GENERATIONAL COHORT AFFILIATION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE
EXPECTATIONS AND PRACTICE OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
Chris J. Kim
B.A., University of California, Davis, 2005
M.B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2011
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2014
Copyright © 2014
Chris J. Kim
All rights reserved
ii
GENERATIONAL COHORT AFFILIATION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE
EXPECTATIONS AND PRACTICE OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
A Dissertation
by
Chris J. Kim
Approved by Dissertation Committee:
Lisa Romero, Ph.D., Chair
Frank Lilly, Ph.D.
Francisco Rodriguez, Ph.D.
SPRING 2014
iii
GENERATIONAL COHORT AFFILIATION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE
EXPECTATIONS AND PRACTICE OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
Student: Chris J. Kim
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this dissertation is suitable for shelving in the library and credit is
to be awarded for the dissertation.
, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Caroline Sotello Viernes Turner
Date
iv
DEDICATION
For her unconditional love, support, and encouragement, I dedicate this
dissertation to my wife and muse, Julia Van Soelen Kim.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you, Dr. Lisa Romero, for serving as my Dissertation Committee Chair,
and for mentoring, guiding, and challenging me throughout. Your ability to focus me on
the component pieces of this complex puzzle while pushing me to see the bigger picture
was invaluable. I could not have completed this without your leadership.
To the members of my Dissertation Committee, Dr. Frank Lilly and Dr. Francisco
Rodriguez, thank you for your encouragement, feedback, and mentorship. Your
knowledge of the field of leadership studies and its practical application in higher
education has greatly molded the direction of my work.
To Jennifer Radke; I am grateful for all you have done to help me balance my
professional responsibilities with my academic endeavors. Your mentorship, support, and
stick-to-itiveness contributed greatly to my ability to complete this.
To my friends and colleagues in Cohort V; I am grateful for your constant
support, camaraderie, and wisdom. Thank you for including me in your lives, and for
exposing me to the many capable hands that support institutions of higher education.
Finally, to my parents and life-long mentors and advocates, Ok Kyung and Se Ho
Kim; I have thought of you often throughout my doctoral journey and credit my interest
in education and in leadership studies to the foundations you helped establish for me at an
early age. Thank you for guiding me through life’s challenges and for preparing me to in
turn serve as an advocate for our communities.
vi
CURRICULUM VITAE
Education
M.B.A. California State University, Sacramento
B.A. Psychology, University of California, Davis
Professional Employment
Financial Manager, University of California, Davis
Adjunct Instructor, MTI College, Sacramento
Field of Study
Higher education finance and business administration
vii
Abstract
of
GENERATIONAL COHORT AFFILIATION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE
EXPECTATIONS AND PRACTICE OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
by
Chris J. Kim
This study examined whether the qualities of desired and effective leadership are
demographically contingent or universal in the contemporary higher education setting. A
universal lens would for example predict that Transformational, Transactional, or
Transcendental constructs of leadership could be equally effective when used by any
leader with all constituents regardless of context, whereas a contingent lens would posit
that certain leadership constructs could apply in some but not all situations (Yukl, 2002).
Using a mixed method approach, this study employed Transformational leadership
theory, Transcendental leadership theory, and Generational theory to investigate whether
the generational affiliation of higher education administrators were more important
determinates of workplace leadership preferences (Meredith, Schewe, Hiam, &
Karlovich, 2002), or whether other demographic factors such as gender, ethnicity, and
organizational seniority, played a more important role.
An important finding of this study was that leadership preferences in higher
education are largely universal in scope, with study participants’ generational context not
significantly correlating to or predicting leadership preferences. That said, participants’
viii
generation was found to be an important consideration in the discussion of effective
leadership behaviors, with Transcendental and Transformational leadership behaviors
such as mentoring and individually considering individuals’ needs rising to the top of the
leadership discussions.
This study also serves to validate the efficacy of Transformational leadership
based curriculum in leadership studies; makes the case for the integration of
Transcendental leadership curriculum; and brings attention to the role that education and
training plays in reducing Transactional leadership preferences, which was found to be
least effective in the higher education setting.
Recommendations for action largely pertain to the training and development
operations of higher education institutions, and include: programs targeting senior
administrators; initiatives fostering transitions-focused, individualized mentoring
relationships across the institution; and programs dedicated to change resiliency training
in the areas of inter-generational leadership and technology.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ............................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. vi
Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................xv
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
Problem Statement .............................................................................................3
Nature of the Study ............................................................................................4
Theoretical Frameworks ....................................................................................7
Operational Definitions ....................................................................................10
Assumptions and Limitations ..........................................................................11
Significance......................................................................................................13
Conclusion .......................................................................................................15
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ....................................................................17
Review of Research and Literature ..................................................................17
Conclusion .......................................................................................................34
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................35
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................35
x
Research Questions ..........................................................................................36
Research Design...............................................................................................37
Protection of Participants .................................................................................53
Conclusion .......................................................................................................55
4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ........................................................................................57
Quantitative Analysis .......................................................................................58
Qualitative Analysis .........................................................................................82
Conclusion .....................................................................................................100
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................101
Overview of the Study ...................................................................................101
Summary of Findings .....................................................................................103
Interpretation of Findings ..............................................................................106
Implications for the Field of Leadership Studies ...........................................118
Recommendation for Action ..........................................................................124
Recommendation for Further Study...............................................................132
Limitations and Researcher Biases ................................................................134
Conclusion and Personal Reflection ..............................................................137
6. APPENDICES .............................................................................................................140
Appendix A. Online Survey Recruitment Letter ...........................................141
Appendix B. Permission To Use Copyrighted Material ................................142
Appendix C. Qualitative Interview Questions ...............................................145
xi
Appendix D. Online Survey Consent Form ...................................................146
Appendix E. Interview Consent Form ...........................................................148
References ........................................................................................................................150
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Leadership Type, Factors, and Associated Survey Questions Numbers ....................47
2.
Transformational & Transactional Leadership, Factors, and Sample Survey
Questions ....................................................................................................................48
3.
Transcendental Leadership, Factors, and Sample Survey Questions .........................49
4.
Range, Means, and Standard Deviations for Demographic Variables .......................60
5.
Frequencies and Percentages – Generational Cohort .................................................61
6.
Frequencies and Percentages – Gender ......................................................................61
7.
Frequencies and Percentages – White/Non-White .....................................................61
8.
Frequencies and Percentages – Degree ......................................................................62
9.
Frequencies and Percentages – Four-Year/Two-Year Institution ..............................62
10. Frequencies and Percentages – Area of Practice ........................................................62
11. Frequencies and Percentages – Years Employed with the Organization ...................63
12. Frequencies and Percentages – Years of Supervisory or Managerial
Experience ..................................................................................................................63
13. Frequencies and Percentages – Generational Cohort .................................................63
14. Means and Standard Deviations for MLQ Leadership Scores ...................................64
15. Means and Standard Deviations for MLQ Leadership Scores by
Generations .................................................................................................................65
16. Leadership Factor Ranking Results – All Participants ...............................................66
xiii
17. Leadership Factor Ranking Comparison ....................................................................68
18. Report of Quantitative Data – Reliability...................................................................70
19. Results from Pearson’s Correlation Analysis – Correlation, Significance
and Effect Size............................................................................................................73
20. Pearson Correlation – Testing for Multicollinearity ..................................................74
21. Multiple Regression Results – Overall Model Significance ......................................76
22. Multiple Regression Results – Transactional Leadership ..........................................78
23. Multiple Regression Results – Transcendental Leadership .......................................79
24. Interview Participant Demographics ..........................................................................86
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
Illustration of leadership dimensions .........................................................................28
2.
Characteristic differences between generations .........................................................30
3.
Hypothesis: Generational differences in leadership preferences ...............................32
4.
Hypothesis: Adjustment to leadership theory ............................................................33
5.
Hypothesis: Adjustment to leadership theory ..........................................................122
6.
Adjusted interplay of leadership theories based on findings ....................................123
7.
Recommendation related to mentoring relationships and mentoring cohorts ..........127
xv
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Prominent models of leadership used in the development of academic and
professional development curriculum and put into practice in higher education were
originally developed to benefit leaders from a largely homogenous background and
primarily concerned with how those leaders behaved on an individual level (Bass, 1991).
Specifically, the framework of Transactional leadership which was first described by
Weber, one of the founders of modern sociology, was developed in 1947 when the
American professional and academic workforce was much less diverse in terms of
gender, ethnicity, and age distribution, and workforce concerns largely revolved around
the needs and background of the organizational leaders of that time. This leadership
practice is not overtly concerned with the leader’s vision or the process of influencing
others, and consequently it does not focus on the relationship between the leader and
constituent, but focuses more on fixed characteristics such as hierarchy within an
organization, personal attributes and characteristics, and the facilitation of productivity
and outputs (Zacko-Smith, 2010).
A more recent leadership construct – Transformational theory (Bass & Avolio,
1993) – challenges the efficacy of Transactional leadership and is less about exchange
and productivity but more about human empowerment; that is Transformational
leadership theory posits that leadership is more relationship based and as such focuses
more critically on the relationships between the leader and constituents” (Zacko-Smith,
2
2010). Transformational leaders are therefore more collaborative, supportive, and
encouraging, and model behaviors that are intended to “produce results that are about
both personal and skill development” (Zacko-Smith, 2010, p. 121). However, while this
leadership model is more contextual than Transactional leadership theory, it continues to
not take into account the perception of leadership behaviors by constituents and the
choice by individual leaders to exhibit particular behaviors depending on the personal
characteristics of the constituents and the context at the group level (Avolio, 2007).
Transcendental leadership is the most recent construct of leadership which brings
leadership theory into a contemporary context. Through a Transcendental lens, the leader
understands that “we are all connected and the leader-constituent relationship expands
beyond the confines of ‘you and I’ and out into the larger world (Zacko-Smith, 2010, p.
123). This is a more integrative examination of leadership that considers “the relevant
actors, context, time, and history” (Avolio, 2007, p. 25) and how all of these interact with
each other to create what is labeled as leadership.
In the broadest sense, this study therefore examines whether the qualities of
desired and effective leadership are demographically contingent or universal in the
contemporary higher education setting. A universal lens would for example predict that
Transactional, Transformational or Transcendental constructs of leadership could be
equally effective when used by any leader and with all constituents regardless of context,
whereas a contingent lens would posit that certain leadership constructs could apply in
some but not all situations (Yukl, 2002). By identifying broader elements that constitute
3
leadership, researchers can position the field of leadership studies to better determine
whether one style of leadership is more or less effective depending on the contingencies
and demands facing leaders and followers (Avolio, 2007).
Problem Statement
Leadership in higher education is most often considered without adequate regard
for the demographic “contingencies that affect and moderate its conduct” and the case
can be made that organizational leadership “cannot be modeled effectively without
attending to such considerations” (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001, p. 12). While demographic
characteristics such as race and gender may seem like the principle contingencies in
today’s workplace, the core attitudes and values that are formed during a person’s
coming-of-age years may actually be more important determinates of workplace
leadership behavior (Meredith, Schewe, Hiam, & Karlovich, 2002).
Determining the goals, values, and expectations of different generations of
stakeholders may also serve to provide higher education administrators with additional
measures of predictability. For example, administrators can tailor difficult tasks
according to technical capacity, explain complex projects according to communication
preferences, and pro-actively manage conflicts according to perceptions on authority.
Furthermore, researchers acknowledge
that not all leadership traits are fixed with regard to their impact on leadership
development, emergence and success. Moreover, traits themselves may evolve
over time and change depending on the dynamic exchange between the leader,
follower, and context, suggesting that traits are not either/or but a matter of degree
in shaping leadership effectiveness, emergence, and development. (Avolio, 2007,
p. 28)
4
Therefore, this study was motivated by concerns related to generational leadership
transitions in higher education institutions and sought to investigate the values and
behaviors of the three most prevalent generational cohorts currently reflected in the
higher education workforce (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials). As these
three characteristically different generations converge in the higher education workplace
(Salopek, 2006), this study examined how generational cohort affiliation influences the
expectations and practice of effective leadership in higher education. By applying
generational theory to the field of leadership studies, the researcher sought to add nuance
to the practice of leadership in higher education.
Nature of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine how generational cohort affiliation
influences the expectations and practice of effective leadership in higher education
administration. A concurrent mixed methods strategy was utilized in terms of data
collection, instrumentation, and analysis. Specifically, data was collected and analyzed in
two concurrently administered and independently evaluated phases: a quantitative survey
and qualitative focus group interviews. The data from the quantitative and qualitative
components of the study was triangulated to corroborate or to challenge findings from the
respective findings; that is, both quantitative and qualitative data were given equal
priority and integration of the data occurred during the analysis phase. This study was
guided by three theoretical frameworks: Transformational leadership theory,
5
Transcendental leadership theory, and Generational theory. These theories will be
detailed in the literature review section of Chapter 2.
The research questions for this study are derived from an investigation of the
leadership preferences of the three most represented generational cohorts currently
serving in the higher education workforce (i.e., Baby Boomers, Generation X, and
Millennials). Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
Research Questions
Question 1: What behaviors do Higher Education Administrators report as being
most critical for effective leadership in contemporary institutions of higher education?
Question 2: How do Higher Education Administrators from differing generational
cohorts describe effective leadership?
Question 3: How do the differences in the leadership behaviors reported as being
most critical vary by generational cohort? Sub-Question 3: Do the differences in the
leadership behaviors reported as being most critical vary by race, ethnicity, gender,
hierarchy within the institution, level of education, field of practice, or institution?
Question 4: Is there a relationship between administrators’ generational cohort
affiliation and their view of transactional, Transformational or Transcendental leadership
styles as being most effective? Sub-Question 4: Are the relationships affected by the
participants’ race, ethnicity, gender, hierarchy within the institution, level of education,
field of practice, or institution?
6
Overview of Data and Methods
A mixed methods approach drawing from both quantitative and qualitative
traditions was used to answer the research questions posed in this study. The quantitative
portion of the study surveyed higher education administrators serving in a supervisory or
managerial capacity in the areas of business, operations, finance, human resources,
technology, student support, and academic administration. The reason for focusing on
supervisors and managers was grounded in the assumption that these administrators
operate as both institutional leaders and as constituents. That is, these administrators were
able to provide feedback based on their own leadership practices and also based on their
own preferences for leadership styles leveraged on them.
This study took place in both public and private institutions of higher education in
California to include four year universities offering undergraduate and graduate degree
programs and two year colleges offering post-secondary education. This landscape
provided the researcher with an opportunity to collect a suitably large sample, while at
the same time allowed the researcher to analyze the data collected for additional
contingencies such as variability in leadership practices between institutions.
A mixed methods approach was determined to be particularly appropriate for this
analysis because the addition of a qualitative component to the study provided depth and
context to study participant’s responses in the quantitative component of the study. The
qualitative approach used in this portion of the study was largely narrative in nature with
interview participants asked to describe their personal experience with particular
7
leadership approaches in the higher education workplace, and if those leadership
approaches were age contextual.
Theoretical Frameworks
Transformational leadership theory, Transcendental leadership theory, and
Generational theory were leveraged as the principle theoretical lens in this study.
Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio identify Transformational leaders as
expressing four component characteristics often referred to as the “four I’s” (Avolio,
Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991); these factors include: (1) idealized influence, (2)
inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual stimulation, and (4) individualized consideration.
Bernard and Avolio posit that Transformational leaders leverage these characteristics to
“integrate creative insight, persistence and energy, intuition and sensitivity to the needs of
others to ‘forge the culture alloy’ for their organizations” (Bass & Avolio, 1993, p. 113).
In contrast, Transactional leaders work within an existing culture and base their
actions on “the operative norms and procedures of their respective organizations” (Bass
& Avolio, 1993, p. 113). Essentially, Transactional leaders “develop exchanges or
agreements with their followers, pointing out what the followers will receive if they do
something right as well as wrong” (Bass & Avolio, 1993, p. 114). A Transformational
leadership framework is consequently critical to building organizational resiliency and
supporting the success of leadership transitioning in complex organizations. Bass and
Avolio further recognize that organizations are in a fluid state of change and observe that
as new members are brought on, they will often challenge deeply held institutional
8
assumptions, and that it is “incumbent upon the leaders in the organization to view the
development of assumptions and values as an evolutionary process” (Bass & Avolio,
1993, p. 114). Subsequently, Bass and Avolio observe a Transactional culture can
become “a constraint on innovation since its roots are in the organization’s past glories”
(p. 114), while Transformational leaders concerned with organizational renewal will seek
to foster organizational cultures that articulate desired and necessary changes,
communicate those changes through an organization, and establish new role and
behavioral models that are symbolic of a “new” culture.
The researcher also approached this study through the lens of Transcendental
leadership, where the leader understands that “we are all connected and the leaderconstituent relationship expands beyond the confines of ‘you and I’ and out into the
larger world (Zacko-Smith, 2010). This is a more integrative examination of leadership
that considers the “relevant actors, context, time, and history” (Avolio, 2007, p.25) and
how all of these interact with each other to create what is labeled as leadership. This
leadership lens was leveraged since it not only provides a framework by which to
evaluate leadership capacity and organizational effectiveness, but because it is
intrinsically concerned with leadership transitions in complex organizations undergoing
rapid changes. As Bass and Avolio (1993) observed:
trusting that the founder’s vision of the organization’s culture will transcend time
is at best a questionable assumption and, at worst, the basis for organizational
obsolescence … the truly great founders of organizations built into their cultures
the need to question even their basic beliefs, assumptions, and values… and to
change them when needed. (p. 115)
9
Generational theory, the third theoretical framework leveraged in this study,
establishes that the era in which a person was born (may) influence their worldview. The
theory is based on the assumption that our value systems are greatly shaped in our early
years of development and heavily influenced by families, friends, communities, and
significant events. While the construct of “generations” is used in everyday lexicon to
identify differences between age groupings in society and to place individuals within the
context of a historical timeline (Pilcher, 1994), the term “generational cohorts” builds on
this construct to describe those individuals by virtue of generational affiliation who share
historical and/or social life experiences, the effects of which is relatively stable over the
course of their lives (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998). It was Mannheim’s “The Problem of
Generations” (1923), which first brought attention to the construct of “generations” out of
the common language domain and into the sociological domain (Pilcher, 1994). In his
theory of generations Mannheim identifies generational location (in time) as a key aspect
of the state of one’s knowledge, and that which points to “certain definite modes of
behavior, feeling and thought” (Mannheim, 1952, p. 291). It was likewise Mannheim
who first postulated that individuals within each generation are further influenced by their
geographical and cultural location, and by their participation in key social events (Pilcher,
1994).
10
Operational Definitions
Baby Boomers
Individuals born within 1946 – 1964, and is referred to as thus because of the
additional seventeen million babies born during this generation as compared to
the previous period (O'Bannon, 2001). Currently, the Baby Boom generation has
the largest impact on the higher education workforce by virtue of their sheer size
– estimated at 78 million. From this point forward, the term Baby Boomers and
Boomers will be used interchangeably.
Cuspers
Lancaster and Stillman define Generational “Cuspers” as those individuals “born
on the edges of generational spans and those caught between two generations”
(Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). For example, an individual born in 1981, although
technically part of the Millennial generation, may personally relate more as a
Generation X’er in terms perceived values and life context.
Generational Cohorts
A group of people within a delineated population who experience the same
significant events within a given period of time (Pilcher, 1994); this phrase is
synonymously used to indicate age cohort affiliation in the social sciences and in
popular culture. From this point forward, the term generations will be used
interchangeably to describe generational cohorts.
11
Generation X
The Pew Research Center defines Generation Xers as those individuals born
within 1965 – 1980. This particular generation is also referred to as the “BabyBust” generation because of its comparatively small size relative to the Baby
Boom generation that preceded it (Tolbize, 2008). From this point forward, the
term Generation Xers and Xers may be used to reference participants from this
generation.
Millennials
The Pew Research Center defines Millennials as those individuals born within
1981 – 1993, and as such is the first generation to come of age in the new
millennium. From this point forward, the term Generation Y may also be used to
describe members of the Millennial generation.
Assumptions and Limitations
While researchers, sociologists, and demographers generally agree as to the
approximate eras that segregate generational cohorts, the exact dates in which each
generational cohort begins and ends vary. For example, some researchers place Baby
Boomers as being born within 1943 – 1960 (Strauss & Howe, 1991), while others place
them within 1946 – 1964 (Solomon, 2010). Generation X is described as being within
1961 – 1982 (Strauss & Howe, 1991), while others place them within 1965 – 1985
(Solomon, 2010), or within 1965 – 1980 (Pew Research Center, 2010). Lastly,
12
Millennials are placed within 1986 – 2002 (Solomon, 2010) or 1981 – 1993 (Pew
Research Center, 2010).
This variability is a key critique of the construct of generations, which arises
when attempts are made to investigate it in an empirical setting with assigned numerical
boundaries (Pilcher, 1994). Spitzer (1973) substantiates this by arguing
that the boundary problem of where to delineate social generations in the
‘seamless continuum of daily births’ is one faced by all who choose to mark off
categories in any continuum, including social class or political ideology; at the
boundaries of such categories, there is always an unavoidable ambiguity. (p.
1358)
Mannheim sought to address this critique by positing that the theory of generations is at
its core a theory of social change on a continuum. That is, recognizing that the transition
from one generation to another always takes place continuously and that it is not the
“oldest generation who meet the youngest at once; but that the first contacts are made by
other ‘intermediary’ generations, less removed from each other” (Mannheim, 1952, p.
376). In a recent generational study by the Pew Research Center, the authors likewise
recognize this ambiguity and note that generational studies are not an exact science. They
acknowledge for example, that there is “an element of false precision in setting hard
chronological boundaries between generations” but that they must nevertheless, “draw
lines in order to carry out the statistical analyses that form the core of (their) research
methodology” (Pew Research Center, 2010, p. 5).
For the purpose of this study, the Pew Research Center’s construct of generational
age cohort segregation is leveraged; that is: Baby Boomers referencing those born within
13
1946–1964, Generation X referencing those born within 1965–1980, and the Millennials
referencing those born within 1981–1993.
Significance
Contemporary institutions of public higher education are organizationally
complex, operate in an increasingly turbulent fiscal and academic landscape, and when
compared to the homogenous workforce of yesteryear operate with an unprecedented
degree of workforce diversity. An overlooked facet of the discussion on workforce
diversity which may be a point of legitimate concern for higher education administrators
leading change today are the differences in the values, goals, and expectations of the
generational age cohorts serving concurrently in the organization (Arsenault, 2004)
(Lyons, 2003).
Differences in the values and goals of the respective generational age cohorts
currently reflected in the contemporary multi-generational workforce may also lead to
organizational turbulence and potentially impact the success of institutions of higher
education. Literature on the topic of generational age cohorts and work place values
suggests that understanding these differences may be useful for institutional leaders to
boost employee motivation and productivity and to hedge against misunderstanding and
miscommunication (Conger, 1999; Kuppershmidt, 2000; Rhodes, 1983).
The American academic landscape is also aging, as many faculty and staff were
hired in the 1960s and 1970s to educate the Baby Boomers (Ma, 2005), and as an
increasing number of experienced higher education administrators from the “Baby
14
Boom” generation (those individuals born between 1946-1964) retire, they take with
them the institutional knowledge, content-area expertise, and professional networks built
over decades of service (Scott & Johnson, 2011). Current generational shifts—to include
the entry of administrators from the “Millennial” generation (individuals born within
1981–1993) and the continued entry and upward mobility of administrators from
“Generation X” (those individuals born within 1965 – 1980)—are further influencing and
transforming organizational standards in respect to the expectations and practice of
effective leadership (Conger, 1999).
Lastly, the flexible and permeable nature of contemporary organizations has
increased exposure to employees from various generational groups (Bollman & Deal,
2008). That is, while in traditional organizations, generations were often segregated by
institutional longevity where the older members of an organization tended to hold senior
management positions, and while the least experienced employees tended to hold junior
positions (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000), contemporary organizations rely less on
structured managerial hierarchies. Contemporary institutions of higher education likewise
fall into this new paradigm and are less structured and more flexible, and consequently
more likely to have members from each generational cohort thrust together in the same
setting offsetting the old paradigm where increasing in seniority correlated with an
increase in age (Zemke et al., 2000).
In the researcher’s opinion the above factors contribute to a highly turbulent
environment that challenges the efficacy of higher education administrators, complicates
15
the long-term sustainability of restructuring efforts and makes California’s public
colleges and universities particularly vulnerable to transitions in leadership. The need for
increased understanding of the values, goals, behaviors, and preferences of the
generational cohorts transitioning into leadership positions is therefore needed so that
administrators can urgently guide the organization in such a way that maximizes
effectiveness (Bower & Fidler, 1994).
Conclusion
Chapter 1 of this study provided an overview of leadership studies and
generational cohorts, and made the case that differences in the values and goals of the
respective generational age cohorts currently reflected in the contemporary multigenerational workforce may lead to organizational turbulence and potentially impact the
success of institutions of higher education. Therefore, determining the goals, values, and
expectations of different generations of stakeholders may serve to provide higher
education administrators access to some measure of predictability and add nuance to the
study and practice of educational leadership in higher education.
Chapter 2 presents a review of relevant literature and provides context to the
study of leadership and the role of generational cohorts. Chapter 3 goes into detail on the
study design to include methodology, data collection, data analysis, and setting. Chapter
4 presents findings derived from the research, while Chapter 5 focuses on summarizing
the findings, interpreting the results, providing implications for the field of leadership
16
studies, providing recommendations to higher education leadership stakeholders, and
providing suggestions for future study.
17
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This literature review component of the study provides context to the study of
leadership and the role of generational cohorts in complex organizations undergoing
change. The literature review is organized into three sections pertaining to: (a) an
exploration of generations and generational age cohorts, (b) further evaluation of
leadership and leadership theories, and (c) an introduction to Bernard M. Bass and Bruce
J. Avolio’s Multifactor leadership questionnaire which will be used as the basis for
measuring leadership types in the quantitative component of this study.
Review of Research and Literature
Generational Age Cohorts
Research indicates that generational cohorts develop a particular personality that
influences individuals’ perceptions of authority, leadership efficacy, values, goals, and
plans on satisfying those goals (Kuppershmidt, 2000). This distinction between
generational cohort identities is likewise not merely rooted in the theoretical domain but
supported by demographic research. For example, in a January 2010 survey of
generational identities by the Pew Research Foundation, researchers found that roughly
six-in-ten Baby Boomers, roughly half of Generation Xers, and nearly two-thirds of
Millenials reported their generation as having a unique and distinctive identity (Pew
Research Center, 2010).
18
In response to an open ended qualitative component of the survey, 24% of
Millennials identified their distinctiveness as a product of their technology use, while less
than half (12%) of Generation Xers reported technology use as a primary marker. For
Baby Boomers, the most reported reason related to the distinctive of their generation was
reported as work ethic (17%) followed by their sense of respect (14%) and their values
and morals (85) (Pew Research Center, 2010). Notably, of the four generational cohorts
surveyed in this study, Millennials are the only ones that do not cite “work ethic” as one
of their principal claims to distinctiveness.
Baby Boomers
The United State Census Bureau defines Baby Boomers as individuals born
within 1946–1964, and is referred to as thus because of the additional seventeen million
babies born during this generation as compared to the previous period (O'Bannon, 2001).
Currently, the Baby Boom generation has the largest impact on the higher education
workforce by virtue of their sheer size – estimated at 78 million. The most mature
members of this generation turned 68 in 2014 and as such the majority of the members of
this generation are now in the later part of their careers, although effects from the Great
Recession may have extended the need to remain in the workforce. That being said, based
on the current age span of this generation, even the youngest members will reach the
traditional retirement age of 65 years of age within the next 15 years.
The Baby Boom generation is described as coming of age in a period of
prosperity and optimism, “bolstered by the sense that they are a special generation
19
capable of changing the world” (Yang & Guy, 2006, p. 270), in spite of having been a
part of such political and social turmoil characterized by: the Vietnam War, the Kennedy
and King assassinations, Watergate and the Civil Rights Movement (Deal , 2007). This
generational cohort subsequently witnessed the errors of political, religious, and business
leaders that led to a lack of respect for institutional authority when compared to the
generation before them (Kuppershmidt, 2000). However, while they may have protested
power and authority in their youth, as this generation now enters positions of power in
their respective organizations (Miniter, 1997), some researchers observe that “material
success and traditional values made a comeback in the Boomers’ workplace, rooted in the
Reagan administrations’ conservative policies” (O'Bannon, 2001, p. 95).
Baby Boomers are further characterized as individuals who believe that hard work
and sacrifice are necessary for success, and as such believe in the validity of structured
promotions, “paying their dues,” and loyalty towards their employers (Glass, 2007;
Tolbize, 2008; Zemke et al., 2000). They likewise value teamwork, collaboration, and
group decision making; are often characterized as being more process oriented (Zemke et
al., 2000), and prefer having flexible work options acknowledging the importance of
work/life balance (Hewlett, Sherbin, & Sumberg, 2009). Lastly, Baby Boomers value
health, wellness, and personal growth, while being reluctant to go against those who do
not see things their way (Zemke et al., 2000).
20
Generation X
The Pew Research Center defines Generation Xers as those individuals born
within 1965 – 1980. This particular generation is also referred to as the “Baby-Bust”
generation because of its comparatively small size relative to the Baby Boom generation
that preceded it (Tolbize, 2008). Members of Generation X are the children of the more
senior members of the Baby Boom generation and grew up with financial, family, and
social insecurities. They also came of age in a “stagnant job market, corporate
downsizing, and limited wage mobility, and are the first individuals predicted to earn less
than their parents did” (Tolbize, 2008, p. 3). Because individuals from this generation
grew up with these insecurities to include rapid change, increasing diversity and a lack of
solid transitions … this led to a sense of individualism over collectivism (Jurkiewicz &
Brown , 1998). Some demographers observe that Generation Xers are greatly influenced
by seeing their parents laid off from the organizations they had personally invested in
over decades of service and are consequently untrusting of the contemporary workplace
(Kuppershmidt, 2000) and not overtly loyal to their own employers (Karp & Fuller as
cited in Tolbize, 2008).
Among characteristics attributed to members of Generation X, they bring to the
workforce practical approaches to problem solving (Kuppershmidt, 2000) and are more
independent and self-reliant than previous generations (Zemke et al., 2000). They are also
technically competent (Zemke et al., 2000), ruled by a sense of accomplishment (Joyner,
2000) and comfortable with diversity, change, and multi-tasking (Kuppershmidt, 2000).
21
Millennials
The Pew Research Center defines Millennials as those individuals born within
1981–1993, and as such is the first generation to come of age in the new millennium.
This generation is by far the most technologically integrated generation (Niemiec, 2000);
“steeped in digital technology and social media, they treat their multi-tasking gadgets
almost like a body part” with more than 8-in-10 reporting that they sleep with their
cellphones (Pew Research Center, 2010, p. 1). Members of this generation are also “more
ethnically and racially diverse than the previous generations, less religious, less likely to
have served in the military, and based on the demands of a knowledge based society are
likely to become the most education generation” (Pew Research Center, 2010, p. 1). They
are also optimistic, where despite figures that indicates a staggering 37% of 18-29 year
olds are currently unemployed or not in the workforce, 9-in-10 report being confident of
eventually reaching their long-term financial goals (Pew Research Center, 2010).
In general, members of this generation share many of the same value
characteristics as Generation X; they are seen as valuing team work and collectivism
(Zemke et al., 2000), are greatly adaptable to change (Jenkins, 2007), and seek flexibility
in work and life (Martin, 2007). They have been characterized as highly confident (Glass,
2007), even demanding (Martin, 2007), which perhaps contributes to why they are also
known to their elders as the “me” generation. Supporting this notion of the Millennial
generation being tuned into the sense of self, a Price Waterhouse Cooper consulting study
in 2008 found that 88% of recent college graduates would prefer working for employers
22
who shared their social values, while 86% reported even considering leaving the
organizations if they discovered that the institution’s values greatly conflicted with their
own (Price Waterhouse Cooper Consulting, n.d.). In another study, when Millennials
were asked to rank a list of qualities critical for career success, they ranked the variable
of employee loyalty lower than either Baby Boomers or Generation Xers (Gibson,
Greenwood, & Murphy, 2009).
Overview of Transactional and Transformational Leadership
The most popular conceptualization of leadership comes in the form of
Transformational vs. Transactional leadership. Transactional leaders recognize what
employees need from their work environment and attempt to ensure that it is delivered if
a set of expectations are met; that is, there is an exchange process and a reward system
(Bass, 1991). Transformational leaders on the other hand lead by “raising our level of
awareness, our level of consciousness about the importance and value of designated
outcomes, and ways of reaching them” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). Transformational leaders
inspire, motivate, and appeal to constituents through behaviors which communicate: (a)
their value to the institution, (b) the potential of their contribution, and (c) high
expectations (Bass & Avolio as cited in Nevarez & Wood, 2010).
In an article published in the Journal Public Administration Quarterly in the
spring of 1993, Authors Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio further identify
Transformational leaders as expressing four-component characteristics often referred to
as the “four I’s” (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991); these factors include: (a)
23
idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d)
individualized consideration. Bernard and Avolio posited that Transformational leaders
leverage these characteristics to “integrate creative insight, persistence and energy,
intuition and sensitivity to the needs of others to ‘forge the culture alloy’ for their
organizations” (Bass & Avolio, 1993, p. 112).
In contrast, Transactional leaders work within an existing culture and base their
actions on “the operative norms and procedures of their respective organizations.”
Essentially, Transactional leaders “develop exchanges or agreements with their followers,
pointing out what the followers will receive if they do something right as well as wrong”
(Bass & Avolio, 1993, p. 114). A Transformational leadership framework is consequently
critical to building organizational resiliency and supporting the success of leadership
transitioning in complex organizations. Bass and Avolio recognize that organizations are
in a fluid state of change and observe that as new members are brought on, they will often
challenge deeply held institutional assumptions, and that it is “incumbent upon the
leaders in the organization to view the development of assumptions and values as an
evolutionary process” (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Subsequently, Bass and Avolio observed a
Transactional culture can become “a constraint on innovation since its roots are in the
organization’s past glories,” while Transformational leaders concerned with
organizational renewal will seek to foster organizational cultures that articulate desired
and necessary changes, communicate those changes through an organization, and
establish new role and behavioral models that are symbolic of a “new” culture.
24
Dimensions of Transactional and Transformational Leadership
Bass and Avolio (1993) developed a theoretical framework by which to measure
the dimensions that construct Transactional and Transformational leadership. These
include three dimensions of Transactional leadership: contingent reward, management by
exception, and laissez faire management; and four dimensions of Transformational
leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration. Definitions of these dimensions are as follows:
Transactional Leadership:
1. Contingent reward: shows the degree to which you tell others what to do in order
to be rewarded, emphasize what you expect from them, and recognize their
accomplishments.
2. Management by exception: assesses whether you tell others the job requirements,
are content with standard performance, and are a believer in “if it ain’t broke,
don’t fix it.”
3. Laissez faire management: measures whether you require little of others, are
content to let things ride, and let others do their own thing.
Transformational Leadership:
1. Idealized Influence: indicates whether you hold subordinates’ trust, maintain their
faith and respect, show dedication to them, appeal to their hopes and dreams, and
act as their role model.
2. Inspirational motivation: measures the degree to which you provide a vision, use
appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on their work, and try to
make others feel their work is significant.
3. Intellectual stimulation: shows the degree to which you encourage others to be
creative in looking at old problems in new ways, create an environment that is
tolerant of seemingly extreme positions, and nurture people to question their own
values and beliefs and those of the organization.
4. Individualized consideration: indicates the degree to which you show interest in
others’ well-being, assign projects individually, and pay attention to those who
seem less involved in the group.
25
Overview of Transcendental Leadership
With Transcendental leadership, the leader understands that “we are all connected
and the leader-constituent relationship expands beyond the confines of ‘you and I’ and
out into the larger world (Zacko-Smith, 2010, p. 123). This is a more integrative
examination of leadership that considers “the relevant actors, context, time, and history”
(Avolio, 2007, p.25) and how all of these interact with each other to create what is
labeled as leadership. Transcendental leadership is grounded in Greenleaf’s metaphor of
servant leadership which posits that “a lone chief atop a pyramid is abnormal and
corrupting,” that “none of us is perfect by ourselves,” and that “all need the correcting
influence of close colleagues” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 285).
According to Gardiner (2006), the prevailing model of governance based on the
“tired language of our transactional/Transformational reality” (p. 64) still maintains that
the chief executive be set apart from the rest of the organization; alternately, a
Transcendental leadership model would shift away from this model of autocratic
leadership and move to a more collaborative decision making process via an emergent
leadership circle (Gardiner, 2006). A Transcendental leadership lens is relevant to
contemporary institutions of higher education because the flexible and permeable nature
of contemporary organizations has also increased exposure to employees from various
generational groups (Bollman & Deal, 2008).
As introduced in chapter 1, while in traditional organizations, “generations were
often segregated by organizational stratifications reflective of institutional longevity;”
26
where the older members of an organization tended to hold senior management positions,
and while the least experienced employees tended to hold junior positions (Zemke et al.,
2000), contemporary organizations rely less on structured managerial hierarchies, are less
rigid, more permeable, and consequently more likely to have members from each
generational cohort thrust together in the same setting offsetting the old paradigm where
increasing in seniority correlated with an increase in age (Zemke et al., 2000).
Dimensions of Transcendental Leadership
Currently the field of leadership studies does not explicitly identify the key
dimensions of Transcendental leadership. That is, the prominent models of leadership
inclusive of Transactional and Transformational leadership are universal in nature and
place the emphasis on “you” and “I” in order to meet “my own” and “our” goals. For the
purpose of this study, leveraging the review of literature in the prior section, the
researcher identified three dimensions of Transcendental leadership to include: systemsthinking, the meta-context, and change agency. The definitions of these dimensions as
positioned by the researcher are as follows:
1. Systems-Thinking: shows the degree to which you understand that we are
connected and the leader-constituent relationship extends beyond the confines of
“you and I” out into the larger world.
2. Meta-Context: measures the degree to which you consider the relevant actors,
context, time, and historical considerations, and how all of these interact with
each other to define leadership.
3. Change Agency: measures the degree to which you act as a catalyst for change
and recognize that the onus for change is vested in both the leader and constituent.
These identified dimensions of Transcendental leadership add further nuance to
the current construct of leadership studies by positing that in addition to “you” and “I,”
27
the “context” is likewise critical in meeting not only “our” goals, but the goals of the
larger institution and society at large. A visual representation of the leadership
dimensions discussed thus far is noted in Figure 1.
The emphasis is on “You” and “I” and the “Context” in order to meet
the “Organization’s” goals and benefit society.
Transactional Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Idealized Influence
Key Dimensions
Contingent Reward
Transcendent Leadership
Systems-Thinking
Inspirational Motivation
Management by Exception
Meta-Context
Intellectual Stimulation
Laissez-Faire Management
The emphasis is on “You” in order
to meet “My” goals.
Individualized Consideration
Change Agency
The emphasis is on “You” and “I”
in order to meet “Our” goals.
Prominent Models of Leadership
Figure 1. Illustration of leadership dimensions.
28
29
Intersection of Leadership Theory and Generational Theory
As noted earlier in this chapter, research indicates that generational cohorts
develop a particular personality that influences individuals’ perceptions of authority,
leadership efficacy, values, goals, and plans on satisfying those goals (Kuppershmidt,
2000). For example, literature indicates in terms of workplace characteristics that Baby
Boomers have a strong belief in hard work, shared sacrifice, and the validity of structured
authority and promotions within the organization. Generation Xers are noted as being
more flexible in their workplace characteristics and are consequently ruled by a sense of
accomplishment and not the clock; while the Millennial generation express the lowest
degree of employee loyalty out of the three generations currently represented in the
workplace. Figure 2 presents the characteristic differences between generations as
described through the review of literature.
30
Figure 2. Characteristic differences between generations.
The researcher posited in chapter 1 that leadership is most often considered
without adequate regard for the “contingencies that affect and moderate its conduct” and
the case can be made that organizational leadership “cannot be modeled effectively
without attending to such considerations” (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001, p. 12).
31
Generational theory was subsequently leveraged to acknowledge that the generational
context of individuals may likely impact the perceptions of effective leadership in
contemporary institutions of higher education. With this generational contingency in
mind, the researcher sought to test whether generational cohort affiliation has an impact
of the leadership preferences of higher education administrators. Specifically, the
researcher leveraged the respective dimensions of leadership to identify whether a
generational difference exists in the type of leadership behaviors preferred. Figure 3
presents this first hypothesis.
Millennial Generation: Emphasis on Transcendent Leadership due to most contingencies?
Transactional Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Transcendent Leadership
Contingent Reward
Idealized Influence
Systems-Thinking
Transformational
Leadership
Transcendent
Leadership
Inspirational Motivation
Management by Exception
Meta-Context
Intellectual Stimulation
Laissez-Faire Management
Change Agency
Individualized Consideration
Transactional
Leadership
Generation X: Emphasis on Transformational Leadership due to increasing contingencies?
Transactional Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Transcendent Leadership
Contingent Reward
Idealized Influence
Systems-Thinking
Transcendent
Leadership
Transformational
Leadership
Inspirational Motivation
Management by Exception
Meta-Context
Intellectual Stimulation
Laissez-Faire Management
Individualized Consideration
Change Agency
Transactional
Leadership
Baby-Boomer Generation: Emphasis on Transactional Leadership due to least contingencies?
Transactional Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Transcendent Leadership
Contingent Reward
Idealized Influence
Systems-Thinking
Transformational
Leadership
Transactional
Inspirational Motivation
Management by Exception
Intellectual Stimulation
Laissez-Faire Management
Leadership
Meta-Context
Individualized Consideration
Change Agency
Transcendent
Leadership
Figure 3. Hypothesis: Generational differences in leadership preferences.
32
33
Ultimately, the researcher sought to test whether the qualities of effective
leadership are contingent on generation cohort affiliation, and whether leaders who
recognize that the qualities of effective leadership are contingent will gravitate away from
a Transactional leadership perspective and towards a Transcendental leadership
perspective. Figure 4 presents this secondary hypothesis.
Figure 4. Hypothesis: Adjustment to leadership theory.
34
Conclusion
Chapter 1 of this study provided an overview of leadership studies and
generational cohorts and made the case that differences in the values and goals of the
respective generational age cohorts currently reflected in the contemporary multigenerational workforce may lead to organizational turbulence and potentially impact the
success of institutions of higher education. Therefore, determining the goals, values, and
expectations of different generations of stakeholders may serve to provide higher
education administrators access to some measure of predictability and add nuance to the
study and practice of educational leadership in higher education.
Chapter 2 presented a review of relevant literature and provided context to the
study of Transformational leadership and the role of generational cohorts in higher
education administration. The literature review explored the concept of generations and
generational age cohorts; and further evaluated leadership theory and leadership
behaviors.
Chapter 3 goes into detail on the study design to include methodology, data
collection, data analysis, and setting. Chapter 4 presents findings derived from the
research, while Chapter 5 focuses on summarizing the findings, interpreting the results,
implications, recommendations to higher education leadership stakeholders, and
suggestions for future study.
35
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The following methodology section of this study will outline for the reader: (a)
the justification of why a mixed method research design was used in this study; (b) a
description of the researcher’s role in the study; (c) the research questions derived from
this investigation of this topic; (d) a description of the setting in which this study took
place, the population sampled, and the rationale for the sampling; (e) how, when, and
where the data was collected; (f) an overview of the steps taken to ensure reliability and
validity of data; (g) the statistical methods used for analyzing the data; (h) and an
explanation of the measures used to protect participants and their data.
Purpose of the Study
This study was motivated by concerns related to generational leadership
transitions in higher education institutions and sought to investigate the values and
behaviors of the three most prevalent generational cohorts currently reflected in the
higher education workforce (i.e., Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials).
As these three characteristically different generations converge in the higher
education workplace (Salopek, 2006), this study examined how generational cohort
affiliation influences the expectations and practice of effective leadership in higher
education administration. By applying generational theory to the field of leadership
studies, the researcher sought to add nuance to the practice of leadership in higher
education.
36
Research Questions
In the broadest sense, this study sought to examine whether the qualities of
desired and effective leadership are contingent or universal. A universal lens would for
example predict that the construct of leadership could apply to any leader and constituent
regard of context, whereas a contingent lens would posit that certain leadership constructs
could apply in some but not all situations (Yukl, 2002). By identifying broader elements
that constitute leadership, researchers can position the field of leadership studies to better
determine whether one style of leadership is more or less effective depending on the
contingencies and demands facing leaders and followers (Avolio , 2007).
The research questions for this study were derived from an investigation of the
values and behaviors of the three most prevalent generational cohorts currently reflected
in the higher education workforce (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennial) and the
issue of leadership transitions in higher education. This was accomplished via an
examination of how generational cohort affiliation influences the expectations and
practice of effective leadership. Specifically, this study sought to discover and address the
following research question:
Question 1: What behaviors do Higher Education Administrators report as being
most critical for effective leadership in contemporary institutions of higher education?
Question 2: How do Higher Education Administrators from differing generational
cohorts describe effective leadership?
Question 3: How do the differences in the leadership behaviors reported as being
most critical vary by generational cohort? Sub-Question 3: Do the differences in the
37
leadership behaviors reported as being most critical vary by race, ethnicity, gender,
hierarchy within the institution, level of education, field of practice, or institution?
Question 4: Is there a relationship between administrators’ generational cohort
affiliation and their view of transactional, Transformational or Transcendental leadership
styles as being most effective? Sub-Question 4: Are the relationships affected by the
participants’ race, ethnicity, gender, hierarchy within the institution, level of education,
field of practice, or institution?
Research Design
The researcher took a post-positivist approach to this mixed method research
study. Post-positivism is a theoretical worldview that is modeled after the scientific
method where the researcher believes causes likely determine outcomes. Specifically, it
operates under the assumption that there are laws and theories that guide the world, is
based on careful observation, and seeks to disaggregate data into testable sets (Creswell,
2009).
A mixed methods approach drawing from both quantitative and qualitative
traditions was utilized to answer the research questions. The researcher employed a
concurrent mixed methods strategy in terms of data collection, instrumentation, and
analysis (Creswell, 2009). Overall, the quantitative and qualitative data was collected via
triangulation to corroborate or challenge findings from the respective components of the
study; that is, both quantitative and qualitative data was given equal priority and
integration of the data occurred during the analysis phase.
38
A mixed methods approach was particularly appropriate for this analysis because
the addition of a qualitative component to the study provided depth and context to the
descriptions, processes, and experiences of the study participant’s responses in the
quantitative component of the study. The qualitative component of the study consisted of
interviews in which participants were asked to describe their experience with particular
leadership approaches in the higher education workplace.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher’s interest in exploring generational leadership transitions was
grounded in his experience as an administrator from the Millennial generation at the
University of California, Davis, where over the past eight years he served in the areas of
financial analysis, business administration, and information technology support services.
The researcher has collaborated extensively with multi-generational stakeholders,
interpreted complex fiscal and technical material for multi-generational stakeholders, and
worked on administrative change initiatives within the context of an unprecedented
reduction in higher education funding. The Researcher’s position and experience
provided him with an intimate view of the leadership challenges facing higher education
institutions in California, and insight into the operating climate and culture of college
campuses.
Setting and Population
The sample population represented in this study are administrators in a
supervisory or managerial capacity serving in California’s public institutions of higher
education – including the University of California, California State University, and
39
California Community College systems – in the areas of business, finance, human
resources, academic technology, student support services, academic program
administration, research, laboratory, or clinical administration. The reason for focusing
on supervisors and managers was grounded under the assumption that these
administrators operate as both institutional leaders and as constituents. That is, these
administrators were able to provide feedback based on their own leadership practices and
based on their own preferences for leadership styles leveraged on them.
The researcher utilized two strategies to recruit participants. First, the researcher
used contact information publically available on departmental websites throughout the
University of California, California State University, and California Community College
campus websites. The researcher targeted supervisors and managers serving in the areas
of business, finance, human resources, academic technology, student support services,
academic program administration, research, laboratory, or clinical administration and
directly sent out 285 personalized survey invitations. Additionally, the researcher
leveraged chain-referral sampling; that is, the researcher leveraged his professional and
personal networks to in turn get access to extended associations and acquaintances. To
avoid any conflict of interest, the researcher did not include individuals from his own
department as survey participants, and no monetary inducements were offered. Given the
use of chain-referral sampling, while the researcher was unable to identify the exact
number of participants who received recruitment notifications, it is estimated that up to
500 administrators throughout the public higher education landscape were recruited. With
40
this figure in mind, and taking into consideration that 135 administrators participated in
the online research study, the researcher estimated a survey response rate of 27%.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Subjects were recruited through introductory e-mails containing information
explaining the purpose of the study, the inclusion criteria, and how their feedback would
benefit the field of leadership studies. The introductory e-mail also instructed participants
to follow a link to an online quantitative survey (via SurveyMonkey.com), while the
consent portion of the study verified the inclusion criteria and disqualified those
participants who did not meet them. A copy of the e-mail recruitment language is
included in Appendix A.
Upon completion of the survey, participants were asked if they were interested in
participating in an interview, and directed to a separate online form with no connection to
the online survey, allowing the participant to forward their contact information while
keeping the answers to the online survey anonymous.
The interview information letter and consent form again asked participants to
validate that they were: (a) at least 18 years of age; (b) serving as a Higher Education
Administrator in the areas of business, finance, human resources, academic technology,
student support services, academic program administration, research, laboratory, or
clinical administration; and (c) serving in a supervisory or managerial capacity.
Additionally, the consent form also asked the participant whether they (d) agreed to the
terms of the research; (e) chose to participate in the interview voluntarily; and (f) agreed
41
to be recorded. Participants not meeting all of the above criteria were directed to a
separate page explain why they were excluded from the study.
To avoid any conflict of interest, no monetary inducements were offered for either
the online survey or the interview component of the study. The researcher likewise did
not include individuals from his own department as survey or interview participants.
Data were collected via a quantitative online survey (via SurveyMonkey.com)
followed by qualitative one on one interviews. Both the online survey portion of this
study and the interview portion of the study collected demographic information allowing
first for the identification of participants’ generation, in addition to data allowing for the
identification of participants’ race, ethnicity, gender, hierarchy within the institution (i.e.,
seniority), level of education (i.e. highest degree received), field of practice (e.g., student
services or business administration), and the institutional type (i.e., four-year or two-year
institutions of higher education). Both the online survey questions and the open-ended
interview questions were likewise designed to not be sensitive in nature and the
California State University, Sacramento’s Institutional Review Board corroborated that
they posed minimal risk of harm or discomfort.
The researcher was solely responsible for the collection of data in both the
quantitative and qualitative components of the study. The online survey asked
participants to answer 45 questions that sought to evaluate participants’ leadership
preferences. These questions were derived from Bass and Avolio’s Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), and a license to utilize this copyrighted material for
the distribution of up to 150 online surveys was purchased via mindgarden.com.
42
Documentation that the researcher has permission to use this copyrighted information is
provided in Appendix B, and sample questions from the MLQ are referenced in the
following section of Chapter 3 titled, “Leadership Measures.”
Quantitative Component
The quantitative component of the study principally addressed research question 3
(and sub-question 3) and research question 4 (and sub-question 4). To recap, these
research questions include:
Question 3: How do the differences in the leadership behaviors reported as being
most critical vary by generational cohort? Sub-Question 3: Do the differences in the
leadership behaviors reported as being most critical vary by race, ethnicity, gender,
hierarchy within the institution, level of education, field of practice, or institution?
Question 4: Is there a relationship between administrators’ generational cohort
affiliation and their view of transactional, Transformational or Transcendental leadership
styles as being most effective? Sub-Question 4: Are the relationships affected by the
participants’ race, ethnicity, gender, hierarchy within the institution, level of education,
field of practice, or institution?
Demographic Measures
The research study collected nine points of demographic data from survey
participants. The variable “Generational Cohort” measured whether participants identify
as belonging to the Millennial generation (coded as “0”), Generation X (coded as “1”), or
as Baby Boomers (coded as “2”). The variable “Gender” measured whether participants
identified as Female (0), or Male (1). The variable “Race/Ethnicity” measured whether
43
participants identified as: Asian (0), Black (1), Hispanic (2), White (3), or Other (4),
although for the purpose of data analysis, these categories were further collapsed into
White (0) or Non-White (1). The variable “Highest Degree Completed” measured
participants’ level of education to include: High School (0), Associate’s Degree (1),
Bachelor’s Degree (2), Master’s Degree (3), Professional Degree (4), or Doctoral Degree
(5). The variable “4 Year or 2 Year Institution” measured participants’ association with a
4 year institution of higher education (0) or 2 year institution of higher education (1). The
variable “Area of Practice” measured participants’ industry within each institution of
higher education to include: business, finance, human resources, technology, or other
non-student facing positions (0); or academic program administration, student support
services, or other student-facing positions (1).
The variable “Years Employed with the Organization” measured participants’
years of employment with their current organization to include: 0-4 years (0), 5-9 years
(1), 10-19 years (2), 20-29 years (3), or greater than 30 years (4). The variable “Years
Supervisory / Managerial Experience” measured participants’ total years of experience in
a supervisory or managerial role to include: 0-4 years (0), 5-9 years (1), 10-19 years (2),
20-29 years (3), or greater than 30 years (4). Lastly, the variable “Seniority” measured
participants’ level of organizational seniority within their organization to include:
supervisor (0), manager (1), or senior manager (2).
Leadership Measures
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (henceforth referred to as the MLQ)
developed by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio, was used to evaluate respondents’
44
Transactional and Transformational leadership preferences (Tepper & Percy, 1994).
Specifically, the MLQ seeks to measure, explain and demonstrate to individuals the key
factors that set truly exceptional leaders apart from marginal ones and assess the
effectiveness of an entire organization’s leadership. The MLQ has been researched and
validated in peer reviewed journals and is valid across cultures and differing types of
organizations (Mind Garden, 2012).
Because the MLQ only considers Transactional and Transformation leadership
styles an additional set of questions were developed to gauge Transcendental leadership
preferences. The resulting amended multifactor leadership questionnaire was used to
develop an online survey that measured leadership styles as is perceived by the individual
respondents across Transactional, Transformational, and Transcendental approaches. The
questionnaire measured subjects’ leadership practices and preferences on ten factors, the
first six of which were derived from Bass and Avolio’s leadership questionnaire, while
the final three were derived from the researcher’s review of relevant Transcendental
leadership dimensions. Specifically, Factors 1–4 measured Transformational leadership,
Factors 5–7 measures Transactional leadership, while Factors 8–10 measure
Transcendental leadership. The following section lists and defines each leadership factor:
Factor 1: Idealized Influence – Indicates whether participants hold subordinates’
trust, maintain their faith and respect, show dedication to them, appeal to their hopes and
dreams, and act as their role model.
45
Factor 2: Inspirational Motivation – Measures the degree to which participants
provide a vision, use appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on their work,
and try to make others feel their work is significant.
Factor 3: Intellectual Stimulation – Shows the degree to which participants
encourage others to be creative in looking at old problems in new ways, create an
environment that is tolerant of seemingly extreme positions, and nurture people to
question their own values and beliefs and those of the organization.
Factor 4: Individualized Consideration – Indicates the degree to which
participants show interest in others’ well-being, assign projects individually, and pay
attention to those who seem less involved in the group.
Factor 5: Contingent Reward – Shows the degree to which participants tell others
what to do in order to be rewarded, emphasize what you expect from them, and recognize
their accomplishments.
Factor 6: Management by Exception – Assesses whether participants tell others
the job requirements, are content with standard performance, and are a believer in “if it
ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Factor 7: Laissez-Faire Leadership – Measures whether participants require little
of others, are content to let things ride, and let others do their own thing.
Factor 8: Systems-Thinking – Shows the degree to which participants understand
that we are connected and the leader-constituent relationship extends beyond the confines
of “you and I” out into the larger world.
46
Factor 9: Meta-Context – Measures the degree to which participants consider the
relevant actors, context, time, and historical considerations, and how all of these interact
with each other to define leadership.
Factor 10: Change Agency – Measures the degree to which participants act as a
catalyst for change and recognize that the onus for change is vested in both the leader and
constituent.
Table 1 displays the leadership types, factors, and associated question numbers
used in the online survey. Of the 45 total questions asked in the amended MLQ, there are
eight questions pertaining to the measurement of Idealized Influence (Factor 1), four
questions related to Inspirational Motivation (Factor 2), four questions related to
Intellectual Stimulation (Factor 3), four questions related to Individualized Consideration
(Factor 4), four questions related to Contingent Reward (Factor 5), eight questions related
to Management by Exception (Factor 6), four questions related to Laissez-Faire
Leadership (Factor 7), three questions related to Systems Thinking (Factor 8), three
questions related to Meta Context (Factor 9), and three questions related to Change
Agency (Factor 10).
47
Table 1
Leadership Type, Factors, and Associated Survey Questions Numbers
Leadership Type
Leadership Factors
Survey Question Numbers
Transformational
Factor 1: Idealized Influence
Questions 9, 14, 19, 25, 29,
31, 34, 43
Transformational
Factor 2: Inspirational Motivation
Questions 13, 18, 35, 45
Transformational
Factor 3: Intellectual Stimulation
Questions 3, 11, 39, 41
Transformational
Factor 4: Individualized
Consideration
Questions 21, 26, 38, 40
Transactional
Factor 5: Contingent Reward
Questions 2, 15, 22, 44
Transactional
Factor 6: Management by Exception
Questions 5, 6, 17, 20, 27, 30,
33, 36
Transactional
Factor 7: Laissez Faire Leadership
Questions 7, 10, 37, 42
Transcendental
Factor 8: Systems Thinking
Questions 1, 4, 8
Transcendental
Factor 9: Meta Context
Questions 12, 16, 20
Transcendental
Factor 10: Change Agency
Questions 24, 28, 32
Although the researcher acquired the appropriate licenses to reproduce and
administer the MLQ, per the copyright restrictions outlined by the publisher,
Mindgarden, the researcher was restricted by the holder of the MLQ copyright to
consequently only outline five sample questions from the original survey instrument.
Table 2 therefore outlines three sample survey questions associated with Factors 1–3
which evaluates Transformational leadership preferences, and two survey questions
associated with Factors 5–6 which evaluates Transactional leadership preferences. Table
3 outlines the survey questions in total associated with Factors 8–10, which evaluates
Transcendental leadership preferences. Each of the questions in the leadership survey was
48
evaluated via a 5-point Leichardt scale, including: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral,
Agree, and Strongly Agree.
Table 2
Transformational & Transactional Leadership, Factors, and Sample Survey Questions
Leadership Type
Leadership Factors
Sample Questions
Transformational
Factor 1: Idealized Influence
I believe it is important to go
beyond self-interest for the
good of the group.
Transformational
Factor 2: Inspirational Motivation
I believe it is important to
articulate a compelling vision
of the future.
Transformational
Factor 3: Intellectual Stimulation
I believe it is important to
seek differing perspectives
when solving problems.
Transactional
Factor 5: Contingent Reward
I believe it is important to
make clear what one can
expect to receive when
performance goals are
achieved.
Transactional
Factor 6: Management by Exception
I believe it is important to
focus attention on
irregularities, mistakes, and
deviations from standards.
49
Table 3
Transcendental Leadership, Factors, and Sample Survey Questions
Leadership Type
Leadership Factors
Sample Questions
Transcendental
Factor 8: Systems Thinking
I believe it is important to
explain how our work is
interconnected.
Transcendental
Factor 8: Systems Thinking
I believe it is important to
collaborate with others and
avoid acting in a vacuum.
Transcendental
Factor 8: Systems Thinking
I believe it is important to
convince others on how our
work benefits society.
Transcendental
Factor 9: Meta Context
I believe it is important to get
others to understand the
larger mission of our
organization.
Transcendental
Factor 9: Meta Context
I believe it is important to
consider the background and
characteristics of those we
work with.
Transcendental
Factor 9: Meta Context
I believe it is important to
educate myself and others on
the larger issues related to my
organization.
Transcendental
Factor 10: Change Agency
I believe it is important to be
comfortable with the notion
that change is constant.
Transcendental
Factor 10: Change Agency
I believe it is important to
educate and guide others
through periods of transition.
Transcendental
Factor 10: Change Agency
I believe it is important to act
with the assumption that
sustainable changes occur
through dialogue.
50
In addition to the 45 questions derived from the MLQ, participants were also
asked to rate the 10 leadership factors in order of importance on a scale of 1 through 10,
with 1 being the most important and 10 being the least important. This component of the
online survey allowed the researcher to validate the findings from the 45 question
amended MLQ.
Qualitative Component
The interview component of the research study was conducted concurrently with
the online survey component of the study and served to corroborate or challenge the
findings derived from the online survey. These discussion questions were constructed to
explore subjects’ description of effective leadership behaviors and perceptions on
generations in the higher education workplace. The qualitative component of the study
principally addressed research question 1 (i.e. what behaviors do Higher Education
Administrators report as being most critical for effective leadership in contemporary
institutions of higher education?) and research question 2 (i.e. how do Higher Education
Administrators from differing generational cohorts describe effective leadership?). In
total five interview questions were asked of participants, all of which allowed for openended responses. The interview questions are attached as Appendix C.
The first two interview questions asked participants to describe effective
leadership in their own words:
1. How would your staff and colleagues describe you as a leader?
2. Think about your past or present supervisors. What about their leadership styles
did you really like, and what about their leadership styles just didn’t work for you.
51
Two additional interview questions asked participants to describe whether
generational cohort affiliation--or age--impacted their leadership preferences and/or
styles:
3. How important of a consideration is age in your daily interaction with your
subordinates or colleagues? (If it is), please describe why it is an important
consideration? (If it is not), please describe why it is not an important
consideration.
4. Do you believe that your leadership style changes based on the generational
demographic of your constituents? (If yes) please describe how it changes. (If no),
please describe for me why you do not adjust your leadership style and why it
may not matter to you?
The final component of the interview was an open ended question that allowed
participants to add additional insight into topics that may not have been addressed in the
discussion up to that point:
5. Do you have any other insights or comments you would like to add to the
discussion?
Data Analysis
Analysis of the data from the quantitative component of the study occurred in
multiple phases. First, participants’ leadership preferences were determined by averaging
the respondents’ respective answers to the 45 online survey questions evaluating
leadership preferences; this methodology reflected that of the original MLQ assessment,
and also allowed the researcher to compare MLQ results by generations. Next,
52
participants’ responses to the factor ranking portion of the online survey were totaled
under each leadership factor and also disaggregated by generational cohort; this allowed
the researcher to evaluate the leadership factors ranked from most important to least
important, and allowed for the identification of differences between generational cohorts.
Next, the leadership scores derived from the MLQ and coded participant demographic
variables were exported into IBM SPSS Version 22 and analyzed via descriptive statistics
to identify the sample, Cronbach’s Alpha to test for data reliability, Pearson’s Correlation
analysis (to test for statistically significant correlations), and Multiple Regression
analysis (to test for predictive relationships between the independent variables and
overall leadership preferences).
Analysis of the data from the qualitative component of the study occurred in
multiple phases as well. The researcher transcribed the interviews, grouped participants’
responses to each interview question by generation, and then analyzed data sequentially
by openly coding for key themes, grouping similar codes into overarching leadership
themes, and analyzing those themes that rose to top because of their frequency or
noteworthiness. Next, the researcher compared and contrasted generational responses and
evaluated each leadership theme within the context of either the interviewee’s own
generation or within the context of the generation of the subject being discussed. Finally,
the researcher applied Transformational leadership theory and Transcendental leadership
theory to the findings to evaluate it for fit with the ten leadership factors identified under
each leadership framework. Additional details into this analysis process will be covered
in the findings section of Chapter 4.
53
Protection of Participants
Informed consent was obtained electronically for the online survey administered
via SurveyMonkey. That is, individuals participating in the online survey portion of the
study were provided with an electronic information page, which included a summary of
the study, a privacy statement, and an electronic consent form which recorded and timestamped the participants’ responses to a set of inclusion statements. The electronic
consent form asked participants to validate that they are: (a) at least 18 years of age; (b)
serving as a Higher Education Administrator in the areas of business, finance, human
resources, academic technology, student support services, academic program
administration, research, laboratory, or clinical administration; (c) serving in a
supervisory or managerial capacity; (d) agreed to the terms of the research; and (e) chose
to take the survey voluntarily. A copy of the online survey consent form is attached as
Appendix D.
The following statement was also included in the electronic consent form: “Your
responses will be kept confidential to the degree permitted by the technology used.
However, no absolute guarantees can be given for the confidentiality of electronic data.”
Additionally, the electronic consent form disclosed that if a participant completed an
anonymous survey and submitted it, the researcher would be unable to remove
anonymous data from the database should the participant wished to withdraw it.
Written informed consent was obtained separately for the interview component of
the study. That is, individuals participating in the interview were provided with an
information letter, which included a summary of the study, a privacy statement, and a
54
written consent form. The interview consent form asked participants to validate that they
are: (a) at least 18 years of age; (b) serving as a Higher Education Administrator in the
areas of business, finance, human resources, academic technology, student support
services, academic program administration, research, laboratory, or clinical
administration; (c) serving in a supervisory or managerial capacity; (d) agreed to the
terms of the research; (e) chose to participate in the interview voluntarily; and (f) agreed
to be recorded. Participants not meeting all of the above criteria were excluded from the
study. A copy of the interview research consent form is attached as Appendix E.
The demographic information survey for both the online survey component and
the interview component did not ask the participant for their name, nor for their
institution of employment or affiliation. Furthermore, care was given so that findings
from the study would not reveal identifiable information that could attribute the answers
to any particular respondent.
Online participants were likewise asked to offer their consent electronically after
reading the consent information form to participate in the study, and participants were
given the option to exit the survey at any time. All participants in the study were over the
age of 18.
The interview component of the study likewise did not note demographic
information, and did not reveal identifiable information that could attribute the answers to
a particular respondent. These participants were asked to offer their consent as well and
be given the option to end the session at any time. All participants being interviewed
were over the age of 18 and names of the respondents were not recorded.
55
The participants were advised that the results of both the online survey and
interviews may be used in reports, presentations, or publications but participants’ names
and their respective college/districts would not be known nor would it be used to
reference any of the information. Participants were also advised that their responses to the
demographic survey, online survey, and interview questions would be kept confidential.
Lastly, participants were also advised that the interviews would be transcribed,
but all references to college names or other people would be noted anonymously
employing use of a randomized numeric code. They were advised that the interview
recordings would be kept only for the purposes of transcription and afterwards destroyed.
Electronic audio files were stored on the researcher’s laptop under password protection
until they too were destroyed. All audio transcripts were shredded and deleted
electronically upon completion of the study.
Conclusion
Chapter 1 of this study has provided an overview of leadership studies and
generational cohorts and made the case that differences in the values and goals of the
respective generational age cohorts currently reflected in the contemporary multigenerational workforce may lead to organizational turbulence and potentially impact the
success of institutions of higher education. Therefore, determining the goals, values, and
expectations of different generations of stakeholders may serve to provide higher
education administrators access to some measure of predictability and add nuance to the
study and practice of educational leadership in higher education.
56
Chapter 2 presented a review of relevant literature and provided context to the
study of Transformational leadership and the role of generational cohorts in higher
education administration. The literature review explored the concept of generations and
generational age cohorts; and further evaluated leadership theory and leadership
behaviors.
Chapter 3 outlined for the reader: (a) the justification of why a mixed method
research design is being leveraged in this study; (b) a description of the researcher’s role
in the study; (c) the research questions derived from this investigation of this topic; (d) a
description of the setting in which this study took place, the population sampled and
rationale for the sampling; (e) how, when, and where the data was collected; (f) an
overview of the steps taken to ensure reliability and validity of data; (g) the statistical
methods used for analyzing the data; (h) and an explanation of the measures used to
protect participants and their data.
Chapter 4 presents findings derived from the research, while Chapter 5 focuses on
summarizing the findings, interpreting the results, implications, recommendations to
higher education leadership stakeholders, and suggestions for future study.
57
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Chapter 4 details the results of this research study to include findings from the
quantitative data derived from the online survey and the qualitative data derived from the
open ended interviews conducted with participants. To recap, the quantitative data
collected in the electronic survey addresses research question 3 (and sub-question 3) and
research question 4 (and sub-question 4). These research questions include:
Question 3: How do the differences in the leadership behaviors reported as being
most critical vary by generational cohort? Sub-Question 3: Do the differences in the
leadership behaviors reported as being most critical vary by race, ethnicity, gender,
hierarchy within the institution, level of education, field of practice, or institution?
Question 4: Is there a relationship between administrators’ generational cohort
affiliation and their view of Transactional, Transformational or Transcendental leadership
styles as being most effective? Sub-Question 4: Are the relationships affected by the
participants’ race, ethnicity, gender, hierarchy within the institution, level of education,
field of practice, or institution?
The quantitative findings section first presents the sample’s respondent
demographics by way of descriptive statistics. Next, the researcher provides an overview
of the statistical methods used to analyze the data, justifies the need for each respective
analysis, and provides an overview of the measurement thresholds related to each
method. The results from each component statistical analysis are reported throughout.
58
The qualitative component of the study principally addressed research question 1
(i.e., what behaviors do Higher Education Administrators report as being most critical for
effective leadership in contemporary institutions of higher education?) and research
question 2 (i.e., how do Higher Education Administrators from differing generational
cohorts describe effective leadership?).
The researcher then explains the process by which leadership, generational, and
emergent themes were derived, reports on interview participant profiles, and describes
the leadership themes that were found to be most prevalent and or noteworthy. Lastly,
results from the coding of themes are reported, and a conclusion specific to the
qualitative findings are presented.
Quantitative Analysis
Descriptive Statistics on Participant Demographics
Table 4 presents the means, minimum, maximum, and standard deviations of all
the demographic variables included in this study, while Tables 5 through 13 presents the
frequency and percentages of each variable. The total sample used in this study consisted
of 135 higher education administrators serving in a supervisory or managerial capacity
throughout California’s three systems of higher education (i.e., University of California,
California State University, and California Community College campuses).
Baby Boomers were strongly represented in the sample, with lower representation
from each following generations. Specifically, 43.7% of the sample were of the Baby
Boom generation, 34.8% were of Generation X, and 21.5% were Millennials. A majority
59
of the sample were also female. Specifically, 75.8% of the Millennial generation, 53.2%
of Generation X, and 52.5% of Baby Boomer participants identified as such.
The majority of the survey participants (69.6%) were affiliated with four-year
institutions of higher education, while approximately one third (30.4%) were affiliated
with two-year institutions (i.e., community colleges). 69.6% of the sample was affiliated
with four-year institutions of higher education, while 30.4% was affiliated with two-year
institutions of higher education. Results however were generally well split between
student facing and non-student facing positions; that is 53.3% of the sample were
employed in the areas of Business, Finance, Human Resources, Technology, Clinical
Administration, or in Research, while 46.7% were employed in the areas of Academic
Program Administration or Student Support Services.
As indicated in the Methodology section of Chapter, although participants’ race
and ethnicity was collected under five categories (e.g., Asian, Black, Hispanic, White,
and Other), for the purpose of the quantitative analysis these categories were collapsed
into two distinct groups. In this regards, the majority of the sample (73.3%) identified as
White/Caucasian, while 26.7% of the sample identified as Other. When this data was
disaggregated by generations, it was found that 72.4% of the Millennial generation,
59.5% of Generation X, and 84.7% of Baby Boomer participants identified as
White/Caucasian.
In terms of degree attainment, 47.4% of the total sample had Master’s degrees,
29.6% had Bachelor’s Degrees, 17% had Doctoral degrees, while those with a high
school diploma, professional degree or an Associate’s degree rounded out the final 6.2%.
60
Notably, Doctoral degree holders were most prevalent in the Senior Management ranks,
while Bachelor’s degree holders were most prevalent in the Supervisory level ranks.
The sample’s range of institutional affiliation (or years served with their
organization) were also weighted toward fewer years of service; that is, 31.9% of the
sample were employed with their current institution for 0–4 years; 27.4% for 10–19
years; 23.7% for 5–9 years; 11.9% for 20–29 years; and 5.2% for over 30 years.
Table 4
Range, Means, and Standard Deviations for Demographic Variables
Variables
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Generational Cohort a
135
0
2
1.22
.779
135
0
1
.42
.496
135
0
1
.27
.444
Highest Degree
Completed d
135
0
5
2.96
1.142
4 Year or 2 Year
Institution e
135
0
1
.30
.462
Area of Practice f
135
0
1
.47
.501
Years Employed with
the Organization g
135
0
4
1.35
1.193
Years Supervisory /
Managerial Experience h
135
0
4
1.67
1.209
Seniority i
135
0
2
.90
.813
Gender
b
White/Non-White
c
Notes: a 0 = Millennial, 1 = Generation X, 2 = Baby Boomer. b 0 = Female, 1 = Male. c 0 = White, 1 = NonWhite. d 0 = High School, 1 = Associate’s Degree, 2 = Bachelor’s Degree, 3 = Master’s Degree, 4 =
Professional Degree, 5 = Doctoral Degree. e 0 = Four Year Institution, 1 = 2 Year Institution. f 0 = Business,
Finance, Human Resources, Technology, or other Non-Student Facing Positions; 1 = Academic Program
Administration, Student Support Services, or other Student-Facing Positions. g 0 = 0-4 Years, 1 = 5-9
Years, 2 = 10-19 years, 3 = 20-29 Years, 4 = Greater than 30 Years. h 0 = 0-4 Years, 1 = 5-9 Years, 2 = 1019 years, 3 = 20-29 Years, 4 = Greater than 30 Years. I 0 = Supervisor, 1 = Manager, 2 = Senior Manager
61
Table 5
Frequencies and Percentages – Generational Cohort
Variable
Frequency
Percent
Millennials
29
21.5
Generation X
47
34.8
Baby Boomers
59
43.7
Total
135
100.0
Notes: “Millennials” = Born 1981 – 1993. “Generation X” = Born 1965 – 1980. “Baby Boomer” = Born
1946 – 1964.
Table 6
Frequencies and Percentages – Gender
Variable
Frequency
Percent
Female
78
57.8
Male
57
42.2
Total
135
100.0
Table 7
Frequencies and Percentages – White/Non-White
Variable
Frequency
Percent
White
99
73.3
Non-White
36
26.7
Total
135
100.0
62
Table 8
Frequencies and Percentages – Degree
Variable
High School
Frequency
4
Percent
3.0
Associate's
1
.7
Bachelor's
40
29.6
Master's
64
47.4
Professional
3
2.2
Doctorate
23
17.0
Total
135
100.0
Table 9
Frequencies and Percentages – Four-Year/Two-Year Institution
Variable
4 Year Institution
Frequency
94
Percent
69.6
2 Year Institution
41
30.4
Total
135
100.0
Table 10
Frequencies and Percentages – Area of Practice
Variable
Business, Finance, HR, Clinical,
Research
Frequency
Percent
72
53.3
Academic Program
Administration and Student
Support Services
63
46.7
Total
135
100.0
63
Table 11
Frequencies and Percentages – Years Employed with the Organization
Variable
0-4
Frequency
43
Percent
31.9
5-9
32
23.7
10 - 19
37
27.4
20 - 29
16
11.9
>30
7
5.2
Total
135
100.0
Table 12
Frequencies and Percentages – Years of Supervisory or Managerial Experience
Variable
0-4
Frequency
25
Percent
18.5
5-9
40
29.6
10 - 19
38
28.1
20 - 29
19
14.1
>30
13
9.6
Total
135
100.0
Table 13
Frequencies and Percentages – Generational Cohort
Variable
Supervisor
Frequency
52
Percent
38.5
Manager
45
33.3
Senior Manager
38
28.1
Total
135
100.0
64
Results from the MLQ
Table 14 presents the means, minimum, maximum, and standard deviations of the
results from the MLQ distributed by leadership type (i.e., Transformational,
Transactional, and Transcendental leadership types). Table 15 presents the means and
standard deviations of the MLQ scores distributed by leadership type, and further
distributed by generations. The leadership scores used a basis for the quantitative
component of this study were calculated using the methodology outlined by Bass and
Avolio’s (1993) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ); that is, participants’
responses to the 45 leadership survey questions were averaged according to the questions
corresponding to each leadership factor which in turn filtered up into the overhead
leadership averages represented in this table. Out of a ranking scale of 0–4 (with 0 being
rated lowest and 4 being rated highest) the mean Transformational leadership score for all
participants was 3.19; the mean Transcendental leadership score was 3.28; and the mean
transactional leadership score was 1.63.
Table 14
Means and Standard Deviations for MLQ Leadership Scores
Variables
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Total
Transformational
Leadership Score
135
2.30
4.00
3.1936
.31576
Total
Transactional
Leadership Score
135
.81
2.63
1.6363
.33708
Total
Transcendental
Leadership Score
135
2.22
4.00
3.2884
.36295
65
Table 15
Means and Standard Deviations for MLQ Leadership Scores by Generations
Generation
Millennial
Generation X
Baby Boomer
Transformational
Transactional
Transcendental
Mean
3.2103
1.6966
3.2941
N
29
29
29
Standard Deviation
.31520
.29895
.33919
Mean
3.1456
1.6515
3.2677
N
47
47
47
Standard Deviation
.34979
.34763
.38878
Mean
3.2236
1.5946
3.3020
N
59
59
59
Standard Deviation
.28708
.34605
.35831
Results from the Leadership Factor Ranking Component of the Survey
The researcher then evaluated the leadership factor ranking portion of the
quantitative survey, which asked participants to rank the 10 leadership factors being used
in this study in order of importance, with 1 being the most important and 10 being the
least important. Ranking data was also disaggregated by generations, and the figures
corresponding to each leadership factor was totaled. This allowed the researcher to order
each leadership factor based on a total score, with the lowest total score indicating that
participants from that generation scored it as most important, and with the highest total
score indicating that participants from that generation scored it as least important.
Table 16 presents the results of the leadership factor ranking component of the
study across generations. Participants from all three generational cohorts ranked
66
Transformational and Transcendental leadership factors higher than Transactional
leadership factors. Specifically, Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation (both
Transformational leadership factors) were ranked across generations as most important,
followed by the Meta Context, Change Agency, and Systems Thinking (Transcendental
factors). The three Transactional leadership factors – Contingent Reward, Laissez Faire
Leadership, and Management by Exception - were ranked lowest.
Table 16
Leadership Factor Ranking Results – All Participants
Ranking
Factor
Leadership Style
Description
1
Inspirational
Motivation
Transformational
Measures the degree to which you
provide a vision, use appropriate
symbols and images to help others
focus on their work, and try to make
others feel their work is significant.
2
Idealized
Influence
Transformational
Indicates whether you hold
subordinates’ trust, maintain their faith
and respect, show dedication to them,
appeal to their hopes and dreams, and
act as their role model.
3
Meta Context
Transcendental
Measures the degree to which you
consider the relevant actors, context,
time, and historical considerations, and
how all of these interact with each
other to define leadership.
4
Change Agency
Transcendental
Measures the degree to which you act
as a catalyst for change and recognize
that the onus for change is vested in
both the leader and constituent.
67
Table 16 continued
Ranking
Factor
Leadership Style
Description
5
Systems
Thinking
Transcendental
Shows the degree to which you
understand that we are connected and
the leader-constituent relationship
extends beyond the confines of “you
and I” out into the larger world.
6
Individualized
Consideration
Transformational
Indicates the degree to which you
show interest in others’ well-being,
assign projects individually, and pay
attention to those who seem less
involved in the group.
7
Intellectual
Stimulation
Transformational
Shows the degree to which you
encourage others to be creative in
looking at old problems in new ways,
create an environment that is tolerant
of seemingly extreme positions, and
nurture people to question their own
values and beliefs and those of the
organization.
8
Contingent
Reward
Transactional
Shows the degree to which you tell
others what to do in order to be
rewarded, emphasize what you expect
from them, and recognize their
accomplishments.
9
Laissez Faire
Leadership
Transactional
Measures whether you require little of
others, are content to let things ride,
and let others do their own thing.
10
Management by
Exception
Transactional
Assesses whether you tell others the
job requirements, are content with
standard performance, and are a
believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it.”
68
Table 17 presents the results of the leadership ranking data further disaggregated
by generations while likewise presenting the specific leadership factors in order of
importance. Administrators from all three generational cohorts were quite similar in
terms of ranking Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, and the Meta Context as
the most important leadership factors, while ranking all three Transactional leadership
factors as least important. The one deviation from this ordering was that administrators
from the Millennial generation ranked Individualized Consideration higher up than their
peers in Generation X and the Baby Boom generation.
Table 17
Leadership Factor Ranking Comparison
Ranking
Millennials
Generation X
Baby Boomers
1
Idealized Influence
Inspirational Motivation
Inspirational Motivation
2
Inspirational Motivation
Idealized Influence
Idealized Influence
3
Meta Context
Meta Context
Meta Context
4
Individualized
Consideration
Systems Thinking
Change Agency
5
Change Agency
Change Agency
Systems Thinking
6
Systems Thinking
Individualized
Consideration
Intellectual Stimulation
7
Intellectual Stimulation
Intellectual Stimulation
Individualized
Consideration
8
Contingent Reward
Laissez Faire Leadership
Contingent Reward
9
Laissez Faire Leadership
Contingent Reward
Laissez Faire Leadership
10
Management by
Exception
Management by
Exception
Management by
Exception
69
Testing for Reliability of Leadership Scores
Next, a Chronbach’s Alpha scale analysis was conducted on the leadership scores
derived from the MLQ to estimate the level of internal consistency associated with the
composite scores in the leadership questionnaire data set. In other words, a statistical test
was conducted to measure whether the individual questions asked in the MLQ survey
were co-reliable in actually determining the leadership type being evaluated. Although
there is no clear threshold, for the purpose of this social sciences study, a Chronbach’s
Alpha (α) score of .60 and greater was considered as a sufficiently reliable threshold.
This measurement of internal reliability enabled the researcher to determine whether it
was justifiable to interpret scores that had been aggregated together under each of the
three leadership types being evaluated (e.g., Transactional, Transformational, and
Transcendental).
Table 18 presents the results of the reliability tests performed on the MLQ data. In
summary, all three leadership style measurements were found to be sufficiently reliable
for the purpose of this social sciences study. One hundred thirty-two of the 135 total
responses were included in the test for Transformational leadership reliability, with three
responses excluded by virtue of being incomplete. Specifically, the Transformational
leadership scale tested the reliability of 20 separate questions and was found to be
sufficiently reliable (α = .79). One hundred twenty-nine of the 135 total samples were
included in the test for Transactional Leadership reliability with six samples excluded by
virtue of being incomplete. The Transactional leadership scale tested 16 separate
questions and was also found to be sufficiently reliable (α = .61). Finally, 129 of 135 total
70
samples were included in the test for Transcendental Leadership reliability and six
samples were excluded by virtue of being incomplete. The Transcendental leadership
scale took into account nine separate questions and was also found to be sufficiently
reliable (α = .71). In summary, the most reliable of the questions were those questions
evaluating Transformational leadership preferences (with an alpha score of .79), followed
by Transcendental leadership (with an alpha score of .71), followed by Transactional
leadership (with an alpha score of .61).
Table 18
Report of Quantitative Data – Reliability
Leadership Style
Number of Variables
Chronbach’s Alpha (α)
Transformational
20
0.79
Transactional
16
0.61
Transcendental
9
0.71
Results from Pearson’s Correlation Analysis
Next, a Pearson bivariate correlation analysis was conducted to identify
significant correlations between the MLQ leadership scores and participants’
demographic characteristics. The significant correlations found between the leadership
scores and the demographic variables included in this study are presented in Table 19.
The researcher first noted the correlation coefficient, which is represented by (r)
and falls within the range of -1 to 1 (Creswell, 2009). The correlation coefficient
determined the effect size of the variables being correlated, with a coefficient of 0.1
considered as having a low effect size, 0.3 as having a medium effect size, and 0.5 as
71
having a high effect size (Cohen, 1992). A correlation coefficient of greater than 0.80
was considered as the threshold indicator for a collinear relationship; that is, those
variables being correlated with a correlation coefficient of greater than .80 was
considered as being too similar in scope, and would be subsequently combined. The
researcher also noted whether the correlation coefficient was positive or negative, since
this indicated the direction of the relationship between the variables being tested.
Specifically, a positive correlation coefficient (r) indicated that as one variable increases,
the corresponding variable decreases; while a negative correlation coefficient (-r)
indicated that as one variable increases, the corresponding variable decreases. Lastly, in
regards to the Pearson’s Correlation portion of this analysis, the researcher noted the
significance or (p-value) of the relationships. For the purpose of this social sciences
study, a p-value (p) of 0.05 or less was considered as the threshold for statistical
significance (Creswell, 2009).
The variable Generational Cohort Affiliation correlated with the variable
Transformational Leadership Score indicated that r = 0.39 and p = .653; in other words,
the relationship between generations and Transformational leadership was not found to
be significant, so the effect size of generations on Transformational was also not
considered. The variable Generations correlated with Transactional Leadership Score
indicated that r = -.120 and p = .167; again, the relationship between these two variables
was not found to be significant and the effect size was not considered. Lastly, the variable
Generations correlated with the Transcendental Leadership Score indicated that r = .017
72
and p = .846; these findings also show that the relationship between these variables was
not significant, and the effect size data was likewise not considered.
However, significant correlations with the three leadership preferences (i.e.,
Transformational, Transactional, and Transcendental) were found in regards to
participants’ gender, degree of education, and level of seniority. Specifically, the data
indicated significant correlations between participants’ gender and Transactional
leadership preferences (r = .204, p = .018). In other words, male participants in the
sample were found to prefer Transactional leadership styles, although the effect size of
the gender variable was found to be low. Significant correlations were also found
between participants’ gender and reported Transcendental leadership preferences
(r = -0.196, p = .023). In this regard, female participants in the sample were found to
prefer Transcendental leadership styles, although as with the previous finding of males
and Transactional leadership preferences, the effect size was also found to be low.
Additionally, significant correlations were found between participants’ level of
education and the Transactional leadership preferences reported in this sample
(r = -0.213, p = .013). In other words, participants with higher levels of education were
also less likely to prefer Transactional leadership behaviors, although the effect size was
low when evaluated using Cohen’s scale.
Lastly, significant correlations were found between participants’ level of
organizational seniority and Transformational leadership preferences (r = .201, p = .020),
and additional significant correlations were found between participants’ seniority and
Transcendental leadership preferences (r = 0.20, p = .020). In other words, participants
73
with greater organizational seniority were found to prefer Transformational and
Transcendental leadership behaviors, although as with all the significant correlations
found within this analysis, the effect size of participants’ seniority on these leadership
preferences was relatively low.
Table 19
Results from Pearson’s Correlation Analysis – Correlation, Significance and Effect Size
Leadership Type
Generation (r, p)
Gender (r, p)
Transformational
r = .39, p = .653*
Transactional
r = -0.12, p = .167*
r = .204, p = .018
Transcendental
r = .017, p = .846*
r = -0.196, p =
.023
Education (r, p)
Seniority (r, p)
r = .201, p = .020
r = -.213, p = .013
r = .20, p = .020
Notes: Effect Size is determined according to Cohen’s Scale (Cohen, 1992). 0.1 = Low Effect Size, 0.3 =
Medium Effect Size, 0.5 High Effect Size. * Not Significant at p>0.05.
Results from the Multiple Regression Analysis
Lastly, multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine how well
Transformational, Transactional, and Transcendental leadership preferences could be
predicted from a combination of independent/demographic variables (i.e. generation,
gender, ethnicity etc.). It should be noted that in this analysis, all of the demographic
variables were assumed to be important (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2013).
The researcher first utilized the correlation results from the Pearson’s Correlations
analysis conducted in the previous section to test for multicollinearity; that is, a
correlation coefficient (r) of greater than 0.80 was considered as the threshold indicator
for a collinear relationship. Those variables being correlated with a correlation coefficient
of greater than .80 would was considered as being similar in scope, and would have been
74
subsequently combined. Table 20 presents the Correlation Coefficients evaluated for
multicollinearity. In summary, since no variables were found to be correlated to such a
high degree that it indicated a collinear relationship, all the demographic variables
collected in this study were used in constructing the multiple regression models.
Table 20
Pearson Correlation – Testing for Multicollinearity
Sco.
Coh.
Gen.
Race
Deg.
Inst.
Area
Emp.
Sup.
Sco.
1.00
Coh.
-1.20
1.00
Gen.
.204
.161
1.00
Race
-.019
-.151
-.007
1.00
Deg.
-.213
.169
.001
.167
1.00
Inst.
-.167
.309
.055
.039
.375
1.00
Area
.051
-.230
-.108
.208
.239
.254
1.00
Emp.
-.072
.526
.065
-.064
.015
-.071
-.224
1.00
Sup.
-.129
.752
.236
-.056
.104
.129
-.222
.438
1.00
Sen.
-.100
.508
.221
-.026
.213
.244
-.210
.330
.541
Sen.
1.00
Notes: “Sco.” = Leadership Score. “Coh” = Generational Cohort. “Race” = White/Non-White. “Deg.” =
Level of Education. “Inst.” = 4 year or 2 Year Institution. “Area” = Area of Practice. “Emp.” = Years
Employed with the Institution. “Sup.” = Years in Supervisory / Managerial Position. “Sen.” = Hierarchy
within the Organization.
The researcher was interested in identifying the F-statistic and Significance level
(Sig.) derived from the regression analysis which would indicate whether the
combination of demographic variables significantly predicts the leadership score being
evaluated; in other words, the researcher used these measurements to determine whether
75
the model in its entirety significantly combined to predict leadership preferences; if the
measurements were found to be not significant, than the model was dropped from the
analysis (Creswell, 2009). As was the case in the Pearson’s Correlation analysis
performed in the previous section, for the purpose of this social sciences study, a
significance score (sig.) of 0.05 or less was considered as the threshold for statistical
significance.
Table 21 presents the results of the multiple regression analysis in regards to
significance of the overall models and whether participants’ demographic variables
combined to predict leadership preferences. In summary, the combination of the
demographic variables used in the Transactional leadership regression model (F = 2.248,
p = .023), and the Transcendental leadership regression model (F = 2.791, p = .005) were
found to significantly combine to predict leadership preferences. Given these finding, the
researcher continued on in his evaluation of these models’ coefficients. However, the
Transformational leadership regression model overall was found to not be significant in
predicting Transformational leadership preferences (F = 1.464, p = .169). Given this
finding, the researcher dropped the Transformational leadership regression model from
the analysis.
The researcher was also interested in the adjusted R-Square (R2)—noted in Table
29-- which indicates the percentage of variance in the leadership scores that could be
predicted from the combination of demographic variables (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, &
Barrett, 2013). The adjusted R2 value for Transactional leadership was .077, indicating
that 7.7% of the variance in Transactional leadership could be predicted by the
76
combination of participants’ demographic variables. The adjusted R2 value for
Transcendental leadership was .107, meaning that 10.7% of the variance in
Transcendental leadership could be predicted by the combination of participants’
demographic variables.
Table 21
Multiple Regression Results – Overall Model Significance
Leadership Type
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
F
Sig.
Transactional
Leadership
.373
.139
.077
2.248
.023*
Transformational
Leadership
.309
.095
.030
1.464
.169
Transcendental
Leadership
.409
.167
.107
2.791
.005*
* Found to be Significant at p < .05
Additionally, the standardized coefficient Beta and the significance level (sig.)
associated with each demographic variable entering the regression models were
considered by the researcher. These measurements would indicate whether each variable
was or was not significantly contributing to the predictability of the leadership score
being evaluated.
Table 22 presents the beta coefficients related to Transactional leadership scores,
while Table 23 presents those related to Transcendental leadership scores. In summary,
participants’ gender (Standardized β = .255, p = .004), and degree of education
(Standardized β = -.187, p = .048) were found to significantly contribute to the prediction
of Transactional leadership preferences, when the other demographic variables were
77
already considered. In other words, all of the participant demographic variables were
included in the model to obtain this result, but most of the participants’ other
demographic variables – i.e., generation, ethnicity, area of practice, type of institution,
years of experience, years of supervisory experience, and seniority—did not significantly
contribute to the prediction.
Additionally, participants’ level of organizational seniority (Standardized β =
.342, p = .001), participants’ gender (Standardized β = -.243, p = .005), and years
employed with their organization (Standardized β = -.224, p = .029) were found to
significantly contribute to the prediction of Transcendental leadership preferences, when
the other demographic variables were already considered. Again, all of the participant
demographic variables were included in the model to obtain this result, but most of the
participants’ other demographic variables – i.e., generation, ethnicity, area of practice,
type of institution, and years of supervisory experience - did not significantly contribute
to the prediction.
78
Table 22
Multiple Regression Results – Transactional Leadership
Variable
Unstandardized B
Standard Error
Standardized
Coefficient
Beta
T
Sig.
Coh.
.049
.065
.114
.755
.452
Gen.
.173
.059
.255
2.954
.004
Race
-.004
.066
-.005
-.060
.952
Deg.
-.055
.028
-.187
-1.995
.048
Inst.
-.120
.075
-.164
-1.589
.114
Area
.096
.064
.143
1.492
.138
Emp.
-.013
.029
-.047
-.460
.646
Sup.
-.053
.038
-.189
-1.387
.168
Sen.
.005
.044
.013
.121
.904
Notes: “Sco.” = Leadership Score. “Coh” = Generational Cohort. “Race” = White/Non-White. “Deg.” =
Level of Education. “Inst.” = 4 year or 2 Year Institution. “Area” = Area of Practice. “Emp.” = Years
Employed with the Institution. “Sup.” = Years in Supervisory / Managerial Position. “Sen.” = Hierarchy
within the Organization.
79
Table 23
Multiple Regression Results – Transcendental Leadership
Variable
Unstandardized B
Standard Error
Standardized
Coefficient
Beta
T
Sig.
Coh.
.061
.069
.130
.878
.382
Gen.
-.178
.062
-.243
-2.862
.005
Race
.115
.070
.140
1.641
.103
Deg.
.016
.029
.051
.557
.579
Inst.
-.074
.080
-.095
-.932
.353
Area
.020
.068
.028
.293
.770
Emp.
-.068
.031
-.224
-2.212
.029
Sup.
-.033
.040
-.109
-.813
.418
Sen.
.153
.046
.342
3.290
.001
Notes: “Sco.” = Leadership Score. “Coh” = Generational Cohort. “Race” = White/Non-White. “Deg.” =
Level of Education. “Inst.” = 4 year or 2 Year Institution. “Area” = Area of Practice. “Emp.” = Years
Employed with the Institution. “Sup.” = Years in Supervisory / Managerial Position. “Sen.” = Hierarchy
within the Organization.
Summary of Quantitative Findings
The quantitative findings from the MLQ questionnaire indicated that out of a
ranking scale of 0–4, the mean Transformational leadership score for all participants was
3.19; the mean Transcendental leadership score was 3.28; and the mean transactional
leadership score was notably lower at 1.63. When the data were disaggregated by
generations, the researcher found that the preference for Transformational and
Transcendental leadership styles over Transactional leadership styles was similarly
preferred across generations.
80
Although some variability in ordering down at the individual factor level was
found, overall, administrators from all three generational cohorts similarly ranked
Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, and the Meta Context as the most important
leadership factors, while ranking the three Transactional leadership factors – Contingent
Reward, Laissez Faire Leadership, and Management by Exception – lowest. The one
deviation from this ordering was that administrators from the Millennial generation
ranked Individualized Consideration higher up than their peers in Generation X and the
Baby Boom generation.
Reliability testing (via Chronbach’s Alpha) estimating the level of internal
consistency associated with the composite scores in the leadership questionnaire data set
indicated that the respective questions pertaining to all three leadership types were
suitably reliable. The most reliable of the questions were those questions evaluating
Transformational leadership preferences (with an alpha score of .79), followed by
Transcendental leadership (with an alpha score of .71), followed by Transactional
leadership (with an alpha score of .61).
Results from the Pearson’s Correlation component of the study meanwhile
indicated that generational cohort affiliation did not have a statistically significant
relationship with Transformational leadership preferences (r = 0.39 and p = .653); with
Transactional leadership preferences (r = -.120 and p = .167); nor with Transcendental
leadership preferences (r = .017 and p = .846)
However, significant correlations with the three leadership preferences were
found in regards to participants’ gender, degree of education, and level of seniority.
81
Specifically, male participants in the sample were found to prefer Transactional
leadership styles (r = .204, p = .018), and participants with higher levels of education
were also found to be less likely to prefer Transactional leadership behaviors (r = -0.213,
p = .013). Additionally, female participants in the sample were found to prefer
Transcendental leadership styles (r = -0.196, p = .023), and it was also noted that
participants with greater organizational seniority likewise preferred Transcendental
leadership behaviors (r = 0.20, p = .020). Finally, organizational seniority was also found
to significantly correlate with transformational leadership preferences (r = .201, p =
.020). For all of these significant correlations, however, the corresponding effect sizes on
the related leadership preferences were found to be low.
Since Pearson’s correlation analysis examines significant correlations assuming a
one-to-one relationship between the dependent and independent variable, the researcher
also conducted a multiple regression analysis, which would allow for the consideration of
significantly predictive relationships within the context of all the variables being
considered.
In regard to the results from the regression analysis, none of the
demographic/predictor variables used were found to be correlated to such a high degree
that it indicated a collinear relationship; therefore, all the demographic variables collected
in this study were used in constructing the multiple regression models. Additionally, the
researcher found that participants’ demographic variables significantly combined to
predict Transactional leadership preferences (F = 2.248, p = .023), and Transcendental
leadership preferences (F = 2.791, p = .005); however, the predictor variables did not
82
significantly combine to predict Transformational leadership preferences (F = 1.464, p =
.169). Given this finding, the researcher dropped the Transformational leadership
regression model from the regression analysis.
In evaluating the percentage of variance in the leadership scores, the researcher
found that 7.7% of the variance in Transactional leadership scores could be predicted
from the combination of participants’ demographic variables. Of these variables, only
participants’ gender (Standardized β = .255, p = .004) and participants’ degree of
education (Standardized β = -.187, p = .048) were found to significantly contribute to the
prediction of Transactional leadership preferences. Meanwhile, 10.7% of the variance in
Transcendental leadership could be predicted from the combination of participants’
demographic variables, of which participants’ level of organizational seniority
(Standardized β = .342, p = .001), participants’ gender (Standardized β = -.243, p = .005),
and participants’ years employed with their organization (Standardized β = -.224, p =
.029) were found to significantly contribute to the prediction.
Qualitative Analysis
Overview of Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative data collection through semi-structured interviews with nine higher
education administrators was conducted concurrently with the online survey and provided
nuance to the quantitative findings derived from the online survey. Interview questions
explored subjects’ perceptions of their own and other’s leadership and the intersection of
leadership and generations in the higher education workplace. The qualitative component
of the study explored what behaviors Higher Education Administrators reported as most
83
critical for effective leadership in their workplace and how Higher Education
Administrators from differing generations describe effective leadership, in their own
words. In total, five interview questions were asked of participants, all of which allowed
for open-ended responses.
The first two interview questions asked participants to describe effective
leadership in their own words:
1. How would your staff and colleagues describe you as a leader?
2. Think about your past or present supervisors. What about their leadership styles
did you really like, and what about their leadership styles just didn’t work for you.
By analyzing participants’ responses disaggregated by the generations, the
researcher cross coded for similarities and differences in the data and explored emergent
themes related to perceptions of effective leadership in higher education administration
and the role of generations in the workplace.
Two additional interview questions asked participants to describe whether
generational cohort affiliation--or age--impacted their leadership preferences and/or
styles:
3. How important of a consideration is age in your daily interaction with your
subordinates or colleagues? (If it is), please describe why it is an important
consideration? (If it is not), please describe why it is not an important
consideration.
4. Do you believe that your leadership style changes based on the generational
demographic of your constituents? (If yes) please describe how it changes. (If no),
84
please describe for me why you do not adjust your leadership style and why it
may not matter to you?
Data from these questions add further nuance to survey data and to interview
participants’ reflections on leadership.
The final component of the interview was an open-ended question that allowed
participants to add additional insight into topics that may not have been addressed in the
discussion up to that point:
5. Do you have any other insights or comments you would like to add to the
discussion?
The researcher transcribed the interviews, grouped participants’ responses to each
interview question by generation, and then analyzed data sequentially with the following
steps:
1. Coding for Themes – First, the researcher openly coded for key themes,
including words and phrases that described effective leadership. Then the researcher
grouped similar codes into overarching leadership themes, and analyzed those themes
that rose to the top because of their frequency or noteworthiness.
2. Evaluating Generational Differences – Next, the researcher compared and
contrasted generational responses and evaluated each leadership theme within the context
of either the interviewee’s own generation or within the context of the generation of the
subject being discussed. For example, the researcher noted whether a Baby Boomer
spoke about focusing on the individual needs of subordinates, and the researcher also
noted whether that subordinate’s generation was discussed.
85
Interview Participant Profiles
Table 24 presents the profiles of the nine study participants who self-selected to
be interviewed. Participants’ demographic information was collected as part of each
interview, however, to ensure participants’ anonymity, information related to their
institution and years of institutional affiliation have been omitted.
Of the nine interviewees, three were Millennials (between the ages of 18-32), two
were Generation X (between the ages of 33-48), and four were Baby Boomers (between
the ages of 49-67). Seven out of the nine participants were female, and all but one
interviewee identified as White/Caucasian. In terms of organizational seniority, four
participants identified as supervisors, three identified as managers, and two identified as
senior managers. Millennial interviewees had the fewest years of experience and all
identified as supervisors, while Baby Boomers had the most years of experience and were
also most frequently senior managers. Participants’ seniority also corresponds with level
of education; for example, both doctoral degree holders were Baby Boomers identifying
as senior managers.
86
Table 24
Interview Participant Demographics
Participant
Generation
Gender
Race/Ethnicity
Degree
Area of
Practice
Supervisory
Experience
Classificatio
n
1
Millennial
Female
White /
Caucasian
Bachelors
Student
Support
0 – 4 Years
Supervisor
2
Millennial
Female
Asian / Pacific
Islander
Masters
Student
Support
0 – 4 Years
Supervisor
3
Millennial
Female
White /
Caucasian
Bachelors
Student
Support
0 – 4 Years
Supervisor
4
Generation
X
Male
White /
Caucasian
Bachelors
Business
10 – 19
Years
Manager
5
Generation
X
Female
White /
Caucasian
Bachelors
Business
5 – 9 Years
Supervisor
6
Baby
Boomer
Female
White /
Caucasian
High
School
Business
5 – 9 Years
Manager
7
Baby
Boomer
Male
White /
Caucasian
Doctorate
Business
10 – 29
Years
Senior
Manager
8
Baby
Boomer
Female
White /
Caucasian
Masters
Student
Support
10 – 19
Years
Manager
9
Baby
Boomer
Female
White /
Caucasian
Doctorate
Business
10 – 29
Years
Senior
Manager
Notes: “Millennials” = Born 1981 – 1993. “Generation X” = Born 1965 – 1980. “Baby Boomer” = Born
1946 – 1964.
Participant 1 is a white/Caucasian female from the Millennial generation, serving
as a supervisor at a public four-year institute of higher education in California. Participant
1 has a bachelor’s degree, serves in a student support services context, and has between
zero and four years of supervisory experience.
Participant 2 is an Asian/Pacific Islander female from the Millennial generation,
serving as a supervisor at a public four-year institute of higher education in California.
87
Participant 2 has a bachelor’s degree, serves in a student support services context, and has
between zero and four years of supervisory experience.
Participant 3 is a white/Caucasian female from the Millennial generation, serving
as a supervisor at a public four-year institute of higher education in California. Participant
3 has a bachelor’s degree, serves in a student support services context, and has between
zero and four years of supervisory experience.
Participant 4 is a white/Caucasian male from Generation X, serving as a manager
at a public four-year institute of higher education in California. Participant 4 has a
bachelor’s degree, serves in a business administration context, and has between 10 and 19
years of supervisory and managerial experience.
Participant 5 is a white/Caucasian female from Generation X, serving as a
supervisor at a public four-year institute of higher education in California. Participant 5
has a bachelor’s degree, serves in a business administration context, and has between five
and nine years of supervisory experience.
Participant 6 is a white/Caucasian female from the Baby Boomer generation,
serving as a manager at a public four-year institution of higher education in California.
Participant 2 has a high school diploma, serves in a business administration context, and
has between five and nine years of supervisory and managerial experience.
Participant 7 is a white/Caucasian male from the Baby Boomer generation,
serving as a senior manager at a public four-year institute of higher education in
California. Participant 7 has a doctoral degree, serves in a business administration
context, and has between 20–29 years of supervisory and managerial experience.
88
Participant 8 is a white/Caucasian female from the Baby Boomer generation,
serving as a manager at a public two-year institution of higher education in California.
Participant 8 has a master’s degree, serves in a student support services and academic
administration context, and has between 10 and 19 years of supervisory and managerial
experience.
Participant 9 is a white/Caucasian female from the Baby Boomer generation,
serving as a senior manager at a public two-year institution of higher education in
California. Participant 9 has a doctoral degree, serves in a business administration and
academic administration context, and has between 20 and 29 years of supervisory and
managerial experience.
Discussion of Qualitative Findings by Leadership Theme
There were five predominant coded themes relating to leadership in the higher
education workplace. What follows is an overview of each of these themes, including: (a)
mentorship and development; (b) focus on the individual; (c) adapting to change; (d)
institutional knowledge and transition planning; and (e) technology.
Mentorship and development. A predominant theme that rose to the top of the
discussion for participants from all three generational cohorts was the importance of
mentoring and development. It is interesting to note that inter-generational relationships
are inherent within this theme, with mentoring relationships most frequently taking place
between leaders and constituents who have both an age and experience gap between
them.
89
Baby Boomers spoke of mentoring and development both from their own past
experience as subordinates and from their current perspective as leaders. For example,
Participant 8 noted that at different points in her career she sought out people who were
older for their wisdom, explaining that the “depth of experience must in part come
through years in a particular career or with a particular organization.” Participant 9 in
describing a mentor relationship she had as a young administrator noted that she just was
not “astute enough as a young administrator” to understand the importance of mentoring,
but that as an experienced senior manager years later, she has “gone back many times”
and looked at the time she spent with her mentor and reflected on how much he had
taught her about herself.
Participant 7 also discussed the importance of mentoring and the difficulty that
younger leaders often have in being mentored by observing, “it often takes a wise person
to be coached, and I think a lot of people who had potential didn’t make it because they
weren’t able to be coached.” The interviewee went on to describe how he as a leader
explicitly emphasizes mentoring relationships with new subordinates he brings into the
organization:
One of the things I tell my staff when I first bring them on is, “I'm going to
correct you if I see you're doing something that is not consistent with how we do
business here. But I'm not criticizing you. You need to think of it as mentoring.
You're going to make mistakes, and if you have aspirations to move further, then
you'd be very wise to take from me some of the knocks that I've taken. Take the
counsel, and get past those. Don’t be hindered by them. Learn from my mistakes.
Let me share those with you.” (Participant 7)
90
Millennials also spoke on the importance of mentoring from a wide range of
perspectives. For example, Millennials acknowledged the importance of connecting with
more experienced mentors. Participant 3 spoke of her relationship with a “warm and
thoughtful” supervisor from the Baby Boomer generation who she felt comfortable
approaching for advice and learned to apply the mentor’s knowledge and best
characteristics in her own role as a supervisor. Millennials also acknowledged that
receiving mentorship was not always fully appreciated at the time, even when the true
value of that mentorship rose to the surface later. For example, one participant described
how she was frustrated at a former Supervisor who “always questioned her motives and
her decisions” and challenged her to work outside of her comfort zone. It was not until
she matured in her position that she realized that the individual was “helping her
understand what she was doing and why she was doing it” (Participant 2).
This perspective on mentoring relationships was also supported by the
experiences of Generation X interviewees, as well. For example, one Generation X
interviewee reflected on a past manager who had “a reputation for being really difficult”
but that she assigned him challenging projects and would not let him fail. This
interviewee went on to recount how he had recently looked back at a product that he had
created under that manager and realized that he was “really proud” of what he had
accomplished, and that while that manager had been a very difficult person to work for, it
became more clear to him with time that she had a process for letting him succeed
(Participant 4).
91
Generation X interviewees further explored how mentorship and coaching were
critical in the early stages of professional development. One participant from Generation
X observed that when working with younger staff:
You can’t assign them complex things without walking them through it step by
step first. When they get very good at doing what they do, they can bring in their
own dynamism. But you have to get them up to a certain level first. You have to
coach them over and over again, and then they can really take off and come up
with their own ideas. But there's a certain amount of repetition that’s needed
before they understand the framework. (Participant 4)
Interestingly, only the millennial interviewees spoke on the value of mentoring
relationships within their same generation. One participant noted that while there was
great value to mentorships outside their generation, mentoring relationships within
generations were also useful because “you have grown up in the same world, you have
the same experiences, and you have interacted on the same sort of things” (Participant 1).
In contrast, another Millennial noted difficulties with receiving mentorship from
supervisors who were close in age to her. She observed, “My supervisor and I are only
four years apart [in age], and that presents a challenging situation for me. Getting
feedback from someone who I consider to be on the equal playing field as me can be
challenging because I consider myself to be just as experienced or knowledgeable”
(Participant 3).
Another interesting nuance to the topic of mentoring emerged from one
interviewee’s discussion of mentoring subordinates who were older than her.
Specifically, this Millennial supervisor observed that with her older staff she took more
of a mentee approach, giving them guidance but almost as if she was “checking in with
them.” She observed that she would end things in a question, “so that they [older
92
subordinates] understood that if they felt like they wanted to challenge something, they
could.” And it was not because she necessarily expected a challenge from them, but
rather, because she wanted them to feel like she wasn’t speaking in absolute terms or
being overly directive with them.
Focus on the individual. A leadership theme that rose to the top of the
discussion was the importance of focusing on the individual. Baby Boomers particularly
emphasized the importance of individually considering their subordinates’ particular
needs and personal characteristics in constructing their leadership approach. For example,
the following quotes illustrate interviewees’ emphasis on individually considering the
particular needs of their subordinates:
I always consider the person. If I know a person likes to be approached in a
certain way, I will approach them in that way. I change my style with each
employee that I have. Do they prefer to be approached in private? Do they want to
come and talk in my office? If I joke with them, will they be offended?
(Participant 6)
Everybody has a different set of needs and comes from a different background.
It’s my job as a leader to understand what appeals to their personality traits.
Figure out what turns their lights on, what excites them, and be willing to satisfy
their interest and their needs. I think that's just critical. (Participant 7)
My leadership style changes based on their work styles, and their work
preferences. In thinking about a subordinate who is having performance problems,
I try and understand why that subordinate is having performance problems. This
is much more important to me than any demographic information about that
person. (Participant 8)
Individually considering subordinates’ needs directly related to interviewees’
thoughts on leadership efficacy, with Participant 7 noting that “leaders who really thrive
are the ones who are able to hit their subordinates’ interest button, which causes them to
go, ‘yeah, I'm curious enough to follow you.’” Strategies by which interviewees zeroed in
93
on their subordinates’ individual needs included being an “astute listener” (Participant 9),
finding ways to “accurately understand work styles and work preferences” (Participant
8), and being “interested in figuring out what makes someone ‘click’” (Participant 7).
Interviewees also observed that generational differences were only one aspect of
individuals’ needs that is part of effective leadership (Participant 6). This idea was
mirrored by Participant 8, who noted that generational differences were a “subtle variable
in workplace relationships” but that it acts in accord with subordinates’ other
demographic and personality variables to “make us into what we are, and who we are,
and how we act.” Therefore, while individual consideration was a predominant theme
among Baby Boomers, it is important to note that they did not consider generational
cohort affiliation to be a principal determinant of leadership behaviors.
Notably, while all four Baby Boomers spoke on the topic of individually
considering the characteristics and needs of their subordinates as a core leadership
behavior, only one Millennial and no participant from Generation X spoke on it.
Specifically, Participant 2, a Millennial, spoke on catering to subordinates individually
for the purpose of communicating in the best way possible. This participant’s response
mirrored that of many of the Baby Boomers, noting that while her overall leadership
philosophy did not change with the age of her staff, she did “approach situational
problems differently” because what might be clear for her might not be clear for someone
else based on generational differences.
Adapting to change. A leadership theme which rose to the top of the discussion
by interviewees from all three generations was the observation of rapid changes in the
94
higher education landscape and how these rapid changes often challenge individuals who
are not able to adapt as effectively.
Millennials spoke in regards to their preference for change and observed the
difficulty that change had on their colleagues from older generations. Specifically,
Participant 2 described Millennials as fast-moving, multi-tasking, and energetic, while
Participant 3 acknowledged that change is good “most of the time.” That said,
Millennials acknowledged learning through their experience how difficult change could
be for the institution, and they further recognized that organizational change measures
must be vetted and evaluated before implementation. For example, Participant 2 noted
that she first evaluates the most efficient way of going about their work, than she
collaboratively determines how comfortable her colleagues and constituents are with
those changes before she asks if that change can happen. Participant 3 corroborated this
observation, but observed in frustration that it was “difficult to understand why her
supervisor was holding on to an idea when clearly it wasn’t working well.”
A Generation X interviewee also acknowledged that organizational change was
difficult particularly for those colleagues who were older and more rigidly established in
their habits and routines. Specifically, Participant 4 spoke of getting into conflict with a
significantly older colleague who was “very critical of changes” and would intentionally
go to lengths to “not conform to changes.” This interviewee also reflected on how to
constructively manage this difficultly which change, observing that procedures needed to
be in place to constructively manage dissent to change, less it leads to organizational
dysfunction.
95
Baby Boomer interviewees were more adept at explaining why older colleagues
might be more resistant to organizational changes. For example, Participant 7 observed:
I think we get locked into our generation paradigm. It's tough to see past it. We
think our music is better, we think our education was better, and I'm not sure if
that's true. I think the world just changes and I recognize that change is inevitable.
And while some change is good, I don't agree that all change is good. That's kind
of how I feel. And I think every generation will say the same thing. (Participant 7)
Participant 6 meanwhile provided a personal account of the degree to which an inability
to adapt to changes affected a former supervisor. Specifically, she reflected on how a
similarly aged supervisor who was “very smart” and who “taught her a lot of really great
things,” but who was not able to adapt to changes and ended up retiring earlier than she
had originally planned. She observed that it was almost likely this individual was
“institutionalized by being here for so long, and it was too frustrating to adapt.”
Lastly, in regard to the role that change plays within leadership and generations in
the higher education workplace an experienced senior manager who was also a Baby
Boomer spoke on managing change from the perspective of a leader. Specifically,
Participant 9 observed that in implementing change initiatives, “some situation will arise
in which your decisions will upset people.” She advised that “stick-to-itiveness” was
thereby a necessary leadership quality in managing change, and that it was essential for
“you to believe in yourself, to listen intuitively to others, make those hard decisions, but
recognize that the buck stops here” (Participant 9).
Institutional knowledge and transition planning. Another emergent theme
from all three generations was the centrality of institutional knowledge, the related
96
anxiety over the loss of institutional knowledge, and how that intersects with higher
education organizations’ need for transition planning.
Millennials spoke on how valuable institutional knowledge was in effective
decision-making, their anxiety over the loss of institutional knowledge, and how this
challenges transition planning efforts in higher education. Specifically, Participant 1
observed that it was because her supervisor “has been here for so long, that she can talk
about things from the ‘beginning of time’” and that it was that depth of knowledge that
one needed to have in order to make effective leadership decisions. Participant 2
corroborated this sentiment by expressing her anxiety over a colleague retiring from
within her organization and how “everyone is terrified because we don’t have anyone
who is equipped to take her position.” This connection between the loss of institutional
knowledge and transition planning (or lack thereof) was corroborated by Participant 3
who recounted how difficult turnovers were in her organization; she observed “turnovers
were really rough on me, and I saw what it was like being without the institutional
knowledge” (Participant 3).
Generation X interviewees also spoke at length on the topic of valuing
institutional knowledge and the importance of transition planning in higher education
organizations. In this regards, Generation X interviewees explicitly noted the connection
between age, experience, and institutional knowledge. For example, Participant 4 and 5
observed, respectively:
I don't know if it's generational or just time spent, but some people in the
university who have been around for a long time really understand what to focus
on and how to get things done. And I’ve learned from them because you can get
overwhelmed very easily at the university, where everyone's got a problem for
97
you to solve. Those people who have taught me how to focus on things have
never been younger people and I don't know if that's a generational thing, or if
that's just experience. (Participant 4)
There was an older gentleman who recently retired who was like a walking
encyclopedia about the campus. Every time I went on campus with him, he would
tell me its history—the architect behind this building, and that there were
rattlesnakes in the basement there. It was just phenomenal, and I always valued
that about him. And I don't get that from my younger staff. The ones that have
been here longer than me know where things are hidden. (Participant 5)
Participants 4 also reflect on why it may be that institutional knowledge
corresponds with age and experience, noting that “older and more experienced people
understand the frameworks you’re working in.” That said, Participant 4 also
acknowledged that an over-dependence on existing frameworks may work to that
individual’s detriment in that it hampers the ability to think in innovative ways.
Overall, interviewees from Generation X observed that the primary influencing
factor in considering institutional knowledge and succession planning as key leadership
considerations was grounded in realizing “just how large the Baby Boomer population is
proportionally” (Participant 5) leading to grave concerns on how they could best prepare
the next generation of administrators to take the reins. Additionally, some Generation X
interviewees opinionated that succession planning in higher education may not be well
thought out and therefore succession planning was largely dependent on “how good an
individual manager may be” in creating the bridges between generations (Participant 4).
In contrast, most Baby Boomer interviewees did not explicitly speak on the
anxiety related to the loss of institutional knowledge, but rather, they focused on the
importance of transition planning and how the resulting changes in administrative
structure–if not well guided–could be detrimental to the organization. For example,
98
Participant 9 noted, “you want to have balance in your administrative structure” because
“tomorrow, everyone could retire which changes the structure of the organization
immediately, and that’s a scary place to be.” Participant 9 went on to describe a strategy
to ensure the continuity of administrative effectiveness by focusing on hiring practices:
by “hiring outside of your age peers, their experiences come to the organizational tables
with a different set of lenses, allowing everyone to grow.”
Technology. An emergent theme that rose to the top of the discussion for
Millennial and Baby Boomer interviewees, but not for Generation X, was the increasing
emphasis on technology in the higher education workforce and how this influences
perceived leadership efficacy.
Millennials spoke at length regarding how the use of technology is a core aspect
of their generation’s and their own identity and how technology impacts their
relationships with older colleagues from the Baby Boomer generation. For example,
Participant 1 observed that her work style was much more similar to her peers within her
generation by virtue of using technology far more than people older than her. Participant
2 meanwhile noted that differences in technology adoption and comfort with using
technology in the workplace are a challenge:
I think technology has become kind of an issue. My older colleagues might not be
comfortable using certain technologies because they didn't grow up with it. It's not
secondhand for them and it's hard to learn. (Participant 2)
In my current position, we have a big emphasis on technology, and when it comes
to training, there are some Baby Boomers who are in my opinion not as up to date
with technology. That’s where I see one of the biggest differences with
Millennials and other generations. (Participant 2)
99
Lastly, Millennials spoke on how technology adoption in the higher education is
accelerating. Participant 3 noted that in addition to many technology based initiatives
currently in the works, as “more people of power who are more comfortable with
technology integration become leaders and supervisors” the more those changes will be
system wide and institutional, making it even more challenging for those who are slow to
adopt technology solutions.
Baby Boomers interestingly did not talk about difficulties with adopting
technology explicitly, but focused on how leveraging technology effectively in the higher
education workforce was a noteworthy and valuable characteristic of the younger
generation. For example, Participant 8 spoke of her younger colleagues from Generation
X and how she had “nothing but admiration for them” partly because “they seem to have
a much better technological competency” than herself. Similarly, Participant 6 observed
that the younger generation simply grew up with technology that “we didn’t have in my
generation until we were adults” and that contributed to people’s comfort level with
technology adoption in the professional setting.
Summary of Qualitative Findings
Five core leadership themes were identified via a qualitative analysis of the
interview data. First, in describing effective leadership, interview participants spoke of
the important role that mentoring and development plays in effective leadership.
Participants (particularly from the Baby Boomer generation) also discussed the
importance of focusing on individuals’ particular needs and personal characteristics in
constructing their leadership approach. Adapting to Change also rose to the top of the
100
discussion along with observations of rapid changes in the higher education landscape
and how these changes are often challenging to individuals who are unable to adapt
effectively. Related to the topic of change, participants also expressed anxiety over the
loss of institutional knowledge, and how that intersects with higher education
organizations’ need for transition planning. Lastly, participants discussed the increasing
role of technology in the higher education setting and how this influences leadership
efficacy.
Conclusion
Chapter 4 detailed the results of this research study to include findings from the
quantitative data derived from the online survey and the qualitative data derived from the
open-ended interviews conducted with participants. Chapter 4 presented the findings
derived through the various statistical methods used to analyze the data, while the
qualitative component of the study described the leadership themes that were found to be
most prevalent and or noteworthy through an evaluation of participant interviews.
Chapter 5 will conclude this research study by way of summarizing the findings
of this study, and interpret those findings within context of the leadership theories used in
this study. Finally, the researcher will address implications related to the findings,
provide policy and leadership recommendations to higher education leadership
stakeholders, and in discussing the limitations of this study, provide suggestions for
future research.
101
Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Overview of the Study
In the broadest sense, this study sought to examine whether the qualities of
desired and effective leadership are demographically contingent or universal in the
contemporary higher education setting. A universal lens would for example predict that
Transactional, Transformational or Transcendental constructs of leadership could be
equally effective when used by any leader regardless of context whereas a contingent lens
would posit that certain leadership constructs could apply in some but not all situations
(Yukl, 2002).
As three characteristically different generations (i.e., Millennials, Generation
Xers, and Baby Boomers) converge in the higher education workplace (Salopek, 2006),
this study was motivated by concerns related to generational leadership transitions in
higher education institutions. By identifying the leadership preferences of these three
generations of administrations, the researcher hoped to add to the understanding of
effective leadership in higher education administration, and to help position the field of
leadership studies to better fit the needs of contemporary higher education organizations.
This study specifically sought to investigate whether the generational cohort
affiliation of higher education administrators were more important determinates of
workplace leadership behavior (Meredith et al., 2002), or whether other demographic
factors played a more important role in determining leadership preferences. Specifically,
the researcher hypothesized that administrators from the Millennial generation may prefer
102
Transcendental leadership behaviors given the diversity of the higher education
workforce. Conversely, the researcher hypothesized that administrators from the Baby
Boomer generation may prefer transactional leadership behaviors given the more
homogenous nature of the workforce in which they came of professional working age,
while Generation Xers would fit somewhere in the middle of the continuum.
The research questions for this study were consequently derived from an
investigation of the leadership preferences of the three generations of higher education
administrators, and a concurrent mixed methods strategy was utilized and guided by
Transformational leadership theory and Transcendental leadership theory, and
Generational theory. Specifically, this study sought to address the following research
questions:
Question 1: What behaviors do Higher Education Administrators report as being
most critical for effective leadership in contemporary institutions of higher education?
Question 2: How do Higher Education Administrators from differing generational
cohorts describe effective leadership?
Question 3: How do the differences in the leadership behaviors reported as being
most critical vary by generational cohort? Sub-Question 3: Do the differences in the
leadership behaviors reported as being most critical vary by race, ethnicity, gender,
hierarchy within the institution, level of education, field of practice, or institution?
Question 4: Is there a relationship between administrators’ generational cohort
affiliation and their view of transactional, Transformational or Transcendental leadership
styles as being most effective? Sub-Question 4: Are the relationships affected by the
103
participants’ race, ethnicity, gender, hierarchy within the institution, level of education,
field of practice, or institution?
The remainder of this chapter provides a summary of the quantitative and
qualitative findings presented in Chapter 4, and interprets those findings within the
framework of Transformational and Transcendental leadership theories. These
interpretations of the findings are then used to inform a discussion on leadership studies
implications, followed by the researcher’s associated recommendations for action. The
researcher then reflects on the limitations of the study design, his own biases that
emerged in conducting this study, and recommends areas for future study. Chapter 5
concludes with a personal reflection from the researcher on the topic of generations and
leadership efficacy.
Summary of Findings
Summary of Quantitative Findings
As was presented in Chapter 4 of this study, the quantitative findings from the
MLQ questionnaire indicated that out of a mean ranking scale of 0–4 (with 4 indicating a
strong preference for the leadership style being evaluated) the mean Transformational
leadership score for all participants was 3.19; the mean Transcendental leadership score
was 3.28; and the mean transactional leadership score was 1.63. Disaggregated by
generations, the researcher found that the preference for Transformational and
Transcendental leadership styles over Transactional leadership styles was similarly
distributed across generations.
104
Although some variability was found, overall, administrators from all three
generational cohorts similarly ranked Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, and
the Meta Context as the most important leadership factors, while ranking the three
Transactional leadership factors – Contingent Reward, Laissez Faire Leadership, and
Management by Exception – comparably lowest. The one deviation from this ordering
was that administrators from the Millennial generation ranked Individualized
Consideration higher than their peers in Generation X and the Baby Boom generation.
Reliability testing (via Chronbach’s Alpha) estimating the level of internal
consistency associated with the composite scores in the leadership questionnaire data set
indicated that the respective questions pertaining to all three leadership types were
suitably reliable. The most reliable of the questions were those questions evaluating
Transformational leadership preferences (with an alpha score of .79), followed by
Transcendental leadership (with an alpha score of .71), followed by Transactional
leadership (with an alpha score of .61).
Results from the Pearson’s Correlation component of the study meanwhile
indicated that generational cohort affiliation did not have a statistically significant
relationship with Transformational leadership preferences (r = 0.39 and p = .653); with
Transactional leadership preferences (r = -.120 and p = .167); nor with Transcendental
leadership preferences (r = .017 and p = .846). However, significant correlations with the
three leadership preferences were found in regards to participants’ gender, degree of
education, and level of seniority. Specifically, male participants in the sample were found
to prefer Transactional leadership styles (r = .204, p = .018), and participants with higher
105
levels of education were also found to be less likely to prefer Transactional leadership
behaviors (r = -0.213, p = .013). Additionally, female participants in the sample were
found to prefer Transcendental leadership styles (r = -0.196, p = .023), and it was also
noted that participants with greater organizational seniority likewise preferred
Transcendental leadership behaviors (r = 0.20, p = .020). Finally, organizational seniority
was also found to significantly correlate with transformational leadership preferences (r =
.201, p = .020). For all of these significant correlations however, the corresponding effect
sizes on the related leadership preferences were found to be low.
The researcher also conducted a multiple regression analysis allowing for the
consideration of significantly predictive relationships within the context of all the
variables being considered. The researcher found that participants’ demographic variables
significantly combined to predict Transactional leadership preferences (F = 2.248, p =
.023), and Transcendental leadership preferences (F = 2.791, p = .005); however, the
predictor variables did not significantly combine to predict Transformational leadership
preferences (F = 1.464, p = .169).
In evaluating the percentage of variance in the leadership scores, the researcher
found that 7.7% of the variance in Transactional leadership scores could be predicted
from the combination of participants’ demographic variables. Of these variables, only
participants’ gender (Standardized β = .255, p = .004) and participants’ degree of
education (Standardized β = -.187, p = .048) were found to significantly contribute to the
prediction of Transactional leadership preferences. Meanwhile, 10.7% of the variance in
Transcendental leadership could be predicted from the combination of participants’
106
demographic variables, of which participants’ level of organizational seniority
(Standardized β = .342, p = .001), participants’ gender (Standardized β = -.243, p = .005),
and participants’ years employed with their organization (Standardized β = -.224, p =
.029) were found to significantly contribute to the prediction.
Summary of Qualitative Findings
Five core leadership themes were identified via a qualitative analysis of the
interview data. First, in describing effective leadership, interview participants spoke of
the important role that mentoring and development plays in effective leadership.
Participants (particularly from the Baby Boomer generation) also discussed the
importance of focusing on individuals’ particular needs and personal characteristics in
constructing their leadership approach. Adapting to Change also rose to the top of the
discussion along with observations of rapid changes in the higher education landscape
and how these changes are often challenging to individuals who are unable to adapt
effectively. Related to the topic of change, participants also expressed anxiety over the
loss of institutional knowledge, and how that intersects with higher education
organizations’ need for transition planning. Lastly, participants discussed the increasing
role of technology in the higher education setting and how this influences leadership
efficacy in higher education.
Interpretation of Findings
Interpretation of Quantitative Findings
The quantitative findings from the MLQ questionnaire gave the first overall
indication that administrators from all generations may prefer Transformational and
107
Transcendental leadership styles more than Transactional leadership styles. When the
data was disaggregated by generations, the researcher also noted that the preference for
Transformational and Transcendental leadership styles over Transactional leadership
styles was similarly expressed across generations. Additionally, although some variability
in ordering down at the individual factor level was found, overall, administrators from all
three generational cohorts were also quite similar in terms of ranking Transformational
and Transcendental leadership factors higher than those factors related to Transactional
leadership. These results corroborate the findings derived from the evaluation of mean
scores on the MLQ questionnaire, and when taken together, these quantitative findings
support the researcher’s hypothesis that Transcendental and Transformational leadership
characteristics are important for leadership efficacy in higher education administration.
These findings also suggest however that the preference for Transcendental and
Transformational leadership are universal across all generations of administrators
regardless of context, and therefore challenges the researcher’s hypothesis that Millennial
administrators entering the workforce today would more greatly prefer Transcendental
leadership styles over their colleagues from the Generation X and the Baby Boom
generation.
Next, the findings from the reliability testing (Chronbach’s Alpha) component of
this study not only indicated that the questions corresponding to each respective
leadership type were all sufficiently reliable in measuring the given leadership
preference, these findings also provide evidence that the researcher’s questions
evaluating Transcendental leadership in this particular study were sufficiently reliable in
108
measuring that leadership preference. The reliability rating associated with the
measurement of Transcendental leadership was found to be greater than that of the
measurement of Transactional leadership, a peer-reviewed and validated component of
the Multifactor leadership questionnaire.
Next, while participants’ generation was not found to be statistically significant
indicators of leadership preferences, other demographic factors were found to be
statistically significant indicators of leadership preferences. Interestingly, results from the
regression analysis found that participants’ demographic variables did not significantly
predict Transformational leadership preferences. However, when taken in context with
the findings from the ranking component of the study and the mean scores derived from
the MLQ questionnaire, it is important to note that preferences for Transformational
leadership was rated highly overall, even if participants’ demographic variable were
found to not significantly predict a preference for it. These findings may also suggest that
a preference for Transformational leadership is a universally effective leadership
characteristic that is not contingent on any given demographic characteristic. The
leadership and policy implications related to this finding, along with corresponding
recommendations for action will be addressed in the later part of this chapter.
Meanwhile, regression analysis into Transactional leadership found that
participants’ demographic variables did significantly combine to predict Transactional
leadership preferences, although it is important to note that preferences for Transactional
leadership were rated low overall. Additionally, the researcher found that a relatively low
percentage of the variance in Transactional leadership scores could be predicted from the
109
combination of participants’ demographic variables. Of these variables, participants’
gender and degree of education were found to significantly contribute to the prediction of
Transactional leadership preferences. These findings may suggest that while male
administrators are more inclined to prefer Transactional leadership behaviors, education
works to decrease preferences for those behaviors. This is an interesting and significant
finding that will inform the researcher’s implications for leadership studies and
recommendations for action made in the following sections.
Regression results also indicated that participants’ demographic attributes did
significantly predict Transcendental leadership preferences. When taken in context with
the findings from the ranking component of the study and the mean scores derived from
the MLQ questionnaire, it is again important to note that preferences for Transcendental
leadership was rated highly overall as well. These findings may very strongly suggest that
a preference for Transcendental leadership is a universally effective leadership
characteristic that can also subsequently be statistically predicted. Specifically, these
findings suggests that while female administrators in senior management positions are
most inclined towards Transcendental leadership behaviors, the findings also suggest that
the more years an administrator spends with their organization leads to a decrease in
preference for Transcendental leadership. Again, this is an important and unexpected
finding, and the leadership and policy implications and corresponding recommendations
for action will be addressed in the later part of this chapter.
110
Interpretation of Qualitative Findings
As presented in Chapter 4 of this study, five core leadership themes were
identified via a qualitative analysis of the interview data: (a) mentorship and
development, (b) focusing on the individual, (c) adapting to organizational changes, (d)
institutional knowledge and transition planning, and (e) technology adoption. The
following section will interpret these qualitative findings within the context of
interviewees’ generation, identify the component considerations that might inform
leadership implications and recommendation for action, and speak to these themes within
the framework of Transformational and Transcendental leadership theories.
1. Mentorship and development. A predominant theme that rose to the top of
the discussion for participants from all three generational cohorts was the important role
that mentoring and development plays in participants’ construct of effective leadership.
In interpreting this leadership theme, the researcher noted four points of considerations
that will inform the policy and leadership implications and recommendation for action
made in the following section.
A. It was interesting to note that inter-generational relationships are inherent within
this theme, with participants indicating that valued mentoring relationships most
frequently took place between them and leaders who had both an age and
experience gap between them. For example, one Baby Boomer participant noted
the “depth of experience that must in part come through years in a particular
career,” while one Millennial participant spoke of her relationship with an
experienced supervisor from the Baby Boom generation who she selected to
111
approach for advice so that she could apply the mentor’s “knowledge and best
characteristics” into her own role as a supervisor.
B. Mentorship was also found to be often challenging for the mentee at the time the
mentoring was received, with the benefits of the mentorship not becoming
apparent until later in the mentees’ professional life. For example, one Millennial
participant noted that she had been frustrated at a former Supervisor who always
challenged her to work outside of her comfort zone, and it was not until she
matured in her position that she realized that the individual was “helping her
understand what she was doing and why she was doing it” (Participant 2).
Correspondingly a Generation X participant recalled a past manager who had
been a difficult person to work for, but over time it became more clear to him that
she had a process for letting him succeed (Participant 4).
C. Mentorship was found to be particularly critical in the early stages of professional
development. For example, one participant from Generation X observed that
when working with younger staff “you can’t assign them complex things without
walking them through it step by step first… you have to coach them over and over
again, and then they can really take off and come up with their own ideas”
(Participant 4).
D. The growing diversity of generations in the higher education workplace leads to
the emergence of mentoring relationships between younger (and likely less
experienced) leaders with older subordinates. One Millennial for example
addressed this dynamic by noting that even as a supervisor, she took a more
112
mentee approach to leadership with her older subordinates, giving them guidance,
but still “checking in with them.”
Overall, the emphasis on mentorship and development were best captured by the
Transformational leadership factors: Individualized Consideration which indicates the
degree to which leaders show interest in others’ well-being; and Intellectual Stimulation
in regards to challenging subordinates to question their own values and beliefs.
Additionally, the Transcendental leadership factor Change Agency also strongly applies
to mentorship because it is vested in the relationship between the leader and the
constituent.
2. Focus on the individual. Another dominant theme that rose to the top of the
discussion was the importance of focusing on the individual. Baby Boomers particularly
emphasized the importance of individually considering their subordinates’ particular
needs and personal characteristics in constructing their leadership approach. In
interpreting this leadership theme, the researcher noted 3 points of considerations that
will inform the policy and leadership implications and recommendations for action made
in the following section.
A. Identifying subordinates’ interests as individuals with individual needs was a core
recommendation. For example, Participant 7 noted that “leaders who really thrive
are the ones who are able to hit their subordinates’ interest button, which causes
them to go, ‘yeah, I'm curious enough to follow you.’”
B. Astute listening was also described as being a necessary component to
individually considering subordinates’ needs. Specifically, Participant 9 observed
113
that being an “astute listener” conveys that the leader is interested in “figuring out
what makes someone click” and helps the leader understand a particular
subordinates work styles and preferences, ultimately boosting leadership efficacy.
C. In discussing the importance of considering individuals’ particular mix of
characteristics, participants discussed subordinates’ generation (and age) as an
important part of the subordinates’ construct and therefore necessary in the
expression of effective leadership. This idea was espoused by Participant 8, who
noted that generational differences were a “variable in workplace relationships”
and that it acted in accordance with subordinates’ other demographic and
personality variables to “make us into what we are, and who we are, and how we
act.”
The emphasis of focusing on individuals’ needs and taking their personal
characteristics (generational cohort affiliation being one of those) into consideration is
well explained by the Transformational leadership factors Individualized Consideration
which indicates the degree to which leaders show interest in others’ well-being, and by
Inspirational Motivation, in regards to trying to make others feel their work is significant.
Additionally, the Transcendental leadership factor Meta-Context applied to this
leadership theme, by virtue of the emphasis placed on considering the relevant actors and
context of the individual in leadership relationships.
3. Adapting to change. Another dominant theme which rose to the top of the
discussion by interviewees from all three generations was the observation of rapid
changes in the higher education landscape and how these changes often challenge
114
individuals who are not able to adapt as effectively. The researcher noted three points of
considerations informing the leadership theme of adapting to change that will likewise
inform the policy and leadership implications and recommendations for action made in
the following section.
A. Participants observed that organizational change should be vetted with the
community before implementation. One such observation was made by a
Millennial administrator who in noting how difficult change could be for the
institution, expressed that the most effective way of going about seeding that
change was by collaboratively determining how comfortable her colleagues and
constituents were with the change before determining whether the change could
occur.
B. Participants also noted that procedures to constructively manage the change
process would be helpful. One such observation was made by a Generation X
administrator who spoke of getting into conflict with a colleague who was “very
critical of changes” and would intentionally go to lengths to “not conform to
changes.” This interviewee also reflected on how to constructively manage this
difficultly which change, observing that procedures needed to be in place to
constructively manage dissent to change, less it leads to organizational
dysfunction.
C. Change initiatives were noted as being often more difficult for those who are
older and institutionalized. Specifically, a Generation X interviewee noted that
organizational change was difficult particularly for those colleagues who were
115
more rigidly established in their habits and routines, while another participant
spoke of a former supervisor who was “institutionalized by being here for so long,
it was too frustrating to adapt.” Lastly, a Baby Boomer participant added context
to difficulty with change by noting that individuals often get “locked into a
generational paradigm” and that it is “tough to see past it.”
Interviewees’ emphasis on the importance of adapting to organizational changes
is best encapsulated by the Transcendental leadership factors Change Agency which
acknowledges that leaders must act as a catalyst for change and that the onus of change is
ultimately vested in both the leader and constituent and Systems Thinking in that
individuals who are unable to adapt to changes may be having difficulty understanding
how their work extends beyond them to the needs of the larger organization.
4. Institutional knowledge and transition planning. Another emergent theme
derived through discussions with participants from all three generations was the centrality
of institutional knowledge, the related anxiety over the loss of institutional knowledge,
and how that intersects with higher education organizations’ need for transition planning.
In interpreting this leadership theme, the researcher noted two points of considerations
that will likewise inform the policy and leadership implications and recommendations for
action made in the following section.
A. First, institutional knowledge was perceived to be synonymous with age and
experience, and therefore associated with administrators from the Baby Boomer
generation. For example, Participant 1 observed that it was because her supervisor
“has been here for so long, that she can talk about things from the ‘beginning of
116
time’” and that it was that depth of knowledge that one needed to have in order to
make effective leadership decisions. Participants 4 also reflect on why it may be
that institutional knowledge corresponds with age and experience, noting, “older
and more experienced people understand the frameworks you’re working in.”
B. Lack of proper transition planning was discussed as anxiety inducing, particularly
for administrators left holding the ball when the experienced administrators exit
the organization. Participant 2 corroborated this sentiment by expressing her
anxiety over a colleague retiring from within her organization and how “everyone
is terrified because we don’t have anyone who is equipped to take her position.”
This anxiety was further addressed by Participant 3 who recounted how difficult
turnovers were in her organization; she observed “turnovers were really rough on
me, and I saw what it was like being without the institutional knowledge”
(Participant 3). Additionally, a Generation X interviewees opinionated that
succession planning in higher education may not be well thought out and
therefore succession planning was largely dependent on “how good an individual
manager may be” in creating the bridges between generations (Participant 4).
Interviewees’ emphasis on the value of institutional knowledge and their concerns
with transition planning are best captured by Transcendental Leadership factors in much
the same way that these factors were most appropriate for the prior discussed theme,
adapting to organizational changes. Specifically, these include: Change Agency which
acknowledges that leaders must act as a catalyst for change and that the onus of change is
ultimately vested in both the leader and constituent; and Systems Thinking in that
117
individuals who are unable to adapt to changes may be having difficulty understanding
how their work does not happen in a vacuum and that their work extends beyond them
into the needs of the larger organization. In addition however, the researcher believes that
the Transcendental leadership factor Meta Context applies to this leadership theme, given
participants’ emphasis placed on the interaction needed between administrators leaving
the institution and those who are poised to replace them.
5. Technology. The final emergent theme which rose to the top of the discussion
for Millennial and Baby Boomer interviewees was the increasing emphasis on technology
in the higher education workforce and how this influences perceived leadership efficacy
in contemporary institutions of higher education. In interpreting this leadership theme,
the researcher noted two points of considerations that will likewise inform the policy and
leadership implications and recommendations for action made in the following section.
A. First, participants noted differences in the level of comfort (and effectiveness) by
which individuals from different generations use technology. This was supported
by Millennial participants speaking at length on how the use of technology is a
core aspect of their generation’s identity. Participant 1 for example observed that
her work style was much more similar to her peers within her generation by virtue
of using technology far more than people older than her, while Participant 2 noted
that differences in technology adoption and comfort with using technology in the
workplace were a challenge.
B. Lastly, technology adoption in higher education was noted to be accelerating.
Participant 3 for example observed that in addition to many technology based
118
initiatives currently in the works, as “more people of power who are more
comfortable with technology integration become leaders and supervisors” the
more those changes will be system wide and institutional, making it even more
challenging for those who are slow to adopt technology solutions.
Interviewees’ emphasis on the role of technology in the higher education
workplace is in the researcher’s opinion best captured by the Transcendental leadership
factor Change Agency and the Transformational leadership factor Intellectual
Stimulation. Specifically, Change Agency was selected because it acknowledges that
leaders must act as a catalyst for change and that the onus of change (in this case
Technology adoption) is ultimately vested in both the leader and constituent.
Additionally, Intellectual Stimulation was selected in that the success of technology
adoption by older constituents are at its core concerned with encouraging them to be
creative in looking at old problems in new ways (paper vs. electronic for example), and
nurturing people to question their own values and beliefs about how work should be
accomplished effectively within the organization.
Implications for the Field of Leadership Studies
The following section builds on the results and interpretation of this study to
speak on the implications for the field of leadership studies in higher education. Findings
from this study strongly support the emphasis placed on the centrality of
Transformational leadership within leadership studies curriculum. While Transcendental
leadership is not yet salient in the body of literature on leadership in higher education,
given the emphasis that study participants placed on managing change and transition
119
planning as core characteristics of effective leaders, the researcher highly recommends
the integration of Transcendental leadership practices into the field of leadership studies.
Within the continuum of leadership styles, it is advantageous to error on the side of
Transcendental and Transformational leadership; thus, the researcher advises continued
development and integration of Transcendental and Transformational leadership into
leadership curriculum.
Related to these implications for the field of leadership studies, findings from this
study serve to validate the role that increased education and training can have in reducing
Transactional leadership. This assertion is grounded in this study’s findings that while
male administrators are more inclined to prefer Transactional leadership behaviors,
education works to decrease preferences for those behaviors. Furthermore, given the low
ratings related to Transactional leadership (via the MLQ mean scores and the leadership
factor ranking), leadership studies curriculum that educates administrators on the
comparable ineffectiveness of Transactional leadership behaviors in most settings could
facilitate more effective leader/constituent relationships in practice.
Next, although the researcher’s hypothesis related to generational differences in
leadership preferences has been strongly challenged by the quantitative findings of this
study, qualitative findings provide added nuance, suggesting that generations do play an
important and supportive role in leadership efficacy. Specifically, qualitative findings
demonstrate that although generations are not the most significant variable in effective
leadership, the wealth of experience and institutional knowledge associated with
administrators from the Baby Boomer generation contribute strongly to effective
120
leadership. Specifically, older and more experienced administrators were seen as
providing important mentorships, contribute to transition planning efforts, and possess an
advanced and even intuitive understanding of leadership frameworks, including astute
observations of individualized consideration of others’ needs. Therefore, a notable overall
finding of this study is the centrality of the content knowledge, skills, and institutional
knowledge that experienced administrators from the Baby Boomer generation bring to
the table.
A key implication for the field of higher education leadership studies is therefore
the key importance of mentoring, coaching, and the passing of knowledge from one
generation onto the next. While outside of the limits of this study, Graen and Uhl-Bien’s
(1995) Leader/Member Exchange Theory provides additional contribution to
understanding the relationship between leaders and subordinates. This theory explains
that “leaders often act differently towards different subordinates,” that these relationships
are often “paired” into “in-groups” and “out-groups,” and that efficacy related to the
leader and member relationship is often contingent on whether an individual subordinate
belongs within the “in-group” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Using this theory in
conjunction with Transformational and Transcendental leadership theories would add to
leadership curriculum by focusing on the important aspect of individualized consideration
found to be of noteworthiness in this study.
Next, the findings from this study strongly suggest that while Transactional
leadership is less preferable than Transformational and Transcendental leadership in
higher education, findings suggest that none-the-less Transactional leadership styles are
121
present in effective leadership relationships. Many components of workplace
relationships are transactional in nature, for example, as those found in human resources
salary considerations. That said, an additional implication for the field of leadership
studies is that all three leadership styles exist dynamically and on a continuum within
effective leadership relationships; therefore, leadership scholars should continue to
explore the interplay between these leadership styles.
In summary, the researcher found that Transformational and Transcendental
leadership theories are strongly applicable to this study on leadership efficacy in higher
education administration. Key components of these leadership theories are more critically
related to effective leadership training in the contemporary context. Figure 5 presents the
original overlay of leadership theories as hypothesized by the researcher at the beginning
of this study, while Figure 6 presents an adjusted overlay of leadership theories
emphasizing the significant findings of this study:
122
Figure 5. Hypothesis: Adjustment to leadership theory.
Female
(Increased Preference)
Male
Seniority
(Increased Preference)
(Increased Preference)
Increased Education
Increased Years of Service
(Decreased Preference)
(Decreased Preference)
1. Regression Findings
* Variables found to
significantly predict leadership
preferences.
2.
2. Key
Key Leadership
Leadership Themes
Themes
** Related
Related to
to Transformational
Transformational
and
and Transcendental
Transcendental
Leadership
Leadership
Transactional Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Transcendent Leadership
Mentorship
Mentorship and
and Development
Development
Contingent Reward
Idealized Influence
Systems-Thinking
Inspirational Motivation
Management by Exception
Meta-Context
Intellectual Stimulation
Laissez-Faire Management
Individualized Consideration
Focus
Focus on
on the
the Individuall
Individuall
Change
Change
Institutional
Institutional Knowledge
Knowledge
Change Agency
Technology
Technology
3. Convergence of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings
* Transformational and Transcendental Leadership behaviors are more preferred across the
higher education landscape.
Figure 6. Adjusted interplay of leadership theories based on findings.
123
124
Specifically, the section in Figure 6 noted as “1. Regression Findings” represents
the demographic variables that were found to significantly predict each associated
leadership style. The arrows situated to the left of each variable signify whether that
variable increased or decreased a preference for the corresponding leadership style. For
example, this illustration conveys findings from this study that suggested being “male”
significantly predicts a preference for Transactional leadership, while “Increased
Education” significantly predicts a decreased preference for Transactional leadership.
Next, the section noted as “2. Key Leadership Themes” represents the core leadership
themes, derived through participant interviews that were found to be most noteworthy
and prevalent. That is, this section indicates that effective leadership was described by the
administrators interviewed in this study to include: mentorship and development, focus
on the individual, organizational change, institutional knowledge and transition planning,
and technology adoption. The green highlights around these leadership themes are
associated with Transformational and Transcendental leadership styles. Finally, the
section noted as “3. Convergence of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings” represents
this study’s overall finding that Transformational and Transcendental Leadership are
more preferred across the higher education landscape.
Recommendation for Action
The field of leadership studies is one of praxis and is focused on the practitioner.
Thus, the following section builds on the study’s results and implications providing
practical recommendations for action for higher education institutions. As a general
125
reminder, the convenience sampling methodology used in this study, limits the
researcher’s ability to generalize to the overall population of higher education
administrators.
The researcher first recommends that higher education leaders concerned with
leadership efficacy target senior administrators with extended years of service to reconfirm the value of Transcendental leadership behaviors. This recommendation is
grounded on the quantitative findings suggesting that the more years administrators spend
with their organization results in a decrease in preference for Transcendental leadership.
Given the value placed on Transcendental leadership behaviors by the participants in this
study, this may benefit leadership efficacy. The researcher also notes that many
leadership development programs within higher education institutions are focused on
developing new supervisors, and that there is a lack of leadership development offerings
focused on experienced senior administrators. Given that senior administrators play a
crucial role in determining the culture, climate, and resiliency of their own respective
departments and divisions, Transcendental leadership training that reinforces these skills
may be valuable not only to the participant, but they may also filter down through their
respective supervising administrators’ mentoring activities with their own subordinates.
The next recommendation is to invest in mentoring and development activities.
This recommendation is best targeted toward human resources training and development
programs. Qualitative findings indicate the valued mentoring relationships and that these
most frequently took place between leaders and subordinates who had both an age and
126
experience gap between them. Additionally, mentorship was particularly critical in the
early stages of professional development. Therefore, mentorship programs that connect
experienced (and older) administrators with less experienced (and younger)
administrators is therefore strongly recommended. While many mentoring relationships
take place naturally and informally within the existing organizational structure,
connecting experienced administrators with less experienced administrators in a more
systematic way may be most effective at reaching a large audience, allowing for
mentoring relationships to be guided and connected across the institution.
Additionally, the results from this study suggest that receiving mentorship is often
challenging for the mentee at the time mentoring activities take place, with the benefits of
the mentorship not becoming apparent until later in the mentees’ professional life.
Addressing this nuance related to mentorship buy-in may take the form of adjusting
training and development curriculum for administrators that considers effective
mentorship behaviors, and particularly notes the difficulties associated with receiving
mentorship. In conjunction with the prior recommendation of connecting experienced and
less experienced administrators by subject matter, the researcher therefore subsequently
recommends a cohort based structure to training and development that allows new
administrators to check in with each other, to support each other, and together reflect on
the core take away from the respective mentoring relationship that each individual is
involved in. The above two recommendations related to mentoring is presented in Figure
7.
127
Figure 7. Recommendation related to mentoring relationships and mentoring cohorts.
Figure 7 presents a model consisting of two experienced and two inexperienced
administrators from different departments, albeit functioning within the same content
area, spread across the institution. The model conveys individualized mentoring
relationships between an experienced administrators and an inexperienced administrator,
while likewise denoting that the inexperienced mentees belong to a cohort allowing for
shared reflection and praxis.
The final component of the researcher’s recommendation related to the topic of
mentoring takes into account the growing diversity of generations in the higher education
128
workplace leading to the emergence of supervisory relationships between younger (and
likely less experienced) leaders overseeing older subordinates. This recommendation is
grounded first in the descriptive statistics component of the quantitative finding that
indicates within the sample of administrators studied, Millennials and Generation X
participants comprise 56% of the total sample; a proportion of supervising and managing
administrators which is expected to increase with the passage of time. Additionally, it is
grounded in the qualitative findings of the study where Millennial administrators spoke
on their experience mentoring older subordinates with more comparable years of
experience and the additional nuances the age dynamic adds to the leader and constituent
relationship. For example, one administrator from the Millennial generation spoke of how
her strategy for mentoring older subordinates was different from that of her approach
with younger subordinates in that she “checked in” with her older subordinates, and
provided older subordinate with an opportunity to advise and challenge her decisions to a
greater degree than that presented to younger subordinates. Given the suggested
increasing role that younger administrators will play in mentoring older subordinates, the
researcher therefore additionally recommends that training and development curriculum
be developed that targets these younger administrators and advises them on leadership
efficacy from the perspective of managing older employees.
The recommendations related to supporting effective mentoring relationships in
higher education likewise strongly correspond to the subject of increased transition
planning in higher education. The researcher first notes that institutional knowledge is
129
perceived to be synonymous with age and experience, and associated with administrators
from the Baby Boomer generation. The onus of successful transition planning therefore
seems to be particularly centered on those experienced administrators from the Baby
Boomer generation who have the institutional knowledge to understand the
organizational frameworks, and who by virtue of their positionality with the organization
are also most likely to be in positions of influence to implement programs and
discussions related to transition planning. Addressing this consideration may likewise tie
into the first recommendation made in regards to providing targeted development to
senior administrators on the merits of Transcendental leadership in higher education
administration.
The final recommendation for implementation in higher education institutions
pertains to managing the anxiety related to rapid changes in higher education, to include
changes related to technology implementation. The following recommendations are
grounded in the qualitative findings of the study where participants spoke on the
importance of vetting changes with the campus community, establishing procedures to
constructively manage the change process, and working particularly with
“institutionalized” administrators who may, according to the respondents interviewed in
this study, be more strongly resistant to change.
First, the researcher notes that addressing the anxiety and difficulties related to the
rapidly changing landscape of higher education may come down to managing
constituents’ expectations related to those changes, in addition to properly managing the
130
implementation of those changes as well. In business circles, addressing organizational
change initiatives without properly managing the expectations prior to implementation is
informally referred to as ‘stop-gap” strategies and largely known to be ineffective for its
reactionary nature. To use an analogy, stop-gap strategies related to change initiatives in
higher education would be focused on “treating the wound” rather than identifying the
particular cause of the malignance. In the researcher’s opinion, stop gap strategies may
jeopardize the long-term sustainability of change initiatives, and may challenge the
ability of higher education leaders to sustain reform efforts as it conveys a lack of
planning and lack of confidence in the merits of the changes. A more effective systemsminded approach would be to proactively manage the expectations related to changes in
the higher education landscape.
To this end, the researcher recommends first integrating the expectation of
continuous changes into the fabric of higher education organizations’ mission, and
strategically planning for those changes to include a mutually agreed upon process by
which to manage conflicts arising from those changes in a collaborative fashion.
Specifically, the researcher notes that an organizations’ mission: (a) guides decision
makers in planning and committing the human and material resources of a district and (b)
communicates to constituents the values and goals of the educational institution.
Additionally, “establishing a mission and implementing it through planned strategies
permits a school or district to shape the organization that it wants to become” (Webb &
Norton, 2008, p. 28). In this regard, higher education institutions may want to consider
131
promoting a constant change agenda into the fabric of the organization’s administrative
agenda, by amending their organizational missions to strategically advocate for and to
recognize ongoing changes that best serve the needs of a changing educational and
thereby administrative landscape.
In regards to the strategic planning recommendation, Webb and Norton also
recommend that educational leaders perform a strategic plan evaluation to assist the
educational institution in “anticipating and more effectively responding to changes and
problems (or conflicts) that do occur during change initiatives. According to Webb and
Norton (2008), a strategic planning process would (a) “provide a basis for agreement as
to ultimate goals and purpose of the new system, (b) help define the options and
alternatives available to decision makers, (c) identify the system strength upon which
improvements could be built, and (d) provide a system for setting realizable objectives.
Related to this observation, Kotter (1996) provides a practical framework that would be
valuable in managing anxiety to change initiatives. Specifically, Kotter asserted that
sustainable changes are successfully implemented only when organizations: (a)
establishes a sense of urgency, (b) forms a powerful guiding coalition, (c) creates a goal
or vision to guide the change effort, (d) communicates the new vision to stakeholders, (e)
empowers others to act on the vision and address obstacles, (f) plans for an creates short
term wins, (g) consolidates and continues improvements by those empowering those who
implement the vision, and (h) institutionalizes the change by connecting the new vision to
successes. This framework would in the researcher’s opinion work to address
132
constituents’ expectations of change initiatives, and although implementation of changes
would still be difficult for those who are most “institutionalized” the process in which
those changes occur may be less traumatic for the constituent and likewise provide
administrators with a framework by which to work individually with those subordinates
most resistant to the merits of given changes.
In summary, coming back to the core leadership theory used in approaching this
study, the researcher notes that change initiatives are often approached through a
Transactional lens. Rather than taking this approach, the researcher believes that
organizational effectiveness is largely dependent on the collaborative performance of
internal and external constituents, and therefore, rather than taking a transactional
leadership approach, a Transformational and Transcendental leadership approach may be
more effective in implementing sustainable changes.
Recommendation for Further Study
Throughout this exploration of leadership efficacy in higher education
administration, the researcher noted several emergent questions that may benefit from
further study. First, the researcher’s findings derived from this particular sample of higher
education administrators suggest that the landscape of higher education is generationally
diverse. Given that the results of this study also suggest anxiety related to the loss of
institutional knowledge and the importance of transition planning, understanding the rate
of generational changes in the higher education workforce would add a valuable
timetable by which to manage these transitions. That is, while Baby Boomers are still
133
most highly represented in the sample (with 43.7% of the sample identifying as such), the
rate of which Generation X (34.8% of the sample) and Millennials (21.5% of the sample)
are increasing proportionally to the total population of higher education administrators
year over year is currently unknown.
Next, it may be useful to evaluate gender demographics of administrators in the
contemporary higher education workforce. Notably, the overwhelming majority of the
sample used in this study identified as female, with 75.8% of the Millennial generation,
53.2% of Generation X, and 52.5% of Baby Boomer participants identifying as such.
This finding suggests that more female administrators are entering the higher education
workforce today than was the case in the previous two generations. Given that the study
suggests that gender plays a statistically significant role in leadership preferences,
understanding how the gender makeup of the higher education landscape may likewise
contribute to an increased understanding of how the leadership climate of higher
education administration may change into the future.
Next, tracking racial and ethnicity shifts in the higher education workforce may
be of value in that the majority of the sample used in this study identified as
White/Caucasian (73.3%). Furthermore, when this data was disaggregated by
generations, it was found that the homogeneity of the Millennial participants in this
sample (with 72.4% identifying as White/Caucasian) was almost as strong as that of the
Baby Boomers (84.7% identifying as White/Caucasian), while a comparably lower
59.5% of Generation X identified as such. While participants’ ethnicity was not found to
134
be of significant consideration quantitatively or qualitatively, it may still be useful to
know if the landscape of higher education is indeed becoming more homogenous in terms
of race and ethnicity, and if reflected across the landscape of higher education
administration, to evaluate what the implications of this may be.
Limitations and Researcher Biases
The following section re-addresses the limitations of using generational cohorts as
a disaggregating measurement and speaks to it within the context of the study’s findings.
Additionally, this section addresses the researcher’s emergent biases as self-observed
through conducting this study. Lastly, this section speaks toward key differences between
self-reported perceptions of effective leadership and peer observed leadership behaviors.
In Chapter 1 of this study, the researcher noted that while sociologists and
demographers generally agree as to the approximate eras that segregate generational
cohorts, the exact dates in which each generational cohort begins and ends vary. The
researcher likewise noted this variability is a key critique of the construct of generations
which arises when attempts are made to investigate it in an empirical setting with
assigned numerical boundaries (Pilcher, 1994), and that Mannheim sought to address this
critique by positing that the theory of generations is at its core a theory of social change
on a continuum. Having completed this study using generations as a core demographic
differentiator, the researcher acknowledges the great variability in characteristics that
exists within generational cohorts as a possible limitation to this study design. That is, it
can be argued that with a span of 18 years within the Baby Boomer generation, 15 years
135
for Generation X, and 12 years for Millennials, participants who may have identified as
belonging to a particular generation likely did have vastly different life and professional
experiences advising their preferences for leadership. While the results of this study did
indicate that generational cohort affiliation is not statistically correlated to, nor does is
statistically predict leadership preferences, the researcher acknowledges that
disaggregating the age groups to account for even more specific identification of
participants’ age may serve to bring additional nuance to the quantitative findings. As a
final note in regards to the variability within generations, the researcher notes the Pew
Research Center’s position that generational studies is not an exact science, that it takes
place on a socially constructed continuum, but that we must nevertheless, “draw lines in
order to carry out the statistical analyses that form the core of our research methodology”
(Pew Research Center, 2010).
An additional limitation of this study pertains to the difference between
perceptions of effective leadership and observed leadership behaviors. Specifically, this
study evaluated administrators’ self-reported preference for effective leadership
behaviors, as opposed to evaluating administrator’s actual or observed behaviors.
Specifically, while the original Multifactor leadership questionnaire developed by Bass
and Avolio (1993) was a 360 type evaluation that used matched pairs of survey
respondents to evaluate leadership from the perspective of the leader and the constituent
separately, the survey instrument used in this study was only conducted from the
perspective of the leader in regards to her/his preference for leadership behaviors. The
136
question then is whether administrators actually lead (in practice) in the way they say
they would prefer to lead (and be led). Given this, a future study replicating the
quantitative component of this study to integrate a 360 leader/constituent evaluation of
the leader’s behaviors would add valuable nuance to the field of leadership studies.
Next, as the researcher noted in Chapter 3 of this study, the researcher’s interest in
exploring generational leadership transitions was primarily grounded in his experience as
an administrator from the Millennial generation. That said, the researcher approached this
study expecting that there would be generational differences in leadership preferences
(via the quantitative component of the study), and generational differences in how
leadership behaviors were expressed (via the qualitative component of the study). The
researcher also posited in approaching this study that his position as a financial
administrator and experience supervising both younger and older subordinates provided
him with an intimate view of the leadership challenges facing higher education
institutions. Having completed this study however, the researcher notes that his own
generational identity and role as a financial administrator operating largely in the
quantitative realm of thought contributed to possible biases throughout the study.
A researcher bias was also noted in the development of the hypothesis related to
generations and leadership preferences, where the researcher first postulated that
Millennials would have a preference for Transcendental leadership behaviors while Baby
Boomers would have a preference for Transactional leadership behaviors. Reflecting on
this initial assumption within context of the results from this study, the researcher now
137
notes that the area of financial administration may be largely Transactional in nature, by
necessity. That is, there are constant reporting deadlines that must be met, relating to
content that is strictly governed by federal and state financial regulations, with not much
room for flexibility in the process by which administrators approach their responsibilities.
Given this, the researcher acknowledges his bias in (incorrectly) assuming that the more
experienced Baby Boomer administrators preferred Transactional leadership, when it
may in fact be more of a reflection of the operating requirements of the area in which
they functioned.
The researcher’s final observation of personal bias was related to favoring the
quantitative component of this study, at least initially. That is, the researcher by virtue of
the quantitative mindset he works with regularly in the professional setting had some
difficulty in analyzing and interpreting the findings from the qualitative component of
this study. To this end however, the findings derived through the analysis of qualitative
data, and in particular, participants’ narrative descriptions of effective leadership
behaviors added tremendous value to the overall content of this study to match and often
times added more nuance to the implications for leadership studies and associated
recommendations for action, than the quantitative component of the study alone.
Conclusion and Personal Reflection
This study examined whether the qualities of desired and effective leadership are
demographically contingent or universal in the contemporary higher education setting. A
universal lens would for example predict that Transformational, Transactional, or
138
Transcendental constructs of leadership could be equally effective when used by any
leader with all constituents regardless of context, whereas a contingent lens would posit
that certain leadership constructs could apply in some but not all situations (Yukl, 2002).
Using a mixed method approach, this study employed Transformational leadership
theory, Transcendental leadership theory, and Generational theory to investigate whether
the generational affiliation of higher education administrators were more important
determinates of workplace leadership preferences (Meredith, Schewe, Hiam, &
Karlovich, 2002), or whether other demographic factors such as gender, ethnicity, and
organizational seniority, played a more important role.
An important finding of this study was that leadership preferences in higher
education are largely universal in scope, with study participants’ generational context not
significantly correlating to or predicting leadership preferences. That said, participants’
generation was found to be an important consideration in the discussion of effective
leadership behaviors, with Transcendental and Transformational leadership behaviors
such as mentoring and individually considering individuals’ needs rising to the top of the
leadership discussions. This study also served to validate the efficacy of Transformational
leadership based curriculum in leadership studies; made the case for the integration of
Transcendental leadership curriculum; and brought attention to the role that education
and training plays in reducing Transactional leadership preferences, which was found to
be least effective in the higher education setting. Lastly, recommendations for action
made in this study largely pertained to the training and development operations of higher
139
education institutions, and include: programs targeting senior administrators, initiatives
fostering transitions-focused, individualized mentoring relationships across the
institution, and programs dedicated to change resiliency training in the areas of intergenerational leadership and technology.
The researcher approached this topic of study out of personal curiosity as a
comparably younger administrator sensitive to the changing landscape of higher
education. As many of his colleagues described in the interviews, the researcher has
likewise observed the difficulties associated with change and technology adoption, has
had difficulties managing individuals who are resistant to change, and noted that
disagreements were often with those who are of a different generation. The researcher’s
findings from this study served to corroborate his experiences; further suggest that these
experiences are shared throughout the higher education landscape; and that the need for
effective leadership development is pressing.
On a final note, that which serendipitously resonated most with the researcher
through this process of studying generations and leadership efficacy was likewise related
to mentorship and individualized support. The researcher deeply reflected on the
individuals who had mentored him and challenged him to think outside his own comfort
zone, and notes with gratitude the individualized support he received from those leaders
advising him on his research, and from those leaders who had supported him in the
professional context.
140
APPENDICES
141
APPENDIX A
Online Survey Recruitment Letter
Dear Participant,
I am a financial administrator at UC Davis and a doctoral candidate in the Educational
Leadership Program at Sacramento State University. I am reaching out to you today as a
colleague and as a graduate student researcher to invite your participation on a 10-15
minute anonymous online survey on leadership values and preferences. This survey
supports a research study that seeks to investigate the leadership values and preferences
of the three generational cohorts (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials) serving
as supervisors and managers in the higher education workforce.
As you are aware, our higher education organizations are complex and operate with an
unprecedented degree of workforce diversity. However, an often overlooked facet of the
discussion on workforce diversity which may be of legitimate concern for those of us
leading change are the differences in the values, goals, and expectations of the
characteristically different generational cohorts serving side by side. Although
participation in this study will have no direct benefit to you, your participation enables
contribution to the profession’s scholarship, and will help to inform my research on the
topic of leadership preferences, generational transitions and leadership efficacy in higher
education.
This survey is completely anonymous and the responses to the survey will be kept strictly
confidential. Additional information regarding the permissions to conduct this study, the
confidentiality of your responses, and your rights as a participant will be provided online
if you choose to participate in this study by following the link below:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/generationsandleadership
Thank you so much for your time and support! Please let me know if you have any
questions regarding this study.
Best,
Chris J. Kim
Doctoral Candidate
California State University, Sacramento
Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership
142
APPENDIX B
Permission To Use Copyrighted Material
143
144
145
APPENDIX C
Qualitative Interview Questions
1.
How would your staff and colleagues describe you as a leader?
2.
Think about your past or present supervisors. What about their leadership styles
did you really like, and what about their leadership styles just didn’t work for you.
3.
How important of a consideration is age in your daily interaction with your
subordinates or colleagues, when compared to other factors such as ethnicity,
gender, and classification? (If it is), please describe why it is an important
consideration? Is it the most important consideration? (If not), please describe
why.
4.
Do you believe that your leadership style changes based on the generational
demographic of your constituents? (If yes) please describe for me how your
leadership style changes for those you perceive to be from a younger or older
generation. Why do you do this? (If no), please describe for me why you do not
adjust your leadership style and why it may not matter to you?
5.
Do you have any other insights or comments you would like to add to the
discussion?
146
APPENDIX D
Online Survey Consent Form
Greetings,
I am a doctoral candidate in the College of Education at California State University,
Sacramento, and I am conducting a research study which seeks to investigate the
leadership preferences of the three most prevalent generations employed in the higher
education workforce (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials).
Specifically, I seek survey participants who are: (1) at least 18 years of age; (2) employed
as Higher Education Administrators in the areas of business, finance, human resources,
academic technology, student support services, academic program administration,
research, laboratory, or clinical administration; and (3) serving in a supervisory or
managerial capacity. Please note that this study excludes: educators (instructors,
professors, lecturers, teaching assistants, and tutors) unless also serving in a supervisory
or managerial capacity.
If you fit the above criteria, I invite you to participate in a 10-15 minute survey, which
involves answering a set of brief demographic questions followed by questions
evaluating your leadership style and preferences.
Your participation in this study is voluntary and your responses are anonymous. There
are no known foreseeable risks or discomforts in taking part in this study. If you choose
not to participate or to withdraw at any time, there will be no penalty. You have the right
not to answer questions, skip questions, or stop the survey at any time. Should you
choose to withdraw from the study prior to submitting the completed survey, your
answers will be purged from the system and not used in the data set. However, because
this survey is anonymous, if you do submit it, I will be unable to remove the submitted
data from the database should you wish to withdraw. If you choose to complete this
survey, your name and college/district will not be known nor will it be used to reference
any of the information.
Although participation in the study has no direct benefit to you, your participation
enables contribution to the profession’s scholarship and will help to inform future efforts
and research on the topic of leadership in higher education. The results of this study may
be used in reports, presentations, publications and other scholarly literature. Results from
the study will only be shared in the aggregate form. Your responses will be kept
147
confidential to the degree permitted by the technology used. However, no absolute
guarantees can be given for the confidentiality of electronic data.
This research study has been reviewed according to the Sacramento State University IRB
procedures for research involving human subjects. If you have any questions concerning
the research study, please contact me at the information below or my advising Professor
Lisa Romero at Lisa.Romero@csus.edu. Additional information regarding your rights as
a research subject may be found on the Committee for Protection of Human Subjects
(CPHS) website at http://www.csus.edu/research/humansubjects/index.htm.
Thank you for your time.
Chris J. Kim, MBA
Doctoral Candidate
California State University, Sacramento
College of Education
Clicking on the "Agree" button below indicates that:
(1) You have read the introduction to the study and privacy statement; (2) You
voluntarily agree to participate in the study; (3) You are at least 18 years of age; (4) You
supervise at least one individual; (5) You are serving as a Higher Education
Administrator in the area of business, finance, human resources, academic technology,
student support services, academic program administration, research, laboratory, or
clinical administration.
If you do not wish to participate in this research study, please decline participation by
clicking on the "decline" button which will exit you from this study.
148
APPENDIX E
Interview Consent Form
Privacy Statement:
Your participation in this study is voluntary. There is no payment for your participation.
If you choose not to participate or to withdraw at any time, there will be no penalty. It is
ok for you to say no. Even if you say yes now, you are free to say no later, and withdraw
from the study at any time. Non participation or withdrawal from the study will not result
in a loss of benefits to which you might otherwise be entitled. You have the right not to
answer any of the interview questions, skip it, and to stop the interview at any time.
Should you choose to withdraw from the study, your portion of the interview
tape/transcript will be destroyed and not used in the data set.
Although participation in the study will have no direct benefit to you, your participation
enables contribution to the profession’s scholarship, and will help to inform future efforts
and research on the topics of community college faculty hiring processes and diversity.
There are no known foreseeable risks or discomforts to your participation in taking part
in this study.
Your responses to the demographic survey and all interview questions will be kept
confidential. The results of this study may be used in reports, presentations, or
publications but your name and college/district will not be known nor will it be used to
reference any of the information. If applicable, results from the study will only be shared
in the aggregate form.
I would like to electronically record the interviews for the purposes of data analysis. The
interview will not be recorded without your permission, and if you give permission for
the interview to be taped, you have the right to ask for the recording to be stopped at any
time. If you choose not to be recorded, however, you will be withdrawn from the study,
and your portion of the interview tape/transcript will be destroyed and not used in the
data set.
Interviews may be transcribed verbatim, but all references to college names or other
people will also be anonymous employing use of a pseudonym. The interview recordings
will be kept only for the purposes of transcription and afterwards will be destroyed. The
audio files will be kept in a locked file cabinet until they are destroyed. Tapes will be
dismantled, electronic files will be deleted, and transcripts shredded prior to disposal
upon completion of the study.
149
This research study has been reviewed according to the Sacramento State University IRB
procedures for research involving human subjects. If you have any questions concerning
the research study, please contact me at the information below, or you may contact my
advising Professor Lisa Romero at Lisa.Romero@csus.edu. Additional information
regarding your rights as a research subject may be found on the Committee for Protection
of Human Subjects (CPHS) website at:
http://www.csus.edu/research/humansubjects/index.htm.
CONSENT:
Participant Name: _________________________
Phone Number: _________________________
E-mail address: _________________________
By signing below, you agree that: (1) you read the above information; (2) you voluntarily
agree to participate in the study; (3) you are at least 18 years of age; (4) you supervise at
least one individual; and (5) you serving as a Higher Education Administrator in the area
of business, finance, human resources, academic technology, student support services,
academic program administration, research, laboratory, or clinical administration.
Participant Signature: _________________________
Date: ______________________________________
As stated in the Privacy section above, I would like to electronically record the interviews
for the purposes of data analysis. The interview will not be recorded without your
permission, and if you give permission for the interview to be taped, you have the right to
ask for the recording to be stopped at any time.
By signing below, you agree grant permission to be quoted via pseudonym in the case
report and grant permission to have the interview recorded.
Participant Signature: _________________________
Date: ______________________________________
Researcher Signature: ________________________
DATE: ______________________________________
150
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory building.
American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33.
Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). The four I's of
transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9-16.
Bass, B. M. (1991). Stogdill and Bass handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organziational
culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.
Bollman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: HarperCollins.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 155-159.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the generation gap. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gardiner, J. J. (2006). Transactional, transformational, and transcendent leadership:
Metaphors mapping the evolution of the theory and practice of governance.
Leadership Review, 6, 62-76.
Gibson, J., Greenwood, R., & Murphy, E. (2009). Generational differences in the
workplace: Personal values, behaviors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diversity
Management, 1-7.
Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success.
Industrial and Commerical Training, 98-103.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist Press.
Hewlett, S. A., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009, July). How Gen Y & Boomers will
reshape your agenda. Harvard Business Review, 71-77.
151
Jenkins, J. (2007, January 23). Leading the four generations at work. American
Management Association. Retrieved from
http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/Leading-the-Four-Generations-atWork.aspx
Joyner, T. (2000). Gen Xers focus on life outside the job, fulfillment. The Secured
Leader, 56(3), 64.
Jurkiewicz, C. E., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Generational comparisons of public employee
motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4), 18-37.
Karp, H., & Fuller, C. (2002). Bridging the Boomer Xer gap: Creating authentic teams
for high performance at work. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective
management. The Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65-76.
Lancaster, L., & Stillman, D. (2009). When generations collide: Who they are. Why they
clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York: HarperCollins.
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In K. Mannheim (Ed.), Essays on the
sociology of knowledge. London: RKP.
Martin, C. A. (2007). From high maintenance to high productivity. What managers need
to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1), 39-44.
Meredith, G. E., Schewe, C. D., Hiam, A., & Karlovich, J. (2002). Managing by defining
moments. New York: Hungry Minds.
Mind Garden. (2012, February). Multifactor leadership questionaire. Retrieved from
Mindgarden.com website: www.mindgarden.com
Miniter, R. (1997). This generation means business. Reader's Digest, October, 81-85.
Morgan, G., Leech, N., Gloeckner, G., & Barrett, K. (2013). IBM SPSS for introductory
statistics: Use and interpretation. New York: Routledge.
Nevarez, C., & Wood, L. J. (2010). Community college leadership and administration.
New York: Peter Lang.
152
Niemiec, S. (2000). Finding common ground for all ages. Security Distributing and
Marketing, 30(3), 81.
O'Bannon, G. (2001). Managing our future: The generation X factor. Public Personnel
Management, 30(1), 95-109.
Pew Research Center. (2010). Millenials: A portrait of generation next. The Pew
Charitable Trusts. Washington, DC: Author.
Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim's sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. British
Journal of Sociology, 45(3).
Price Waterhouse Cooper Consulting. (n.d.). Managing tomorrow's people: Millennials
at work. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/managing-tomorrowspeople/future-of-work/index.jhtml
Salopek, J. (2006). Leadership for a new age. Training and Development Magazine,
60(6), 22-23.
Solomon, M. R. (2010). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Spitzer, A. B. (1973). The historical problem of generations. The American Historical
Review, 78, 1353-85.
Tepper, B. J., & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 734-744.
Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in the workplace. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota: Research and Training Center on Community Living.
Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. S. (2009). Human resources administration: Personnel issues
and needs in education. New Jersey: Pearson.
Yang, S. M., & Guy, M. E. (2006). Gen Xers versus boomers: Work motivators and
management implications. Public Performance and Management Review, 29,
267-284.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership:
Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
153
Zacko-Smith, J. (2010). The three t's framework for leadership education. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 14(2).
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.