 Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 proposed that there is no difference between Generation X and Generation Y’s

perception of the importance of perceived leadership. This hypothesis is associated with

Question 3 of the online survey, which asked participants to rank the importance of perceived

leadership using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Scale values: 1=very unimportant, 2=unimportant,

3=neither/nor, 4= important, 5=very important). In order to test the first hypothesis, a univariate

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the generational cohorts with respect

to their perception of the importance of perceived leadership. The dependent variable was

perceived leadership and the independent variable was generation. Participants were divided

into Generation X and Generation Y according to their birth years.

Table 5 depicts the mean and the standard deviations for each generation. The value

of the mean difference was 0.28 in favor of Generation Y (M_X = 3.67; M_Y = 3.95).

Table 5

Means and Standard Deviation of the Study Variable

Generation n M SD

X 45 3.67 .953

Y 60 3.95 .811

Total 105 3.83 .882

Table 6 depicts the ANOVA result for the importance of perceived leadership. The result of

the ANOVA indicated that there was no significant main effect for generations (F [1] = 2.679,

p = .104). Finally, no significant differences were found between Generation X and Generation

Y. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was strongly supported.


Table 6

ANOVA Summary Table for the Importance of Perceived Leadership

Source

Sum of

Squares

df

Mean

Square

F

Sig.

Generation 2.064 1 2.064 2.697 .104

Note. **correlation significant with p < .01

4.1.2 Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 relates to the assessment of the importance of having a superior who leads her

subordinates according to their preferred leadership style. Therefore, the hypothesis proposed

that there is no difference between Generation X and Generation Y’s perception of the

importance of being led according to their preferred leadership style. This hypothesis is linked

to question five of the online survey. The participants were asked to rank the importance of

having a superior who leads them according to their preferred leadership style on the same 5-

point Likert-type scale as previously used. Again, an ANOVA was conducted to test the

hypothesis. This time the dependent variable was preferred leadership style and the

independent variable was the respective generation.

Table 7 illustrates the mean and standard deviations for each generation. Members of

Generation Y reported minimal higher importance of being led according to their preferred

leadership style (M = 3.77, SD = .810) than Generation X (M = 3.60, SD = 1.031).

Table 7


Generation n M SD

X 45 3.60 1.031

Y 60 3.77 .810

Total 105 3.70 .911

Table 8 conveys the ANOVA result for the importance of being led according to one’s

preferred leadership style. The result of the ANOVA indicated that the importance of being led

according to the preferred leadership style did not vary significantly between generations, (F

[1] = .860, p = .356). Finally, no differences were found between Generation X and Generation

Y. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was strongly supported.


Table 8

ANOVA Summary Table for the Importance of being Led According to the Preferred

Leadership Style

Source

Sum of

Squares

df

Mean

Square

F

Sig.

Generation .714 1 .714 .860 .356


4.1.3 Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 assumed that there is a positive correlation between the importance of perceived

leadership in general and the importance of being led according to the preferred leadership

style. This hypothesis led to a further investigation of the relationship between Hypothesis 1

and Hypothesis 2. Consequently, Hypothesis 3 is associated with Questions 3 and 5 of the

online survey. A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted in order to test the hypothesis and

evaluate whether there is a relationship between the two variables. The dependent variable was

the importance of perceived leadership and the independent variable was the importance of

being led according to the preferred leadership style. Additionally, a regression calculation was

conducted to identify the explained variation.

As Table 9 indicates, 105 individuals were surveyed regarding their view of the

importance of perceived leadership (M = 3.83, SD = .882) and their view of the importance of

being led according to their preferred leadership style (M = 3.70, SD = .911). A Pearson’s r

data analysis revealed, as expected, a moderate positive correlation (r = .317) that was

statistically significant (p = .001). The explained variation has a value of 10%. In sum, it can

be affirmed that individuals who ranked the importance of perceived leadership as high also

reported higher levels for the importance of being led according to the preferred leadership

style. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Table 9

Correlation, Means, and Standard Deviations of Study Variables

M SD (1) (2)

Perceived leadership (1) 3.83 .882 1 .317**

Preferred leadership style (2) 3.70 .911 .317** 1

Note. N = 105, **correlation significant with p < .01


4.1.4 Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 led to the assessment of whether current superiors lead their subordinates

according to their preferred leadership style. The hypothesis proposed that current superiors do

not lead their subordinates according to their preferred leadership style. This hypothesis is

linked with Question 6 of the online survey, which asked participants whether their current

superior leads them according to their preferred leadership style. The participants responded

using a dichotomous scale (scale values: 1=yes, 2=no). In order to test the hypothesis, a

frequency distribution was conducted and inferentially reviewed with a chi-square test to

determine if the differences are statistically significant.

Figure 3 depicts the frequency distribution of all 105 participants. Of these, 47.6% (n =

50) reported that their superior does lead them according to their preferred leadership style,

while 52.4% (n = 55) denied it. Even though this is a relatively balanced result, it can be argued

that there is definitely development potential for superiors with respect to adapting their

leadership styles according to their subordinates’ preferences. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was

partially supported.

Figure 3. Frequency Distribution of all Participants (in Percent)


Taking a closer look at the result, substantial differences were found between Generation X

and Generation Y, and they are illustrated in Figure 4. 31.8% of the members of Generation X

stated that their superior does lead them according to their preferred leadership style, while the

same was true for 58.3% of the members of Generation Y. Considering the generational cohorts

individually, there was not only a descriptive difference, but also an inferential difference (χ2

[1] = 8.485, p < .05), which emphasized the chi-square test. Therefore, the relationship was

statistically significant.

52,40

%

47,60

%

No Yes


Figure 4. Frequency Distribution with Regard to Generational Cohorts (in Percent)

Figure 4. Individually developed bar chart.

4.1.5 Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 5 is associated with Sub-Question 4: Is there a difference between Generations X

and Y with respect to their preferred emotional leadership style? The hypothesis proposed that

there is indeed a difference between Generations X and Y with respect to their preferred

emotional leadership style. In summary, this hypothesis is linked to 32 questions in the online

survey and is the main subject of the empirical part. The testing of the hypothesis was divided

into three parts. In the first part, 30 single questions in the questionnaire were analyzed using

a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) in order to verify whether there was a

leadership style preference within the generational cohorts. The dependent variables were the

emotional leadership styles and the independent variable was the generation. For this purpose,

the 30 statements were grouped into the six leadership styles (five statements per leadership

style). In the second part, an analysis in the form of descriptive statistics was conducted for two

control questions (7 and 38), where the participants had to rank six statements on a scale of 1

to 6 (1=most important and 6=least important). Each statement described one of the six

emotional leadership styles. In the last part, a Pearson correlation between the six leadership

styles was run to determine whether they correlate.

In the first part of the analysis, the results of the MANOVA revealed a significant main

effect (F [6.98] = 3.390, p= .004). Therefore, it was concluded that the preference of emotional

leadership styles was significantly dependent on the generational cohort. Table 10 provides the

mean and standard deviation for the six different dependent variables (emotional leadership

styles), which have been divided according to the independent variable (generation).

68,2

41,731,8

58,3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

X Y

Per

cent

Generation

Yes

Yes No

No


Table 10

Means, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom, F-ratio, and Significant Level of the

Study Variables

Dependent

Variable

Independent

Variable M SD df F Sig.

Affiliative X 3.84 .47

1 .507 .478 Y 3.77 .55

Democratic X 3.66 .56

1 .877 .351 Y 3.75 .45

Pacesetting X 3.71 .52

1 .025 .875 Y 3.72 .55

Coaching X 4.01 .42

1 1.498 .224 Y 4.10 .34

Visionary X 3.97 .39

1 16.541** .000 Y 4.27 .36

Commanding X 3.12 .88

1 3.913 .051 Y 3.42 .72


As Table 10 indicates, there was a statistically significant difference between Generation X

and Generation Y concerning the visionary leadership style (F [1] = 16.541, p < .01). In this

case, the value of the mean difference was 0.30 in favor of Generation Y (M_X = 3.97, SD_X

= .39; M_Y = 4.27, SD_Y = .36). Concerning the commanding leadership style, there was also

a mean difference of 0.30 in favor of Generation Y (M_X = 3.12, SD_X = .88; M_Y = 3.42,

SD_Y = .72). Nevertheless, this difference was not statistically significant (F [1] = 3.913, p >

.01). No statistically significant differences were found for the remaining four emotional

leadership styles (F [1] < 3.913, p > .05). According to Figure 5, Generation Y valued the

visionary leadership style the most (M_Y = 4.27) in contrast to Generation X, which valued

the coaching leadership style the most (M_X = 4.01). Both generations valued the commanding

leadership style the least (M_Y = 3.42; M_X = 3.12). According to the means and contrary to

the expectation, each leadership style was valued to nearly the same extent by Generation X

and Generation Y, with the exception of the visionary style. Therefore, the hypothesis was

partially supported.


Figure 5. Leadership Style Preferences with Regard to Generational Cohorts (Pictured by

Means)


In the course of the analysis, the scale values of the 5-point Likert-type scale for the 30 single

questions in the survey were categorized into three sections: (0) “low” preference, which

considered the scale values from 1-2; (1) “medium” preference, which considered the scale

values from 2-4; and (2) “high” preference, which considered the scale values from 4-5. Section

2 (“high” preference for the relevant leadership style) is the main subject in the following

analysis. This enabled us to analyze the findings using cross-tabulation (Table 11) for each

leadership style separately with regard to Section 2, “high” preference. The most important

findings are presented in the following paragraphs.

We began with the affiliative leadership style. Forty-five of the 105 participants

categorized this leadership style as highly preferred. Of these, 55.6% (n = 25) were from

Generation Y and 44.4% (n = 20) were from Generation X. Furthermore, 41.7% of the

participants who belonged to Generation Y indicated a “high” preference for the affiliative

leadership style. 44.4% (n = 20) of the participants who came from Generation X indicated

“high” preference for this style.

Forty of the 105 participants categorized the democratic leadership style as highly

preferred. Of these, nearly two-thirds (62.5%, n = 25) came from Generation Y and 37.5% (n

= 15) came from Generation X. On the other hand, 41.7% of the participants from Generation

Y, which was exactly the same percentage as for the affiliative style, indicated a “high”

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Affiliative Democratic Pacsetting Coaching Visionary Commanding

X

Y

3.8

4

3.6

6

3.7

1 4.0

1

3.9

7

3.1

2

3.7

5

3.7

7

3.7

2 4

.10

4.2

7

3.4

2


preference for the democratic leadership style. In comparison, only 33.3% of the participants

from Generation X indicated a “high” preference for this style.

Thirty-eight of the 105 participants categorized the pacesetting leadership style as

highly preferred. Of these, nearly two-thirds (63.2%, n = 24) belonged to Generation Y and

36.8% (n = 14) to Generation X. Exactly 40% of the participants from Generation Y had a

“high” preference for the pacesetting style. In contrast, just 31.1% of the participants from

Generation X had a “high” preference for this style.

Seventy-one of the 105 participants categorized the coaching style as highly preferred.

Of these, 60.6% (n = 43) were from Generation Y and 39.4% (n = 28) were from Generation

X. 71.7% of the participants who belonged to Generation Y had a “high” preference for the

coaching style whereas only 62.2% of the participants from Generation X had a “high”

preference for this leadership style.

The visionary leadership style was the most preferred style of Generation Y in the

previous analysis. In this analysis, 78 of the 105 participants categorized this leadership style

as highly preferred. Of these, exactly two-thirds (66.7%, n = 52) came from Generation Y and

one-third (33.3%, n = 26) came from Generation X. 86.7% of the participants from Generation

Y had a “high” preference for the visionary style. In contrast, only 57.8% of the participants

from Generation X had a “high” preference for this style.

The last leadership style was the commanding style. This leadership style was the least

preferred in the previous analysis. Yet, 23 of the 105 participants categorized this leadership

style as highly preferred. Of these, again, nearly two-thirds (69.6%, n = 16) were from

Generation Y and 30.4% (n = 7) were from Generation X. Moreover, 26.7% of the participants

from Generation Y had a “high” preference for the pacesetting style compared with 15.6% of

the participants from Generation X who indicated “high” preference for this leadership style.

This cross-tabulation emphasized the findings from the previous analysis. The most

participants (n = 78) categorized the visionary leadership style as highly preferred, followed

by the coaching leadership style (n = 71). The least participants (n = 23) categorized the

commanding leadership style as high preferred.


Table 11

Summary Cross-Tabulation Preferred Leadership Style – Generational Cohorts with

Regard to Section 2 = “high” Preference for Leadership Style

Leadership Style Generation

Total X Y

Affiliative Count 20 25 45

(“high” Preference) % within Affiliative 44.4% 55.6% 100%

% within Generation 44.4% 41.7% 42.9%

% of Total 19% 23.8% 42.9%

Democratic Count 15 25 40

(“high” Preference) % within Democratic 37.5% 62.5% 100%


% of Total 14.3% 23.8% 38.1%

Pacesetting Count 14 24 38

(“high” Preference) % within Pacesetting 36.8% 63.2% 100%

% within Generation 31.1% 40% 36.2%

% of Total 13.3% 22.9% 36.2%

Coaching Count 28 43 71

(“high” Preference) % within Coaching 39.4% 60.6% 100%


% of Total 26.7% 41% 67.6%

Visionary Count 26 52 78

(“high” Preference) % within Visionary 33.3% 66.7% 100%


% of Total 24.8% 49.5% 74.3%

Commanding Count 7 16 23

(“high” Preference) % within Commanding 30.4% 69.6% 100%


% of Total 6.7% 15.2% 21.9%

Total Count 45 60 105

% within Leadership Style 42.9% 57.1% 100%

% within Generation 100% 100% 100%

% of Total 42.9% 57.1% 100%

In the second part of the analysis, the two outstanding questions (7 and 38) of the online survey

were investigated to close the examination of Sub-Question 4: Do Generation X and

Generation Y differ with respect to their preferred emotional leadership style? For each

question, the participants had to rank six statements on a scale of 1 to 6 (1=most important and

6=least important). Each statement described one of the six emotional leadership styles. This

value scale was reversed compared to the previous ones. Each question was analyzed separately

according to the leadership style preferences of the generational cohorts. This analysis involved

descriptive statistics.


Table 12 depicts the mean and standard deviation from the ranking of the leadership styles in

total concerning Question 7, divided by generational cohort. The coaching style (M = 2.30)

was the most valued amongst all participants, followed by the visionary style (M = 2.35), the

the democratic style (M = 3.21), the affiliative style (M = 3.64), the pacesetting style (M =

4.02) and finally the commanding style (M = 5.49).

Table 12

Mean and Standard Deviation of Leadership Styles (Question 7) – Split by Generational

Cohort and Total

Leadership

Style

Generation X Generation Y Total

n M SD n M SD n M SD

Visionary 45 2.60 1.434 60 2.17 1.434 105 2.35 1.434

Coaching 45 1.87 1.372 60 2.62 1.463 105 2.30 1.308

Affiliative 45 3.78 1.179 60 3.53 1.316 105 3.64 1.545

Democratic 45 3.16 1.259 60 3.25 1.732 105 3.21 1.276

Pacesetting 45 4.02 1.331 60 4.02 1.244 105 4.02 1.256

Commanding 45 5.58 1.422 60 5.42 1.127 105 5.49 1.075

When the result was considered separately for Generation X and Generation Y, only slight

differences were found. Merely the visionary style and the coaching style differed in their

positions. Generation Y valued the visionary leadership style the most (M_Y = 2.17), in

contrast to Generation X, which valued the coaching leadership style the most (M_X = 1.87).

Both generations valued the commanding leadership style the least (M_Y = 5.42; M_X = 5.58).

The rest of the leadership styles did not differ according to generation. This result coincides

mainly with the result of the MANOVA. The findings are graphically presented in Figure 6.


Figure 6 Leadership Style Preferences with Regard to Generational Cohorts (Pictured by

Means) – Question 7


Question 38 was a kind of control question similar to Question 7, but with different statements

for each leadership style. This question was managed in the same way as Question 7. Table 13

illustrates the mean and standard deviation from the ranking of the leadership styles in total

and split by generational cohort for Question 38. A similar pattern appeared. Again, the least

preferred leadership styles were the pacesetting style (M = 3.86) and the commanding

leadership style (M = 5.09). Nevertheless, there were some small differences within the first

four leadership styles compared to the previous analysis. The affiliative style (M = 2.56) was

the most valued amongst all participants, followed by the coaching style (M = 3.11), the

visionary style (M = 3.18), and finally the democratic style (M = 3.20). The result indicates

that the affiliative style moved from the fourth rank to the first rank and pushed the other

leadership styles down by one rank. Very few differences were found when the result was

considered separately for Generation X and Generation Y. Only the visionary style (M_Y =

3.45; M_X = 2.82), the affiliative style (M_Y = 2.73; M_X = 2.33), and the democratic style

(M_Y = 2.90; M_X = 3.60) differed in terms of their ranking. The other three leadership styles

were ranked the same by Generation X and Generation Y. Figure 7 summarizes these results.

2,6

1,8

7

3,7

8

3,1

6

4,0

2

5,5

8

2,1

7 2,6

2

3,5

3

3,2

5

4,0

2

5,4

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Visionary Coaching Affiliative Democratic Pacesetting Commanding

1 =

mo

st v

alued

; 6

= l

east

val

ued



Table 13

Mean and Standard Deviation of Leadership Styles (Question 38) – Split by Generational

Cohort and Total

Leadership

Style



Visionary 45 2.82 1.434 60 3.45 1.434 105 3.18 1.434

Coaching 45 3.02 1.284 60 3.18 1.672 105 3.11 1.543

Affiliative 45 2.33 1.288 60 2.73 1.546 105 2.56 1.437

Democratic 45 3.60 1.595 60 2.90 1.539 105 3.20 1.568

Pacesetting 45 4.04 1.468 60 3.72 1.272 105 3.86 1.396

Commanding 45 5.18 1.580 60 5.02 1.776 105 5.09 1.695

Figure 7 Leadership Style Preferences with Regard to Generational Cohorts (Pictured

by Means) – Question 38


The results of the analysis of Question 7 and Question 38 indicate just some small differences

between the resonant leadership styles. The dissonant leadership styles (pacesetting and

commanding) were always ranked least. In summary, the results coincide largely with the result

of the MANOVA in the beginning.

In the third and last part of the analysis, a Pearson correlation was run between the six

leadership styles to investigate if there was a correlation between them. The correlation was

based on the analysis of the 30 single statements, which were categorized into the six leadership

styles. As stated above, the participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Scale

2,8

2

3,0

2

2,3

3

3,6

4,0

4

5,1

8

3,4

5

3,1

8

2,7

3

2,9

3,7

2

5,0

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


1 =

mo

st v

alued

; 2

= l

east

val

ued



values: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither/nor, 4= agree, 5=strongly agree). As Table

14 indicates, there were positive and significant correlations between the affiliative style and

the democratic style (r = .396; p = .000), the affiliative style and the visionary style (r = .194;

p = .047), the democratic style and the coaching style (r = .229; p = .019), the democratic style

and the visionary style (r = .410; p = .000), the coaching style and the visionary style (r = .357;

p = .000), and the pacesetting style and the commanding style (r = .400; p = .000). On the other

hand, there were negative and significant correlations between the affiliative style and the

pacesetting style (r = -.194; p = .048), and the democratic style and the pacesetting style (r = -

.222; p = .023). In summary, the Pearson correlation emphasized the similarities of the four

resonant leadership styles (affiliative, democratic, coaching, and visionary) as well as their

differences with respect to the two dissonant leadership styles (pacesetting and commanding).

It should be mentioned that the Pearson correlation conducted in this sub-chapter was not

directly in relation to the hypotheses. Nevertheless, the result rounded of the picture of the

emotional leadership styles in relation to the investigated generations and supported the

findings concerning Hypothesis 5.

Table 14

Pearson Correlation between Leadership Styles

M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Affiliative (1) 3.80 .51 1

Democratic (2) 3.71 .50 .396** 1

Pacesetting (3) 3.72 .53 -.194* -.222* 1

Coaching (4) 4.06 .38 .153 .229* .108 1

Visionary (5) 4.15 .40 .194* .410** -.154 .357** 1

Commanding (6) 3.29 .80 -.113 -.084 .400** .055 .164 1

Note. N = 105, **correlation significant with p < .01, *correlation significant with p < .05


4.2 Summary

Chapter 4 has reported the results pertaining to the five hypotheses proposed in this thesis. The

findings are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that there is no difference between Generation X and

Generation Y with respect to their perception of the importance of perceived leadership. It was

expected that Generation X and Generation Y value the importance of perceived leadership to

the same extent. The author conducted an ANOVA to test the hypothesis. The result of the

ANOVA revealed no significant differences between Generations X and Y regarding the

importance of perceived leadership. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was strongly supported.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that there is no difference between Generation X and

Generation Y with respect to their perception of the importance of being led according to their

preferred leadership style. It was expected that both generations value the importance of being

led according to their preferred leadership style. Once more, an ANOVA was conducted to test

the hypothesis. The result of the ANOVA indicated that there were no significant differences

between generations. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was strongly supported.

Hypothesis 3 assumed that there is a positive correlation between the importance of

perceived leadership in general and the importance of being led according to the preferred

leadership style. This assumption was based on Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. A Pearson

correlation analysis was conducted. The result conveyed, as expected, a moderate correlation,

which was statistically significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that current superiors do not lead their subordinates according

to their preferred leadership style. The author thus attempted to assess whether current

superiors lead their subordinates according to their preferred leadership style. To test the

hypothesis, a frequency distribution was conducted and inferential reviewed with a chi-square

test to determine if the differences were statistically significant. The result of the frequency

distribution revealed a relatively balanced result (52.5% of the participants stated that their

superior does not lead them according to their preferred leadership style compared to 47% who

stated that their superior does lead them according to their preferred leadership style).

Therefore, the hypothesis was partially supported. However, taking a closer look at the result,

statistically significant differences were found between Generation X and Generation Y

through the conduction of a chi-square test. This test revealed that 31.8% of Generation X

stated that their superior does lead them according to their preferred leadership style (compared

to 58.3% of Generation Y).


Hypothesis 5 proposed that there is a difference between Generation X and Generation Y with

respect of their preferred emotional leadership style. According to the characteristics of these

generational cohorts, it was expected that they prefer different emotional leadership styles.

First, the author conducted a MANOVA to test the hypothesis. Additionally, a Pearson

correlation was run between the six emotional leadership styles to verify whether they

correlated. The result of the MANOVA indicated that the preferences for the six emotional

leadership styles were significantly dependent on the generational cohort. Significant

differences concerning visionary leadership style were found between Generations X and Y, in

favor of Generation Y. According to the means, Generation Y valued the visionary leadership

style the most (M_Y = 4.27), in contrast to Generation X, which valued the coaching leadership

style the most (M_X = 4.01). Both generations valued the commanding leadership style the

least (M_Y = 3.42; M_X = 3.12). According to the means and contrary to the expectation, each

leadership style was valued to nearly the same extent by Generation X and Generation Y, with

the exception of the visionary style. Therefore, the hypothesis was partially supported. The

result of the Pearson correlation between the six emotional leadership styles emphasized the

similarities between the four resonant leadership styles (affiliative, democratic, coaching, and

visionary) as well as their differences with respect to the two dissonant leadership styles

(pacesetting and commanding).

Discussion and Conclusion 48

5 Discussion and Conclusion

This master’s thesis was designed to explore whether employees of Generation X differ from

those of Generation Y and whether these generations prefer different emotional leadership

styles. This thesis has extended the research that currently exists concerning different

generational cohorts by providing deeper insight into the leadership preferences within

Generations X and Y. The theoretical framework of the thesis is based upon research

concerning generational differences in the current workforce, with a focus on Generations X

and Y. Additionally, the thesis has focused on the research concerning leadership theories,

especially the emotional leadership theory first developed by Goleman et al. (Goleman et al.,

2001). Therefore, this thesis has combined the areas of generational cohorts, leadership, and

emotional intelligence. As the author has observed, these subjects have only been explored

individually in previous literature and research. This thesis is the first to investigate both

Generations X and Y and their preferred emotional leadership styles within the current

workforce through an explorative study. This thesis has aimed to answer the following main

research question:

What are the differences and similarities between employees of Generation X and Generation

Y and do these generations prefer different emotional leadership styles?

5.1 Discussion

5.1.1 Theoretical part

To answer the first part of the main research question, the author investigated the differences

and similarities between Generations X and Y, which provided the answer to Sub-Question 1:

Do employees of Generation X differ from those of Generation Y in terms of their

characteristics? Based on the existing literature it can be stated that there are differences in the

characteristics and work values of Generations X and Y. The reason for these perceived

differences between Generations X and Y is often stated to be the succession of defining

moments in the lives of these generational cohorts. The literature review has strongly indicated

that Generation X is seen as independent, self-reliant, skeptical, less loyal, and flexible, among

others. These characteristics often result in the perception that Generation X is selfish.

However, it is important to recognize that what may be viewed as selfish can also be viewed

as autonomous (Jurkiewicz, 2000). Individuals of Generation Y are seen as very different from

previous generational cohorts. They are often characterized as being idealistic, optimistic,

independent, self-confident, and technologically well-versed (Martin, 2005), among others.


Consequently, these characteristics have an effect on the workplace concerning work ethos and

the way these generations act with each other as well as with their superiors. Despite many

perceptions and assumptions about these generations, the frequency of conflicting results in

the literature makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about each generational cohort. A

main reason for these conflicting results is that individuals cannot be easily stereotyped

according to their birth years (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Sessa et al., 2007). What makes the

issue even more complex is the fact that in the current literature, there is a tendency towards

the opinion that there are more similarities than differences between generational cohorts

concerning work factors and values (Lester et al., 2012; Mencl & Lester, 2014). These findings

confirm the need for further research in this area, especially when another generation

(Generation Z) will enter the workforce soon.

The second part of the main research question required the author to investigate

whether Generations X and Y prefer different emotional leadership styles. First, a literature

review on the evolution of different leadership theories was conducted, with a focus on

emotional leadership styles. This part answered Sub-Question 2: How do emotional leadership

styles differ and what are their main characteristics? The findings in the literature review led

the author to apply the emotional leadership style in the empirical part of the thesis. The

emotional leadership style was chosen because it directly relates to the emotional intelligence

of the leader. The significant fact about emotional intelligence is that it can be developed

through life experience (Goleman, 2000a). This means that a leader more effectively influence

the behavior of his subordinates through developing emotional competencies. Furthermore, this

style is practice-orientated and has gained a great deal of attention in the literature. The essential

argument for using this leadership theory is that it is appropriate for different conditions and

situations. This is especially important when applying this leadership style to employees from

different generational cohorts. According to Goleman (2000), a modern leader should have a

repertoire of leadership styles and the flexibility to switch between these different styles as the

circumstances require (Goleman, 2000b). Therefore, this leadership theory was appropriate for

the explorative study, which investigated whether Generations X and Y prefer different

emotional leadership styles. If Generations X and Y prefer different emotional leadership

styles, a modern leader should know which style he should use to lead his employees

effectively and efficiently. The explorative study was the second step and was conducted to

answer the second part of the main research question. The following is a discussion of the

empirical study.


5.1.2 Empirical part

The results of the empirical part have revealed various aspects of Generations X and Y and

their perceptions of leadership and leadership styles, which are all discussed in the following

paragraphs. First, there is no difference between these two generational cohorts in terms of

their perception of the importance of perceived leadership. Despite the different characteristics

of Generations X and Y, they value the importance of leadership – “the process of influencing

others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process

of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (Yukl, 2010,

p. 26)” – to the same extent. This aspect indicates that leadership is indispensable in a leader

and follower relationship and independent of the characteristics of the different generations.

For organizations and current leaders, it is an important aspect that should be considered.

Second, every employee is an individual that has her own preferences regarding being

led by a superior. It was observed that different generational cohorts have different

characteristics and work values. The empirical part has revealed that each generation prefers

to be led according to its preferred leadership style. This implies that it is particularly important

for organizations and leaders to recognize the characteristics and preferences of the different

generations in order to lead them according to their preferences. In a multigenerational

workforce, this is not an easy task. Nevertheless, it is a crucial skill for being effective and

efficient. These findings answer Sub-Question 3: Do Generation X and Generation Y’s

perceptions of the importance of perceived leadership and preferred leadership styles differ?

Third, the empirical part has revealed a positive correlation between the importance

of perceived leadership and the importance of being led according to the preferred leadership

style. This result emphasizes the relationship between leadership in general and leadership

style, which denotes terms how the leadership process is executed. This positive correlation

indicates that leadership and leadership style is a holistic approach, and the two concepts cannot

be separated.

Fourth, the empirical part has demonstrated that 47.6% of the participants in the study

stated that their superior does lead them according to their preferred leadership style. Taking a

closer look at the generational cohorts, the result is even more explicit. 31.8% of Generation X

compared to 58.3% of Generation Y stated that their superior lead them according to their

preferred leadership style. Here, there is an obvious difference in the perceptions of

Generations X and Y. The reasons for these findings are diverse, but cannot be clearly defined.

One possible reason for these differences could be that the superiors are not aware of the

preferred leadership style of their subordinates. Another reason could be that the superiors have


their own preferred leadership style and are not able to change it according to the needs of their

subordinates. Yet another reason could be that the superiors do not consider it necessary to

change their leadership style to match the preferences of their subordinates. Generations X and

Generation Y may have different perceptions because they prefer different leadership styles.

In summary, it can be concluded that superiors are not leading their subordinates, and

especially the two generations at hand, according to their preferred leadership styles and

therefore have substantial potential for improvement. This can be done through personal

training and management training in organizations. Modern leaders must develop expertise in

human behavior in order to lead a multigenerational workforce efficiently. Furthermore, the

author has learned that emotions play a crucial role for leaders in the workplace, especially in

the leadership process. Leadership is an emotional process, wherein leaders display emotions

and attempt to evoke emotions in their followers (George, 2000). Thus, leaders may increase

their emotional intelligence in order to be able to respond to the emotions of their subordinates

and recognize the suitable leadership styles with which to lead their subordinates of different

generational cohorts.

The fifth and last finding of the empirical study addresses the main subject and

answers Sub-Question 4: Is there a difference between Generation X and Generation Y in terms

of their preferred leadership style? The empirical part has demonstrated that there is a

statistically significant difference between Generations X and Y (in favor of Generation Y)

concerning the visionary leadership style. According to the literature, the visionary leadership

style can be associated with the resonant styles, which have a positive effect on the

organizations` climate and results. This leadership style has the primary objective of providing

a long-term direction and vision. It works well with employees who depend upon their superior

for active guidance and have a need for constant feedback (Goleman et al., 2013, pp. 54-59).

Therefore, the results suggest that this leadership style is suitable to the characteristics of

Generation Y. Furthermore, the results are consistent with previous literature, which states that

Generation Y is often perceived to be less independent and requiring structure, supervision,

constant feedback, and guidance in their work environment combined with the right amount of

autonomy and flexibility (Bennett et al., 2012; Martin, 2005), and the need for constant

feedback (Patterson, 2007). On the other hand, this leadership style is least effective if used

extensively with experienced employees who know as much as their superior and when trying

to promote participative decision-making (Goleman et al., 2001). This might be the reason why

there is a statistical difference between Generations Y and X concerning the visionary

leadership style. Previous literature states that Generation X is very results-orientated, focuses


on outcome above process (Glass, 2007), prefers an autonomous working style (Glass, 2007),

and needs a balanced amount of supervision (Salahuddin, 2010). These characteristics contrast

with those of the visionary leadership style. The empirical findings have revealed that

Generation X most prefers the coaching leadership style. This style is most effective for

employees who are interested in long-range planning to achieve their goals and for employees

who need to find their own solution to their work problems (Goleman et al., 2001). This style

seems to suit the characteristics of Generation X. With regard to the empirical results, it can be

stated that both generations value the commanding leadership style the least. The reason seems

to be the characteristics of this leadership style, which is described in the literature as requiring

immediate compliance from subordinates and suitable for employees who need clear direction

(Goleman et al., 2001). Generations X and Y both value autonomous work and independence

in the workplace, even if not to the same extent, which may explain why both generations value

the commanding leadership style the least.

A clear pattern emerged across all six emotional leadership styles in the empirical

study. The most preferred leadership styles are the visionary and coaching styles amongst both

generations with just slight differences between Generations X and Y. These differences may

be due to the different questions in the survey because each individual, independent of their

generation, interprets the questions in his own way. Furthermore, this result indicates that the

differences between Generations X and Y may not be as great as imagined and it is possible

that there are more similarities between these generations than previously thought. This idea is

encouraged due to the finding that the least preferred styles of both generations are the

commanding and the pacesetting style. In summary, it is difficult to draw an explicit conclusion

regarding which leadership style is preferred by which generation and whether there are explicit

differences in the characteristics of the generational cohorts. Nevertheless, the results indicate

that both generations prefer the resonant leadership styles over the dissonant leadership styles.

This finding is emphasized by the empirical result of the Pearson correlation between the six

emotional leadership styles. The Pearson correlation has revealed the similarities between the

four resonant styles (visionary, coaching, affiliative, and democratic), which are known for

having a positive effect on the climate and results. Additionally, it demonstrates the differences

between the resonant styles and the dissonant styles (pacesetting and commanding), which have

a negative effect on the climate, and may generate dissonance when not used correctly

(Goleman, 2000a).


5.2 Limitations

The empirical part included a quantitative survey conducted online with employees of

Generations X and Y. Although the study produced a number of significant findings, it is not

without methodological limitations.

The participants were categorized according to their birth years and then into

Generations X and Y. However, each participant is an individual and stereotyping them into

generational cohorts is bound to lead to limitations. Furthermore, there is no unanimous view

in the previous literature about the birth years that constitute Generations X and Y.

Consequently, people categorized into Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) in this

research may be not considered Generation X in other research that categorizes people from

Generation X based on different years (born between 1960 and 1979). The same may be true

for people of Generation Y.

Another limitation relates to the sample size of 105 valid respondents. A higher

respondent rate would probably have led to a more representative result. Furthermore, the

unequal sample size across the two generations (45 members of Generation X and 60 members

of Generation Y) could be another limitation. This may have affected the empirical results to a

certain degree. Additionally, the link to the online survey was provided via Facebook to ensure

a random sample. However, this approach bears the risk of not providing a random sample at

all. For these reasons, the results may not be generalized to the whole population. On the other

hand, one strength of the sample is that it considers participants from different industries and

departments and is not limited to one organization or industry.

A further limitation may be the use of a 5-point Likert-type scale for some questions

in the survey. A 5-point Likert-type scale allows the participant to remain neutral regarding

some questions. A 4-point Likert-type scale requires the participant to select at least one option.

Another limitation concerning the online questionnaire is that the questions could have been

interpreted in different ways by different respondents. This is a side effect of an online survey,

as participants are not able to ask questions or for further information when answering the

questionnaire.

A final limitation is that a large part of the previous literature concerning generational

differences is U.S. centered. The participants of this study were only from Germany. There

might by cultural differences between generational cohorts from the U.S. and generational

cohorts from Germany. Thus, U.S. culturally centered findings can only be applied

theoretically to a German population.


5.3 Further Research Opportunities

In spite of the shortcomings of this study, there is opportunity for future research in the area of

generational cohorts and leadership styles. It would be worthwhile to extend these findings.

The findings of this study have indicated that there are some differences in the

characteristics and values of Generations X and Y. However, due to different perceptions and

views in previous literature and research, it is hard to draw an explicit conclusion about each

generational cohort. Furthermore, there is a growing discourse in the literature that there are

more similarities than differences between Generations X and Y. Further research should

investigate the actual differences between Generations X and Y in order to identify what in the

workplace is of value to the different generational cohorts.

The current study has covered only Generations X and Y. Another generation

(Generation Z) is entering the workforce soon and will be working side-by-side with

Generations X and Y. Therefore, future research should investigate the characteristics of

Generation Z and its preferred emotional leadership style. This would be helpful to determining

the needs of each generational cohort in the workplace and the requirements for managers and

leaders of these generations.

In this study, the emotional leadership theory was applied to investigate whether

Generations X and Y prefer different leadership styles. The findings were not as clear as

expected. The emotional leadership style is a relatively new model. Therefore, it would be

interesting for further research to apply other leadership theories, such as the transformational

theory, to investigate whether different generations prefer different leadership styles. The

transformational theory also relates to emotional intelligence and would therefore be

particularly interesting to investigate.

The data for this study were gathered over four weeks, which provided only a

snapshot. Future researchers should set up a longitudinal study in the same areas of interests,

which would provide data that are more representative.

Gender differences constitute an interesting issue concerning leadership style

preferences, especially when it comes to emotional leadership styles. The same is true for

people with military backgrounds, who have years of experience within a hierarchical culture.

For further research, it would be particularly interesting to investigate if the gender and/or the

military backgrounds as moderating variables effect the emotional leadership style preferences

between Generation X and Generation Y.


5.4 Practical Implications

Today’s organizations have to overcome several challenges. One challenge is demographic

change and the aging workforce, as recognized in this thesis. This development has effects on

employees as well as managers and leaders. On the one hand, this development can be an

opportunity and on the other hand, it may lead to issues for organizations. Therefore, it is

particularly important for managers to be aware of the differences and similarities of the

generational cohorts currently in the workplace. These differences and similarities have several

effects on organizations as well as managers. Managers have to deal with the differences

between the generational cohorts by paying attention to their preferred leadership styles in

order to minimize friction losses and lead effectively. The result of this study has clarified that

Generations X and Y prefer the resonant leadership styles of Goleman et al. Generation Y

especially prefers the visionary leadership style and Generation X especially prefers the

coaching leadership style. Moreover, both generations value the importance of perceived

leadership. Organizations should keep this in mind when training their current as well as future

managers or hiring external managers. Additionally, we have seen that each generation

independently values a manager who leads them according to their preferred leadership style.

Therefore, it is particularly important for organizations to determine the preferred leadership

style of their employees. By conducting this study, the author has taken a step towards this

goal. In summary, it is hoped that this master’s thesis will provide organizations and managers

with knowledge about the generational cohorts in the workplace so that they may understand

how to lead them effectively.

5.5 Conclusion

The findings of this master’s thesis indicate that there are both differences and similarities

between Generations X and Y and that probably more similarities exist between these two

generations than previously thought. Additionally, this thesis has demonstrated that both

generations value the importance of perceived leadership in the workplace and have their own

preferred emotional leadership styles. Even though the findings regarding the leadership style

preference of each generation are not as conclusive as expected, it can be concluded that

Generation X tends to prefer the coaching leadership style and Generation Y tends to prefer

the visionary leadership style. The ability to recognize and understand generational differences

and leadership style preferences provides organizations and managers with an advantage in

leading their diverse workforce effectively. Thus, they can achieve more productivity and

generate a competitive advantage, which benefits both the organization and the employees.

List of Tables vi

List of Tables

Table 1

Overview of the Current Findings


Birth Year 1965 – 1980 1981 – 2000

Defining

Moments

Oil crisis (1970s), arms raise (East –

West), Chernobyl nuclear disaster,

challenger accident, RAF-, IRA and

ETA terrorism (Europe), fall of the

Berlin Wall.

Globalization, climatic change,

9/11, Bin Laden, Euro currency,

Hurricane Katrina, Smart

Phones, Facebook.

Characteristics

Skeptical, less loyal, independent,

self-reliant, flexible, technologically

competent, adaptable, flexible,

autonomous.

Affluent, educated, ethnically

diverse, idealistic, self-

confident, optimistic, techno-

savvy, idealistic, high

expectations, seek for meaning

in life.

Value

Honesty, fairness, competence,

work/life balance,

straightforwardness.

Freedom, collaboration,

personalization, integrity,

entertainment, fun, family,

meaningful work, work/life

balance, personal & career

growth, learning.

Work Ethos

Result orientated, focus on outcome,

autonomous working style,

pragmatic, hard working

Less independent, need for

supervision and guidance

combined with autonomy and

flexibility, need feedback,

collaborative decision-making.

Note. Individually developed based upon the literature review.

List of Tables vii

Table 2.

A Framework of Emotional Competencies

Self

(Personal Competences)

Other

(Social Competences)

Recognition

Self-Awareness

- Emotional self-awareness

- Accurate self-assessment

- Self-confidence

Social-Awareness

- Empathy

- Service orientation

- Organizational awareness

Regulation

Self-Management

- Self-control

- Trustworthiness

- Conscientiousness

- Adaptability

- Achievement drive

- Initiative

Relationship-Management

- Developing others

- Influence

- Communication

- Conflict management

- Leadership

- Change catalyst

- Building bonds

- Teamwork & collaboration




CA: Jossey-Bass.

List of Tables viii

Table 3

Summary of the Emotional Leadership Styles

Leadership

Styles EI Competencies

Impact

on

Climate

Objective When Appropriate

Visionary

Self-confidence;

empathy; change

catalyst

Most

strongly

positive

Mobilize

others to

follow a

vision

When change requires a

new vision, or when a

clear direction is

needed.

Coaching

Developing others;

empathy; emotional

self-awareness

Highly

positive

Build

strengths for

the future

To help an employee

improve performance or

develop long-term

strengths.

Affiliative

Empathy, building

bonds; conflict

management

Highly

positive

Create

harmony

To heal rifts in a team,

or to motivate during

stressful times.

Democratic

Collaboration; team

leadership;

communication

Highly

positive

Build

commitment

through

participation

To build buy-in or

consensus, or to get

valuable input from

employees.

Pacesetting

Conscientiousness;

drive to achieve;

initiative

Highly

negative

Perform

tasks to a

high standard

To get quick results

from a highly motivated

and competent team.

Commanding

Drive to achieve;

initiative, emotional

self-control

Strongly

negative

Immediate

compliance

In a crisis, to kick-start a

turnaround, or with

problem employees.




CA: Jossey-Bass.

List of Tables ix

Table 4

Demographic Information


n = 45 % n = 60 %

Gender

Male 28 62.2 41 68.3

Female 17 37.8 19 31.7

Total 45 100 60 100

Military Background

Yes 6 13.3 25 41.7

No 39 86.7 35 58.3

Total 45 100 60 100

Practical Experience

< 5 years 3 6.7 20 33.4

5-10 years 5 11.1 24 40

11-15 years 4 8.9 14 23.3

16-20 years 23 51.1 2 3.3

> 20 years 10 22.2 0 0

Total 45 100 60 100

Note. Individually developed.

Table 5


Generation n M SD

X 45 3.67 .953

Y 60 3.95 .811

Total 105 3.83 .882

Table 6

ANOVA Summary Table for the Importance of Perceived Leadership

Source

Sum of

Squares

df

Mean

Square

F

Sig.

Generation 2.064 1 2.064 2.697 .104


List of Tables x

Table 7


Generation n M SD

X 45 3.60 1.031

Y 60 3.77 .810

Total 105 3.70 .911

Table 8

ANOVA Summary Table for the Importance of being Led According to the Preferred

Leadership Style

Source

Sum of

Squares

df

Mean

Square

F

Sig.

Generation .714 1 .714 .860 .356


Table 9

Correlation, Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables

M SD (1) (2)

Perceived leadership (1) 3.83 .882 1 .317**

Preferred leadership style (2) 3.70 .911 .317** 1

Note. N = 105, **correlation significant with p < .01

Table 10

Means, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom, F-ratio, and Significant Level of the

Study Variables

Dependent

Variable

Independent

Variable M SD df F Sig.

Affiliative X 3.84 .47

1 .507 .478 Y 3.77 .55

Democratic X 3.66 .56

1 .877 .351 Y 3.75 .45

Pacesetting X 3.71 .52

1 .025 .875 Y 3.72 .55

Coaching X 4.01 .42

1 1.498 .224 Y 4.10 .34

Visionary X 3.97 .39

1 16.541** .000 Y 4.27 .36

Commanding X 3.12 .88

1 3.913 .051 Y 3.42 .72


List of Tables xi

Table 11

Summary Cross-tabulation Preferred Leadership Style – Generational Cohorts with

Regard to Section (2) = “high” Preference of Leadership Style

Leadership Style Generation

Total X Y

Affiliative Count 20 25 45

(“high” Preference) % within Affiliative 44.4% 55.6% 100%


% of Total 19% 23.8% 42.9%

Democratic Count 15 25 40

(“high” Preference) % within Democratic 37.5% 62.5% 100%


% of Total 14.3% 23.8% 38.1%

Pacesetting Count 14 24 38

(“high” Preference) % within Pacesetting 36.8% 63.2% 100%

% within Generation 31.1% 40% 36.2%

% of Total 13.3% 22.9% 36.2%

Coaching Count 28 43 71

(“high” Preference) % within Coaching 39.4% 60.6% 100%


% of Total 26.7% 41% 67.6%

Visionary Count 26 52 78

(“high” Preference) % within Visionary 33.3% 66.7% 100%


% of Total 24.8% 49.5% 74.3%

Commanding Count 7 16 23

(“high” Preference) % within Commanding 30.4% 69.6% 100%


% of Total 6.7% 15.2% 21.9%

Total Count 45 60 105

% within Leadership Style 42.9% 57.1% 100%

% within Generation 100% 100% 100%

% of Total 42.9% 57.1% 100%

List of Tables xii

Table 12

Mean and Standard Deviation of Leadership Styles (Question 7) – Split for Generational

Cohort and Total

Leadership

Style



Visionary 45 2.60 1.434 60 2.17 1.434 105 2.35 1.434

Coaching 45 1.87 1.372 60 2.62 1.463 105 2.30 1.308

Affiliative 45 3.78 1.179 60 3.53 1.316 105 3.64 1.545

Democratic 45 3.16 1.259 60 3.25 1.732 105 3.21 1.276

Pacesetting 45 4.02 1.331 60 4.02 1.244 105 4.02 1.256

Commanding 45 5.58 1.422 60 5.42 1.127 105 5.49 1.075

Table 13

Mean and Standard Deviation of Leadership Styles (Question 38) – Split for Generational

Cohort and Total

Leadership

Style



Visionary 45 2.82 1.434 60 3.45 1.434 105 3.18 1.434

Coaching 45 3.02 1.284 60 3.18 1.672 105 3.11 1.543

Affiliative 45 2.33 1.288 60 2.73 1.546 105 2.56 1.437

Democratic 45 3.60 1.595 60 2.90 1.539 105 3.20 1.568

Pacesetting 45 4.04 1.468 60 3.72 1.272 105 3.86 1.396

Commanding 45 5.18 1.580 60 5.02 1.776 105 5.09 1.695

Table 14

Pearson Correlation Between Leadership Styles

M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Affiliative (1) 3.80 .51 1

Democratic (2) 3.71 .50 .396** 1

Pacesetting (3) 3.72 .53 -.194* -.222* 1

Coaching (4) 4.06 .38 .153 .229* .108 1

Visionary (5) 4.15 .40 .194* .410** -.154 .357** 1

Commanding (6) 3.29 .80 -.113 -.084 .400** .055 .164 1

Note. N = 105, **correlation significant with p < .01, *correlation significant with p < .05

List of Figures xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Outline of the Structure

Figure 1. Individually developed.

Chapter 1 • Introduction

Chapter 2 • Literature Review

Chapter 3 • Research Methodology

Chapter 4 • Data Analysis and Results

Chapter 5 • Discussion and Conclusion

List of Figures xiv

Figure 2. Frequency Distribution of Generation X and Y


Figure 3. Frequency Distribution of all Participants (in Percent)


4560


52,40

%

47,60

%

No Yes

List of Figures xv

Figure 4. Frequency Distribution with Regard to Generational Cohorts (in Percent)


Figure 5. Leadership Style Preferences with Regard to Generational Cohorts (Pictured by

Means)


68,2

41,731,8

58,3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

X Y

Per

cent

Generation

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Affiliative Democratic Pacsetting Coaching Visionary Commanding

X

Y

3.8

4

3.7

7

3.6

6

3.7

5

3.7

1

3.7

2 4.0

1

4.1

0

3.9

7 4

.27

3.1

2 3

.42

List of Figures xvi

Figure 6 Leadership Style Preferences with Regard to Generational Cohorts (Pictured by

Means) – Question 7


Figure 7 Leadership Style Preferences with Regard to Generational Cohorts (Pictured

by Means) – Question 38


2,8

2

3,0

2

2,3

3

3,6

4,0

4

5,1

8

3,4

5

3,1

8

2,7

3

2,9

3,7

2

5,0

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


1 =

mo

st v

alued

; 2

= l

east

val

ued


2,6

1,8

7

3,7

8

3,1

6

4,0

2

5,5

8

2,1

7 2,6

2

3,5

3

3,2

5

4,0

2

5,4

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


1 =

mo

st v

alued

; 6

= l

east

val

ued


References xvii

References

Adkins, A. (2016a). Millennials: The job-hopping generation. Retrieved from

http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/191459/millennials-job-hopping-

generation.aspx?g_source=generations&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

Adkins, A. (2016b). What millennials want from work and life. Retrieved from

http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/191435/millennials-work-

life.aspx?g_source=generations&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

Armutat, S. (2011). Zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit: Generation Y finden, fördern und

binden. PraxisPapier, 9, 2011.

Arsenault, P. M. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legitimate diversity and

leadership issue. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 124-141.

doi:doi:10.1108/01437730410521813

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bennett, J., Pitt, M., & Price, S. (2012). Understanding the impact of generational issues in the

workplace. Facilities, 30(7/8), 278-288. doi:doi:10.1108/02632771211220086

Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: the role of

supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357.

Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Relation of an ability measure of emotional

intelligence to personality. Journal of personality assessment, 79(2), 306-320.

Cavallo, K., & Brienza, D. (2006). Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson

& Johnson. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 2(1). Retrieved from

http://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/jj_ei_study.pdf

Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and

person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891-906.

Cherniss, C., Extein, M., Goleman, D., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006). Emotional intelligence:

what does the research really indicate? Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 239-245.

Deloitte. (2016). The 2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey: Winning over the next generation of

leaders. Retrieved from

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-

Deloitte/gx-millenial-survey-2016-exec-summary.pdf

Desjardins, C. (2012). The leadership productivity model. Journal of Applied Leadership and

Management, 1, 20-38.

http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/191459/millennials-job-hopping-generation.aspx?g_source=generations&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/191459/millennials-job-hopping-generation.aspx?g_source=generations&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/191435/millennials-work-life.aspx?g_source=generations&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/191435/millennials-work-life.aspx?g_source=generations&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

http://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/jj_ei_study.pdf

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-millenial-survey-2016-exec-summary.pdf

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-millenial-survey-2016-exec-summary.pdf

References xviii

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed?

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(5), 242-253.

Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M., & Slaski, M. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence: Content,

construct and criterion-related validity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(5), 405-

420.

Dwyer, R. J., & Azevedo, A. (2016). Preparing leaders for the multi-generational workforce.

Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy,

10(3), null. doi:doi:10.1108/JEC-08-2013-0025

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human

Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.

Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap: More myth than reality. Human Resource Planning,

29(4), 32-37.

Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success. Industrial

and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98-103. doi:doi:10.1108/00197850710732424

Glynn, M. A., & DeJordy, R. (2010). Leadership through an organization behavior lens. In

Noharia, N. & Khurana, R. Handbook of leadership theory and practice: A Harvard

Business School Centennial Colloquium (pp. 119-157): Harvard Business Press.

Goleman, D. (2000a). An EI-based theory of performance. In Goleman, D. & Cherniss, C. The

Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select for, Measure, and Improve

Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups, and Organizations (pp. 27-44). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Goleman, D. (2000b). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review (March - April

Issue). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results

Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Leadership Insight: Best of HBR, 35-44.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2001). Primal leadership: The hidden driver of great

performance. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 42-53.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of

emotional intelligence: Harvard Business Press.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). The new leaders: Transforming the art of

leadership into the science of results: Sphere.

Helyer, R., & Lee, D. (2012). The twenty‐first century multiple generation workforce: Overlaps

and differences but also challenges and benefits. Education + Training, 54(7), 565-578.

doi:doi:10.1108/00400911211265611

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2009). Millennials rising: The next great generation: Vintage.

https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results

References xix

Jeffries, F. L., & Hunte, T. L. (2004). Generations and motivation: A connection worth making.

Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 6(1), 37-70.

Johnson, M., & Johnson, L. (2010). Generations, Inc : From boomers to linksters--managing

the friction between generations at work. New York: AMACOM.

Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel

Management, 29(1), 55-74.

Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Generational comparisons of public employee

motivation. Review of public personnel administration, 18(4), 18-37.

Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective

management. The health care manager, 19(1), 65&hyhen.

Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2004). When generations collide: How to solve the

generational puzzle at work. In The Management Forum Series, 1-5.

Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual versus perceived

generational differences at work an empirical examination. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341-354.

Lorsch, J. (2010). A contingency theory of leadership. Handbook of leadership theory and

practice (pp. 411-429): Harvard Business Review Press.

Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2005). An empirical assessment of generational

differences in work-related values. Human Resources Management Ressources

Humaines, 26, 62-71.

Madera, J. M., Kapoor, C. E., Kapoor, C., & Solomon, N. (2011). Understanding and managing

generational differences in the workplace. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes,

3(4), 308-318. doi:10.1108/02632771211220086

Mangelsdorf, M. (2015). Von Babyboomer bis Generation Z: Der richtige Umgang mit

unterschiedlichen Generationen im Unternehmen: GABAL Verlag GmbH.

Mannheim, K. (1970). The problem of generations. Psychoanalytic review, 57(3), 378.

Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers need to

know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1), 39-44.

Mastrangelo, A., Eddy, E. R., & Lorenzet, S. J. (2004). The importance of personal and

professional leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(5), 435-

451. doi:doi:10.1108/01437730410544755

McClelland, D. C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews.

Psychological Science, 9(5), 331-340.

References xx

Mencl, J., & Lester, S. W. (2014). More alike than different what generations value and how

the values affect employee workplace perceptions. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 21(3), 257-272.

Ozkan, M., & Solmaz, B. (2015). The changing face of the employees–generation

z and their perceptions of work (a study applied to university students). Procedia Economics

and Finance, 26, 476-483.

Patterson, C. K. (2007). The impact of generational diversity in the workplace. Diversity

Factor, 15(3), 17-22.

Peterson, S. J., & Luthans, F. (2003). The positive impact and development of hopeful leaders.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1), 26-31.

Pfau, B. N. (2016). What do millenials really want at work? The same things the rest of us do.

Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/04/what-do-millennials-really-want-at-work

Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim's sociology of generations: an undervalued legacy. British

Journal of Sociology, 481-495.

Pinos, V., Twigg, N. W., Parayitam, S., & Olson, B. J. (2006). Leadership in the 21st century:

The effect of emotional intelligence. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 5, 60-

74.

Reisenwitz, T. H., & Iyer, R. (2009). Differences in generation x and generation: Implications

for the organization and markets. Marketing Management Journal, 19(2), 91-103.

Salahuddin, M. M. (2010). Generational differences impact on leadership style and

organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), 1.

Salopek, J. (2006). Leadership for a new age. T+ D, 60(6), 22-23.

Schewe, C. D., & Noble, S. M. (2000). Market Segmentation by Cohorts: The Value and

Validity of Cohorts in America and Abroad. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(1-

3), 129-142.

Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). II. Research Tools for the

Psychologist-Manager: Generational Differences in Leader Values and Leadership

Behaviors. Psychologist-Manager Journal (Taylor & Francis Ltd), 10(1), 47-74.

doi:10.1080/10887150701205543

Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work

values for the new millennium. Journal of organizational behavior, 23(4), 363-382.

Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world HC:

McGraw-Hill.

UmfrageOnline. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.umfrageonline.com/

https://hbr.org/2016/04/what-do-millennials-really-want-at-work

https://www.umfrageonline.com/

References xxi

Van Seters, D. A., & Field, R. H. (1990). The evolution of leadership theory. Journal of

organizational change management, 3(3), 29-45.

Yu, H. C., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The x generation and baby boomers compared

in different cultural contexts. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1),

35-50. doi:doi:10.1108/01437730510575570

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of

management, 15(2), 251-289.

Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.): Pearson.

Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of

veterans, boomers, xers, and nexters in your workplace: Amacom New York, NY.

Zineldin, M., & Hytter, A. (2012). Leaders' negative emotions and leadership styles influencing

subordinates' well-being. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

23(4), 748-758.

Appendices xxii

Appendices

Appendix A

Employed People According to Generation and Gender in Germany in 2005 and 2015

(Result of the Micro Census)

Note. In 1000, Generation X (age 35-49), Generation Y (age 15-34)

Source: German Federal Statistical Office, Retrieved from

https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesamtwirtschaftUmwelt/Arbeitsmarkt/Erwe

rbstaetigkeit/TabellenArbeitskraefteerhebung/ErwerbsbeteiligungRente70.html

https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesamtwirtschaftUmwelt/Arbeitsmarkt/Erwerbstaetigkeit/TabellenArbeitskraefteerhebung/ErwerbsbeteiligungRente70.html

https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesamtwirtschaftUmwelt/Arbeitsmarkt/Erwerbstaetigkeit/TabellenArbeitskraefteerhebung/ErwerbsbeteiligungRente70.html

Appendices xxiii

Appendix B

Online-Survey (Questionnaire)

Page 1

Survey for MBA Master Thesis at the University of Applied Sciences Kempten

Dear Participant,

My name is Markus Kraus and I am taking part at a MBA-Program at the University of Applied

Sciences in Kempten. Currently, I work on my Master Thesis. For my final thesis, I am

examining the relationship between generations and their preferred leadership style. The aim

of this survey is to explore if Generation X and Generation Y prefer different leadership styles.

If you were born between 1965 and 2000 and you have a direct superior (e.g. department leader/

team leader / project leader etc.) in your working environment, I am inviting you to participate

in this research study by completing the following survey. Your participation is very important

for me personally and supports me in writing my Master Thesis.

The following questionnaire will require approximately 5-10 minutes completing. There is no

compensation for responding nor is there any known risk. All information will remain

confidential and no one will be able to identify you or your answers. If you choose to participate

in this survey, please answer all questions as honestly as possible and do not skip any question.

Participation is strictly voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time. Please take in

consideration that you may only participate once in the questionnaire.

If you require additional information or have questions, please contact me via email:

[email protected]. The same applies if you would like a summary of this research study.

Thank you for taking the time to assist me in my educational endeavors.

Sincerely,

Markus Kraus

Appendices xxiv

Page 2

Please allow me to ask you the following questions:

1. How long is your practical experience in your profession?

☐ < 5 years

☐ 5 - 10 years

☐ 11-15 years

☐ 16 - 20 years

☐ > 20 years

2. Are you or have you been an officer in the German Armed Forces?

☐ Yes

☐ No

Page 3

Please take a couple of seconds and think about your working experience. Then, answer

the questions, while using the following scale. Decide the importance for you personally.

There is only one answer per question possible.

3. How important is the perceived leadership for you as an employee in your everyday work?

☐ very unimportant ☐ unimportant ☐ neither/nor ☐ important ☐ very important

4. How important is it, to feel well managed and led by your superior?


5. How important is it for you to have a superior who manages and leads you, according to

your preferred leadership style?


6. Does your current superior manage and lead you, according to your preferred leadership

style?

☐ Yes ☐ No

Appendices xxv

Page 4

Now, please think about your preferred leadership style. Below is a list of statements

about leadership behavior. What behavior/ attitude should your superior have? First,

read all statements carefully, and then rank each statement from 1 to 6. The chronological

order will be automatically done by the system, according to your ranking. For best

results, answer as honestly as possible (1= most important; 6= least important).

7. My superior should:

☐ Create a long-term direction and vision for his subordinates.

☐ Support long-term professional development of his subordinates.

☐ Create harmony among subordinates and between him and his subordinates.

☐ Build commitment and consensus among his subordinates.

☐ Demand the accomplishment of tasks to a high standard of excellence from his

subordinates.

☐ Should demand immediate compliance from his subordinates.

Page 5

Now, please consider your own idea of perfect leadership. Based on your experiences,

what leadership behavior from your superior do you prefer? Below is a list of statements

about leadership behavior. Read each one carefully, then, using the following scale, decide

the importance for you personally. Please answer as honestly as possible. There is just

one answer per question possible.

8. My superior should have a clear vision and strategy for achieving it.

☐ strongly disagree ☐ disagree ☐ neither/nor ☐ agree ☐ strongly agree

9. My superior should give direct orders to me.


10. My superior should initiate personal contact with me.


Appendices xxvi

11. My superior should regularly hold information sharing meetings.


12. My superior should define development goals in consultation with me.


13. My superior should set high standards of performance and expect me to meet those

standards, too.


Page 6

14. My superior should identify my strengths and weaknesses.


15. My superior should expect me to follow his instructions closely.


16. My superior should provide the rationale behind his decision or action, and link this to a

larger goal.


17. My superior should model the behavior he wants to see from me (e.g. working long

hours).


18. My superior should give personal recognition to me.


19. My superior should tend to rely on group consensus rather than direct supervision or

control.


Appendices xxvii

Page 7

20. My superior should support my personal development plans.


21. My superior should make his vision relevant zo me.


22. My superior should focus more on results than on harmony.


23. Work plans from my superior should represent the ideas of my peers and me.


24. My superior should expect me to carry out plans that he has prepared.


25. My superior should believe that disciplining me does more harm than good.


Page 8

26. My superior should regularly conduct meetings with mandatory attendance.


27. When my superior disagrees with me, he should make sure to explain why he wants

something done in a certain way.


28. My superior should believe that I have to find solutions to job difficulties on my own.


Appendices xxviii

29. My superior should periodically review my process.


30. My superior should set clear standards of performance.


31. My superior should put welfare of me before organizational goals.


Page 9

32. My superior should advise me about my professional development.


33. My superior should let me get on with it as long as I achieve the goals.


34. My superior should ask me to participate in making major decisions with him.


35. My superior should communicate his vision, strategy and objectives regularly to me.


36. My superior should believe that firm discipline is important to get the job done.


37. My superior should trust me that I will perform well if he treats me well.


Appendices xxix

Page 10

First, please read the following statements carefully, and then rank each statement

from 1 to 6. The chronological order will be automatically done by the system,

according to your ranking (1= most important; 6= least important).

38. My superior should:

☐ Identify patterns in seemingly unconnected events.

☐ Provide alternative solutions for a problem to his subordinates.

☐ Give importance to people over tasks.

☐ Seek opinion from his subordinates before taking a major decision.

☐ Set examples and expect his subordinates to do work in the same way.

☐ Frequently take control of things.

Please allow me to ask you the following last couple of questions.

39. What is your gender?

☐ Female

☐ Male

40. When were you born?

☐ Before 1965

☐ 1965 – 1980

☐ 1981 – 2000

☐ After 2000

41. In which sector do you currently work?

☐ Management

☐ Administration

☐ Human Resources

☐ IT

☐ Accounting

Appendices xxx

☐ Purchasing

☐ Production

☐ Marketing & Sales

☐ Military

☐ Other _________________________

Page 11

Thank you for your participation. I sincerely appreciate your honest opinion. I will

consider your input while examining the relationship between generations and their

preferred leadership style, in order to create academic value with my Master Thesis. If

you have any comments or concerns about this survey please contact me via email:

[email protected].

Please click the "Next" button for the last time.

Thank you for supporting me!

xxxi

Consent Form

Consent Form

„I hereby declare that:

I have sincerely endeavored to produce a paper of outstanding academic value.

I have produced this paper myself without any outside assistance except from the people

and documents I quote.

I have not copied and/or pasted this paper from other papers or documents available,

except where I have explicitly stated so.

I have not used this paper for examination purposes in any other course or institute.”

Salzburg, 19.12.2016

_________________

Markus Kraus