PREFERENCES FOR LEADER TRAITS AND LEADERSHIP COMMUNICATION STYLES AMONG MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT GENERATIONAL COHORTS ___________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies School of Professional Studies Gonzaga University ___________________________ Under the Mentorship of John Caputo, Ph.D. Communication and Leadership Studies __________________________ ___________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies ___________________________ By Lisa A. Spence December 2009
59
Embed
PREFERENCES FOR LEADER TRAITS AND LEADERSHIP …web02.gonzaga.edu/comlstudentresources/Spence Complete Thesis.pdf · preferences for leader traits and leadership communication styles
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
PREFERENCES FOR LEADER TRAITS AND LEADERSHIP COMMUNICATION STYLES AMONG MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT GENERATIONAL COHORTS
___________________________
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies
School of Professional Studies
Gonzaga University
___________________________
Under the Mentorship of John Caputo, Ph.D.
Communication and Leadership Studies
__________________________
___________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies
___________________________
By
Lisa A. Spence
December 2009
We the undersigned, certify that we read this thesis and approve it as adequate in scope and quality for the degree Master of Arts. ______________________________________________________________________________ Faculty Reader Date
______________________________________________________________________________ Faculty Reader Date
______________________________________________________________________________ Faculty Mentor Date
Gonzaga University
MA Program in Communication and Leadership Studies
December 2009
Abstract
Many organizations today are comprised of a culturally diverse workforce. In addition to
diversity related to gender, ethnicity, race or religious beliefs, there are also four different
generations of workers side by side in these organizations. As with other co-cultures, each of
these four generational cohorts has its own unique characteristics including values, attitudes,
beliefs and worldviews. This study asks how these four generations differ with respect to their
views on leadership. Specifically, a survey was distributed to members of all four generations,
from multiple industries, to determine the degree of importance they attributed to twenty well
documented leader traits, what trait they felt most important for a leader to possess, and what
style of leadership communication they preferred. The results of the survey were reflected
against Watzlawick’s Pragmatic theory and Pearce and Cronen’s Coordinated Management of
Meaning theory of interpersonal communication. The results of this study provide insight into
the differences between the four generations in regard to their views on leadership, and how they
prefer their leaders to engage with them through communication. Also provided are suggestions
for further studies to better understand and characterize these differences.
Table of Contents
Abstract Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction to the Generations in Today’s Workforce…………..……………………….1 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………....2 Definition of Terms…………………………….…………...……………………………..3 Organization of Remaining Chapters……………………………………………………...4
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Theoretical Basis ……..…………………………………………………………………..5 The Literature …………………………………….………………………………………6
Generational Cohorts…………….……………………………………………….6 General Characteristics of the Cohorts……………………………………………8 Silent Generation………………………………………………………….8 Baby Boomers…………………………………………………………….9 Gen X………………………………………………………………..…...10 Gen Y…………………………………………………………………….12 Leadership Theories and Practice………………………………………………..13 Leadership and Communication…………………………………………………17 Leader Communication Theory……………………………………….…19 Leadership Perceptions Across Generational Cohorts……………………….….22 Summary of Literature Review…………………………………………….……25
Research Questions…………...…………………………………………………………25 Chapter 3: Scope and Methodology
Scope……………………………….……………………………………………………27 Methodology ………..…………………………………………………………………..27 Data Analysis …………………………………………...……..………………………..30
Chapter 4: The Study
Results of the Study…..…………………………………………………….…………....31 Aggregated Results………………………………………………………………31 Results by Generational Cohort………………………………………………….34 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..38
Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions
Summary………………………………………………………………………………....44 Limitations of the Study……….………………………………………………………...48 Recommendations for Further Study…………………..……………………………...…50 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….…50
References……………………………………………………………………………………….52 Appendix A: The Survey Instrument………………………………………………...………..57
Page 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
We are now at a time in American history where we recognize and value the diversity of
our workforce. Among the forms of diversity we recognize are: race, gender, ethnicity,
disability, religion, gender preference and generation. Four distinct generations of workers, each
with its own attitudes, values, ambitions, mind-sets, world views and ways of communicating are
now working side by side (Derrick & Walker, 2006; Hatfield, 2002; Zemke, Raines & Filipczak,
2000). Although more than one generation has been present in the workforce in the past, the
transition from manufacturing to an information-centered economy, combined with the flattening
of organizational hierarchies, has brought members of the different generations in much closer
contact in “cubicle space” than in the past (Zemke et al).
As with any dimension of diversity, this blending can lead to increased creativity and
innovation by tapping into the strengths, expertise and viewpoints embodied within the different
groups. But it can also lead to conflicts, tension, misunderstandings and decreased productivity
looking, Mature, Intelligent and Self-controlled. This seems appropriate for the generation who
values consistency, loyalty, rank commensurate with authority (Zemke et al., 2000) and who
entered the workforce anticipating job security for life. The Silents chose Competent as the
Page 44
single most important trait for a leader to possess, followed by Fair-minded. The Silents expect
their leaders to be good at what they do, above all else.
Using the same criteria (weighted average > 4.5), the Baby Boomers selected only 6 of
the 20 traits: Dependable, Honest, Competent, Broad-minded, Fair-minded and Loyal. Zemke et
al. indicate that the Boomers tend to be team players who are likely to want to build consensus,
mapping well to the desire for dependability, competence, fair-mindedness and loyalty. The
Boomers also helped lead the charge for equality in the workplace, lending credence to their
desire for broad-mindedness and fairness. This generation chose Honest as the single most
important trait for a leader to have, with Competent being second by a 4:1 margin. Boomers
clearly want leaders who walk the talk.
Gen X ranked 8 traits above 4.5: Dependable, Broad-minded, Honest, Competent,
Forward-looking, Fair-minded, Intelligent and Co-operative. Dubbed as a hero-less, independent
and self-reliant generation, Gen X does NOT include loyalty in their most important traits in
contrast to the two older generations. However, Karp and Sirias (2001) found Gen X to also
have a strong team orientation, perhaps more so than the Boomers, which explains the relative
congruence between the traits selected by Gen X and the Boomers. Gen X selected Inspiring as
their single most important leader trait, although the percentage of selection was much smaller
than other generations’ top choices. Gen X is perhaps looking to their leaders to be the heroes
they otherwise do not have.
By sharp contrast to the older generations, Gen Y gave very high importance to only 3
traits: Broad-minded, Fair-minded and Dependable. Gen Y values fitting in (Zemke et al.), and
wants to be valued for who they are and respected by their leaders (Broad-minded and Fair-
minded). As noted in Chapter 4, Gen Y had the least amount of dispersion in their rankings of
Page 45
the traits. They did not rank traits many very highly; they also ranked 8 traits between Neutral
and Important – many more than any other generation (3 for Silents and Gen X, 4 for Boomers).
The single most important trait for a leader to possess for Gen Y is Fair-minded, which is
congruent with their rankings in terms of importance.
That all four generations have a strong preference for the democratic style of leadership
communication is not surprising, given the trend in recent decades toward the more participative
forms of management and the flattened hierarchies in many organizations. But there are still
some factors that distinguish one generation from the next.
Of the four statements that characterize the democratic style, statement #4 had the least
level of agreement for all four generations. Although the democratic style is preferred, the use of
a task force for decision making by the leader is less preferable than the other democratic
statements. By grouping the remaining 3 statements within the democratic style (statements 2, 9
and 10), this style of leadership communication focuses on consulting with followers for decision
making, then keeping them informed of the rationale for any decisions, and how followers will
be impacted. For all generations, it is important for the leader and follower to develop an
interpersonal relationship such that these communication acts can be effective. The two
communication theories described in Chapter 2, Watzlawick’s Pragmatic theory and Pearce and
Cronen’s Coordinated Management of Meaning, both suggest a mutually created, constantly
evolving relationship between the communicants. Both theories also propose that the creation of
meaning relies on that relationship. The interpretation of messages from the leader, i.e. the
creation of meaning, such as informing followers of issues and discussing rationale for decisions,
will be rooted in the relationship that has been established between the leader and follower
according to the Pragmatic theory. Calculating the aggregated weighted averages these 3 items
Page 46
(statements 2, 9 and 10) for each generation shows a decreasing trend in importance from Silents
(4.34) to Boomers (4.33) to Gen X (4.28). But Gen Y (4.46) has a much stronger desire to be
kept in the information loop. This seems consistent for a generation that has had access to
information 24/7 all of their lives.
All four generations had a moderate level of agreement with two of the statements from
the Laissez-faire style of leader communication. Statements 7 and 12 describe a leader who
encourages independent decision making from the followers, and allows broad latitude for how
goals are to be achieved. This type of leadership assumes a high degree of trust between the
leader and follower, and a high level of autonomy or independence for the follower. Pincus and
DeBonis (cited in Kinnick & Parton, 2005) have already asserted that leadership is based on the
use of communication processes to build relationships by increasing trust and understanding.
For these two communication style statements, the Silents, Boomers and Gen Y were very
similar in their degree of agreement (3.24, 3.21 and 3.22 respectively for the average of the two
statements). However, Gen X (3.56) had a much stronger level of agreement, indicating a higher
interest in autonomy. This is in line with the literature, which finds Gen X to be highly
independent (Zemke et al., 2000) and results oriented, as opposed to process oriented (Karp &
Sirias, 2001). Trust is certainly a feature that requires a strong mutual understanding to be
developed between people in a relationship, which will evolve over time as suggested by the
Pragmatic theory.
Statement 6, which is also in the Laissez-faire style of leader communication, received a
neutral level of agreement from the Silent generation, and a mild disagreement from the other
generations. Statement 6 states that the leader should let the follower initiate informal, day-to-
day communication. The disagreement with this statement tends to indicate that most followers
Page 47
want the leader to take more initiative, and for communication to be more of a two-way process.
Baby Boomers felt more strongly about this than the other generations, indicating a desire for a
more congenial relationship between leader and follower. This fits well with their propensity for
building both consensus and relationships (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Zemke et al., 2000). The
disagreement with statement 6 fits well within the “management” parameter of the CMM theory,
which deals with establishing rules of engagement within a relationship. Leaders and followers
will develop formal or informal rules for when communication is appropriate, who should
initiate the communication and how the communication should occur.
The unilateral rejection of the Authoritarian style of leadership communication
substantiates the idea that followers desire to build a relationship with their leader, rather than
have one who is isolated from them and simply communicates decisions or information.
Statements 1, 5 and 11 within this style describe a leader who does not develop two-way
communication with followers, essentially distancing him/her self from the followers. The
Pragmatic theory would describe this type of communication as complementary, which
emphasizes dominance or power distance between leaders and followers. Clearly, all four
generations prefer a more symmetrical form of communication, which emphasizes equality and
allows for building better relationships. Averaging these three statements for each generation
shows a linear trend towards greater disagreement when going from the Silent generation (2.19)
to Gen Y (1.94).
Limitations of the Study
This study was conducted using a non-probability sampling technique, and therefore
should not be used to generalize the results with respect to specific statistical differences between
the four cohorts. The results are best interpreted as showing evidence that each generation feels
Page 48
more strongly about certain leader traits and aligns more closely with specific elements of leader
communication behavior.
The sampling technique used in the study yielded a reasonable number of responses;
however, the number of respondents for both the Silent generation and Gen Y was very small (19
and 18 respectively). These small sub-populations could potentially provide an inaccurate
representation of the preferred leader traits and leadership communication styles. Further studies
would benefit by more judiciously targeting survey respondents within each cohort, and allowing
more time for responses to be collected.
Differences in the strength of importance of each leader trait between the four
generations were assessed using only a comparison of the weighted averages. The same
technique was also used for analyzing the level of agreement with each of the twelve leadership
communication style statements. Using this method, general statements can be made with
respect to the relative ordering of preferences and the relative magnitude of agreement or
importance. However, the use of more advanced statistical analysis, such as ANOVA or
MANOVA, would be necessary to determine if the difference in the weighted averages is
statistically significant between the four cohorts. These analyses would provide a more
definitive understanding of how much of a “gap” there is between the generations. However,
these analyses would not add more insight into showing the differences between the generations
with respect to their top choice of leader trait, since that was reported as a percentage of the
population that chose a given trait. This result is more affected by the small sample sizes of the
Gen Y and Silent generation. Larger sample sizes for these two populations would enhance the
relevance of the data.
Page 49
Recommendations for Further Study
The present study shows that there are differences in preferred leader traits between the
four generations, but the use of a non-probability sampling technique and the small sample sizes
for the Silent generation and Gen Y do not allow generalizations to be made about specific
preferences for each generation. Future studies may be done in which a probability sampling
technique is used, and a pre-determined number of respondents in each generation are sampled.
It is recommended that the results of such a study be analyzed using ANOVA or MANOVA to
ascertain the statistical significance of the differences between the generations on any given trait.
The survey instrument used to determine preferred leader communication styles did not
result in showing a difference in preference across the four generations. The three styles of
communication represented in this instrument did not allow for enough differentiation, nor probe
for subtle differences in how members of each generation wish to engage in communication with
their leaders. Other survey instruments found in the literature regarding leader communication
focused on such things as skills in a particular aspect of communication (such as listening), but
were intended to be used to rate an individual rather than to probe for the respondents
preferences. Further research may benefit from obtaining or developing a survey tool that is
more specific to which communication skills or techniques a respondent feels are most important
for a leader to possess, and analyzing for any differences in such preferences across the
generations.
Conclusion
Although is some cases the differences between the generations are subtle, this study did
find that each generation feels more strongly about certain leader traits than others. While the
study did not find that there was a difference between the generations with respect preferred
Page 50
leadership communication style, it did find that there were differences between the generations
with respect to their alignment with specific elements of leader communication behavior. Such
differences are indicative that each generation represents a unique co-culture. As with other
dimensions of cultural diversity in the workplace, leaders should recognize that these differences
exist, and be aware of how they might affect the leader-follower relationship. While further
elucidation of generational differences regarding the importance of specific communication skills
or techniques might be warranted, the present study provides evidence that leaders must be
capable of developing relationships with their followers by using effective interpersonal
communication.
Page 51
REFERENCES
Achilles, C.M. & Crump, H.B. (1978). Why can’t they be like we were? Educational Leadership, April 1978, pp. 509-515.
Arsenault, P.M. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legitimate diversity and
leadership issue. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 124-141. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Organizational Psychology, Vol.72, pp. 441-462.
Barbuto, J.E., Fritz, S.M., Matkin, G.S. & Marx, D.B. (2007). Effects of gender, education, and
age upon leaders’ use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviors. Sex Roles, Vol. 56, pp.71-83.
Barge, J.K. & Hirokawa, R.Y. (1989). Toward a communication competency model of group
leadership. Small Group Behavior, Vol. 20(2), pp. 167-189. Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, pp. 19-31. Bengston, V.L., Furlong, M.J., & Laufer, R.S. (1983). Time, aging, and the continuity of social
structure: Themes and issues in generational studies. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 39(4), pp. 45-71.
Benson, J.D., n.d., Leadership and motivation. Research Starters Business. Retrieved from
PsychINFO on Oct. 25, 2008. Bower, C. & Fidler, M. (1994). The importance of generational literacy. Association
Management, Vol. 46(1). Retrieved from ProQuest, Feb. 24, 2009. Busch, P. Venkitachalam, K. & Richards, D. (2008). Generational differences in soft knowledge
situations: Status, need for recognition, workplace commitment and idealism. Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 15(1), pp. 45- 58.
Buss, A.R. (1974). Generational analysis: Description, exploration and theory. Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 30(2), pp. 55-71. Caputo, J.S. Hazel, H.C, McMahon, C. & Dannels, D. (2002). Communicating effectively:
Linking thought and expression, 3rd ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Clutterbuck, D. & Hirst, S. (2002). Leadership communication: A status report. Journal of
Communication Management, Vol. 6(4), pp. 351-354.
Page 52
Conger, J.A. (1991). The language of leadership. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5(1), pp. 31-45.
Conger, J.A. (1997). The generation game. Management, Vol. 44(9), p. 72-73. Conrad, C. & Poole, M.S. (2005). Strategic corporate communication in a global economy, 6th
ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth. Deal, J., Peterson, K., & Gailor-Loflin, H. 2001. Emerging leaders: An annotated bibliography.
Center for Creative Leadership. Derrick, K.S., & Walker, K.H. (2006). Talkin’ ’bout my generation. Public Manager, Vol.
35(2), pp. 63-66. DiRomualdo, T. (2006). Viewpoint: Geezers, grungers, Gen Xers, and geeks: A look at
workplace generational conflict. Journal of Financial Planning, Oct. 2006, pp. 18-21. Flauto, F.J. (1999). Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and communication
competence. Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6(1, 2); pp. 86-97. Gregoire, M.B. & Arendt, S.W. (2004). Leadership: Reflections over the past 100 years.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 104, pp. 395-403. Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hackman, M.Z. & Johnson, C.E. (2009). Leadership: A communication perspective, 5th ed.
Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Hatfield, S.L. (2002). Understanding the four generations to enhance workplace management.
AFP Exchange, July/Aug. 2002, pp. 72-74. Hersey, P. (1984). The situational leader. New York: Warner Books. Hoyle, R.H., Harris, M.J., & Judd, C.M. (2002). Research methods in social relations, 7th ed.
US: Wadsworth. Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel
Management, Vol. 29(1), pp. 55-74. Kabacoff, R. & Stoffey, R. (2001). Age differences in organizational leadership. Paper
presented at the 16th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Karp, H.B. & Sirias, D. (2001). Generational conflict: A new paradigm for teams of the 21st
century. Gestalt Review, Vol. 5(2), pp. 71-87.
Page 53
Kinnick, K.N. & Parton, S.R. (2005). Workplace communication: what The Apprentice teaches about communication skills. Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 68 (4), pp. 429-456.
Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model in
action. Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 38 (1), pp. 23-32. Kotter, J.P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79(11), pp. 85-96. Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: What’s the difference? Journal for
Quality and Participation, Summer 2006, pp. 13-17. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge, 3rd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand
it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kunreuther, F. (2003). The changing of the guard: What generational differences tell us about
Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000). Multi-generation employees: Strategies for effective management.
Health Care Manager, Vol. 19(1), pp. 65-70. Lancaster, L.C. & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide. NY: Harper-Collins. Littlejohn, S.W. (1978). Theories of human communication. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill. Martin, A. (2007). The changing nature of leadership. Center for Creative Leadership.
Retrieved on Oct. 31, 2008 from: www.ccl.org Madlock, P.E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 45(1), pp. 61-78. McLuhan, M., Fiore, Q., & Agel, J. (2001). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects.
Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.
Miller, K. (2002). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts. Boston, Mass: McGraw-Hill.
Morton, L.P. (2002). Targeting generation Y. Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 47(2), pp. 46-48. Morton, L.P. (2003). Targeting generation X. Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 48(4), pp. 43-45. O’Bannon, G. (2001). Managing our future: The generation X factor. Public Personnel
Management, Vol. 30(1), pp. 95-109.
Page 54
Payne, H.J. (2005). Reconceptualizing social skills in organizations: Exploring the relationship between communication competence, job performance and supervisory roles. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11(2), pp. 63-77.
Penley, L.E. & Hawkins, B. (1985). Studying interpersonal communication in organizations: A
leadership application. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28(2), pp. 309-326. Penley, L.E., Alexander, E.R., Jernigan, I.E., & Henwood, C.I. (1991). Communication abilities
of managers: The relationship to performance. Journal of Management, Vol. 17(1), pp. 57-76.
Powell, J. N. (2005). Generational perceptions of effective leadership. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 65(9-A), pp. 3466. Reynolds, L., Bush, E.C., & Geist, R. (2008). The gen Y Imperative. Communication World,
March/April, pp. 19-22. Riggio, R.E., Riggio, H.R., Salinas, C., & Cole, E.J. (2003). The role of social and emotional
communications skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 7(2), pp. 83-103.
Rodriguez, R.O., Green, M.T., & Ree, M.J. (2003). Leading generation X: Do the old rules
apply? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9(4). Pp. 67-75. Rubin, R.B., Rubin, A.M. & Piele, L.J. (2005). Communication research: Strategies and
sources, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Rynes, S. & Rosen, B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived
success of diversity training. Personnel Psychology, Vol 48 (2); pp. 247-270). Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (2001). Communication between cultures. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Sessa, V.I., Kabacoff, R.I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differences in leader
values and leadership behaviors. Psychology-Manager Journal, Vol. 10(1), pp. 47-74. Schewe, C., & Meredith, G. (2004). Segmenting global markets by generational cohorts:
Determining motivations by age. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4(1), 51-63. Skipper, C.O. & Bell, L.C. (2006). Assessment with 360° evaluations of leadership behavior in
construction project managers. Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 22(2), pp. 75-80.
values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23(4), pp. 363-382.
Page 55
Wieck, K.L., Prydun, M. & Walsh, T. (2002). What the emerging workforce wants in its leaders.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Vol. 34(3), pp. 283-288. Woodward, N.H. (1999). The coming of the managers. HR Magazine, Vol. 44(3), pp. 74-80. Yu, H.C. &, Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The X generation and baby boomers compared
in different cultural contexts. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26(1), pp. 35-50.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations, 6th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education. Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of
veterans, boomers, Xers and nexters in your workplace. New York: AMACOM.