THE PSYCHOLOGIST-MANAGER JOURNAL, 2007, 10(1), 4774

Copyright 2007 by the Society of Psychologists in Management

II. RESEARCH TOOLS FOR THE

PSYCHOLOGIST-MANAGER

Generational Differences in Leader

Values and Leadership Behaviors
Valerie I. Sessa
Department of Psychology
Montclair State University

Robert I. Kabacoff
Management Research Group

Jennifer Deal
Center for Creative Leadership

Heather Brown
Department of Psychology
Montclair State University

As a new generation of workers enters the workforce and the realms of leadership
and management, headlines in the business and popular press are encouraging
managers to deal with generational differences that appear to be affecting
employees, particularly those in the leadership ranks. This article describes generational cohort theory and summarizes research on the impact of generational differences on work processes. It then explores what differences are occurring among
managers in different cohorts in terms of attributes they value in leaders and their
actual behaviors as leaders (as perceived by self, boss, and subordinates) using data
obtained from 2 large databases, including managers across the country spanning 4
generations. Results of the 1st study demonstrate that managers and professionals
in different generational cohorts do value different attributes in leaders. Results

Correspondence should be sent to Valerie I. Sessa, Department of Psychology, 237 Dixon Hall,
Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 27407. E-mail: sessav@mail.montclair.edu

48

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

of the 2nd study find that managers in different generational cohorts also report
behaving differently. Although the differences in both studies are not as drastic as
predicted in the press, they are large and broad enough to suggest that organizations do need to pay attention to these differences. Implications of the findings are
discussed.

GENERATIONAL COHORT DIFFERENCES IN

PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERS AND LEADERSHIP
Vigorous interest exists in the impact of generational cohort differences on
employee interactions at work in the business and popular press (see Deal,
Peterson, & Gailor-Loflin, 2001). Articles and books focus on the assumed clash
and collision of generations in the workplace with the belief that generations
differ in values, cognitions, and behavior and that a lack of understanding among
the generations regarding these differences leads to intergenerational conflict
and detrimental effects on communication and working relationships, which in
turn keep plans, products, and ideas from moving forward (Dittmann, 2005).
However, to date, there is little empirical research to validate these generational
cohort differences at work, although business organizations are putting in place
interventions to address these differences (Deal et al., 2001). This article seeks
to add to the nascent literature on generational differences in the workplace
so that we can begin to separate myth from reality and gain a clearer understanding of what, where, and how generational cohort differences actually impact
organizations.
Of particular interest in the business and popular press is the impact of generational cohort differences on leaders and leadershipthat different generations
view leaders differently and that different generations manifest leadership differently (see Arsenault, 2004; Conger, 2001; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 1999).
With an increasing trend toward organizations mixing generations within their
leadership ranks (Bower & Fidler, 1994), and suggestions that multigenerational
top leadership teams will increasingly become the norm in business settings
(Cufaude & Riemersma, 1999; Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1999), it is important
to understand whether there are generational cohort differences in views on
leadership and in manifestations of leadership.
The purpose of this article is to explore possible differences among generations
by investigating the relation between generations with their views on important
leader attributes and their own leadership behaviors (as perceived by selves and
others). First, we discuss generational cohort theory and what we know about the
different generations that currently exist in the United States workplace. Second,
we summarize the research on generational cohort differences in organizations.
Third, using two large databases collected from samples of U.S. managers,

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

49

we determine if members of different generations do consider different leader

attributes to be important and if members of different generations actually report
manifesting leadership differently.

Generational Cohort Theory

A generation is a group of people of the same age in a similar social location
experiencing similar social events (Mannheim, 1972). Specifically, belonging
to the same age group endows individuals within it with a common location
in the social and historical process and thereby limits them to a specific range
of potential experience, predisposing them for a certain characteristic mode of
thought and experience and a characteristic type of historically relevant action.
These effects are stable over time, and these life experiences tend to distinguish
one cohort from another (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998).
Generational cohort theory contradicts the more traditional belief that people
change, mature, and develop their values, attitudes, and preferences as a function
of age (see, e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1999). For example, age diversity has been
included in close to one third of all diversity studies as a linear variable (which
would assume a maturational effect) rather than a categorical variable (which
would assume a cohort effect; Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003). In actuality,
generational cohort theory and maturational theory are competitive explanations.
A generation is a social creation rather than a biological necessity. Where
novel events are rare and change is slow (such as in a traditional tribal
community), distinct generations may not appear (Mannheim, 1952). Only where
events occur in a way that demarcates a cohort can we speak of a generation.
Six characteristics help determine the scope of a generation: (a) a traumatic or
formative event such as a war, (b) a dramatic shift in demography that influences the distribution of resources in society, (c) an interval that connects a
generation to success or failure (e.g., the Great Depression), (d) the creation of a
sacred space that sustains a collective memory (e.g., Woodstock), (e) mentors
or heroes that give impetus and voice by their work (e.g., Martin Luther King),
and (f) the work of people who know and support each other (e.g., Bill Gates,
Steven Jobs; Wyatt, 1993).
Within the United States, we have labeled the generations born in the 20th
century, and empirical research is beginning to suggest that generational cohorts
do exist in the United States and can be differentiated from each other. Different
generations recall different events and changes, and these come predominately
from adolescence and early adulthood (see Arsenault, 2004; Schuman & Scott,
1989). However, at this point, labels and the exact years those labels represent
are often inconsistent. To date, generational analysis is an inexact science (Craig
& Bennett, 1997). For example, Americans born between 1909 and 1933 have

50

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

been referred to as the WWIIers and those born between the years 1934 and
1945 the Swingers or the Silents (Mitchell, 1998; Schaeffer, 2000). Others lump
these same groups into one group, all born before 1940, and label them the
Traditionalists (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Some specify those born between 1925
and 1942 as the Matures (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998). We describe the U.S.
generational cohorts as follows.
The WWIIers (born between 1909 and 1933), at 9 million people, are living
and working well into old age and wielding a lot of clout (Mitchell, 1998).
They have been a major power in the countrycontrolling the White House
for 30 yearsand have little intention of relinquishing that position (e.g., Social
Security, health care). Many of the WWIIers fought in that war, and their attitudes
and values were shaped by the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and
perhaps even Lindbergh.
The Swingers or Silents (born between 1934 and 1945), at 30 million people,
also still wield a great deal of power and influence (Mitchell, 1998). Currently,
most of the nations government and business leaders are members of this
generation. This generation came of age during a period of quiet prosperity.
Its smaller size benefited its memberscompanies needed entry-level workers
when they were young adults and managers when they reached middle age. They
are seen as practical; patient, loyal, and hardworking; respectful of authority;
and rule-followers (Patterson, 2005).
In the next generational cohort, the Baby Boomers, birth years are variously
reported to begin anywhere from 1940 to 1946 and to end in 1960 or 1964.
Called Boomers because of the boom in their births during that time, this
generation includes 78 million people. They were profoundly affected by the
Vietnam War, the civil rights and womens movements, the class of the
Kennedys, the Kennedy and King assassinations, Watergate, the first walk
on the moon, the sexual revolution, and Woodstock (Adams, 2000). Boomers
were raised to be independent and to believe they could control their own
destinies (Mitchell, 1998). As summarized by Smola and Sutton (2002), this
generation grew up embracing the psychology of entitlement, expecting the
best from life (Kupperschmidt, 2000). This cohort witnessed the foibles of
political, religious, and business leaders, which resulted in a lack of respect
for and loyalty to authority and social institutions (Kupperschmidt, 2000).
Protesting against power in their youth, they are now entering positions of
corporate and national power (Miniter, 1997). Material success and traditional values made a comeback in the Boomers workplace, rooted in the
Reagan administrations conservative policies (OBannon, 2001). Boomers
positive work abilities, or strengths, include consensus building, mentoring, and
effecting change (Kupperschmidt, 2000). They are seen as optimistic, ambitious,
and workaholic, and they believe in teamwork and cooperation (Patterson,
2005).

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

51

Generation X (Gen-X) birth years are reported to begin somewhere in the

early 1960s and end between 1975 and 1982 (Adams, 2000; Jurkiewicz &
Brown, 1998; Karp, Sirias, & Arnold, 1999; Kupperschmidt, 2000; OBannon,
2001; Scott, 2000). There are 44 million Gen-Xers who came of age during
the social and economic turmoil left in the wake of the Boomers and had to
strike out on their own during difficult economic times (Mitchell, 1998). They
were influenced by MTV, AIDS, worldwide competition (OBannon, 2001),
the Challenger incident, Rodney King, and the fall of communism (Arsenault,
2004). As summarized by Smola and Sutton (2002), Gen-Xers grew up with
financial, family, and societal insecurity; rapid change; great diversity; and a
lack of solid traditions. This led to a sense of individualism over collectivism
(Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998). However, growing up in homes in which both
parents worked (Karp et al., 1999) or with only one parent due to the increased
divorce rate (Kupperschmidt, 2000), these cohorts have turned to small enclaves
of friends for support. They use the team to support their individual efforts and
relationships (Karp et al., 1999), crave mentors (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998),
and value a stable family (OBannon, 2001). Influenced greatly by seeing their
parents laid off, they are cynical and untrusting (Kupperschmidt, 2000) and
want to balance their work and personal life rather than spending all their time
at work (Patterson, 2005). Gen-Xers are accustomed to receiving immediate
feedback from their personal computers and video games. They bring to the
workplace well-honed, practical approaches to problem solving. They are technically competent and very comfortable with diversity, change, multitasking, and
competition (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Because they are so far the most diverse
generation in American history, they believe similarities, rather than differences,
should be emphasized (OBannon, 2001).
The final generation is just being recognized, and there is little agreement
even regarding the generations label. That generation has been referred to as the
Millennials (Howe, Strauss, & Matson, 2000), the Generation-Yers (Neuborne
& Kerwin, 1999), or the Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998). The birth years of
this group tend to begin in 1982 or 1983. There is not yet an agreed-on cutoff
date. This generation is similar in size to the Boomer generation and numbers 70
million. Just entering the workforce now, they are the first high-tech generation
cell phones, automatic teller machines, laser surgeryand the first to be born into
a wired world; they are connected 24 hr a day (Mitchell, 1998; Ryan, 2000).
Racial and ethnic diversity is even greater among this generation (Mitchell,
1998), and diversity and change are valued (Patterson, 2005). Uncertainty about
the economy seems to have become a permanent fixture in their psyche, and
poverty among the young is rising. They know terrorism like no other generation,
witnessing both intracountry terrorism (Oklahoma City bombings) and the first
attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor (terrorist attack of September 11).
This generation knows that the world they inherit is not just of new opportunities

52

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

but of old problems as well, but they remain hopeful and believe that they
will someday get to where they want to be in life (Mitchell, 1998; Patterson,
2005). Like the Gen-Xers, they have seen their parents downsized and distrust
institutions. Having a tremendous appetite for meaningful work, Millennials are
expected to be the first generation to be socially active since the 1960s (Ryan,
2000). They see lifelong learning as a priority and the family as the key to
happiness (Mitchell, 1998).
Why Generational Cohort Differences Are Important to
Consider in the Workplace
Work values among generations may differ and have an impact on the workplace
through their shaping of beliefs, values, goals, work attitudes, world views, and
attitudes toward leadership. However, to date the little empirical research that
exists has not pinned down specific differences (Craig & Bennett, 1997), and
it is mixed on whether generational cohort differences actually have an impact
in the workplace. There is some evidence that generational cohorts differ in
such areas as their beliefs about the psychological contract between employees
and employers (DeMeuse, Berman, & Lester, 2001) and their commitment to
organizations (Daboval, 1998) such that younger workers are less loyal to the
companies they work for and are more likely to have their own agenda. Putnam
(2000) and Robinson and Jackson (2001) found that trust appears to be less
important to younger generations. There is also some limited support for the
perception that Gen-X workers focus more on a balanced lifestyle (Burke, 1994;
Joyner, 2000), but because many of these studies do not compare their results
with similar data gathered from other generational groups, it is impossible to
draw any conclusions about what differences actually exist!
In studies that measure similar constructs (e.g., life values and work values)
across generations, findings are mixed. For example, some evidence exists to
suggest that generational cohorts differ in their values in terms of base belief
systems and life success factors (Parker & Cusmir, 1991). Specifically, results
suggest that the Boomer managers base their belief systems more on humanistic
and moralistic values, whereas pre-Boomer managers are more traditional and
pragmatic. However, other research using the Rokeach Value Survey suggests
that there are few differences when considering Baby Boomer and Gen-X
executives basic value preferences in the particular field of health care (see
Jurkiewicz & Bradley, 2002).
Similarly, focusing on specific work values, some studies find that there
are differences (Cherrington, 1980; Smola & Sutton, 2002). For example,
Cherrington found that, when compared to the two older groups (ages 2739 and
4065), younger workers (ages 1726) felt pride in craftsmanship was less
important, felt it was more acceptable to do a poor job, and were less desirous of

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

53

their work being of service to others. In a similar study, Smola and Sutton (2002)
found that Gen-Xers in comparison to Baby Boomers wanted to be promoted
more quickly than their older counterparts, were less likely to feel that work
should be an important part of ones life, and indicated that they would be more
likely to quit work if they won a large amount of money. At the same time,
Gen-Xers felt more strongly that working hard is an indication of ones worth,
and they were more likely to feel that one should work hard, even if a supervisor
is not around.
Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers have also been found to differ with regard to
their desire for fulfillment, desire for flexibility, and focus on monetary benefits.
The research suggests that Gen-Xers want challenging tasks accomplished within
the workday whereas Baby Boomers want their challenging tasks to be accomplished over several days; Gen-Xers want to have flexible hours whereas Baby
Boomers prefer regularly scheduled hours; and Gen-Xers want a portable 401K
with lump sum distribution whereas Baby Boomers want retirement plans with
benefits (Rodriguez, Green, & Ree, 2003).
Other research has found that these two generations (Baby Boomers and
Gen-Xers) are more alike than different in terms of their work values (Is the
Boomer/Gen-X War Over?, 2000; Jurkiewicz, 2000). Clearly more research is
needed to clarify if, when, where, and how generational cohort differences are
influencing people at work. This research must overcome the problems of the
past and present studies that often include only one or two generational cohorts,
are based on small sample sizes, or draw from a sample of employees in one
organization or industry.

GENERATIONAL COHORTS AND PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP

One of the possible conflicts among generations in the workplace lies in the area
of management and leadership (Kennedy, 1998; Watkins, 1999). That area both
influences and is influenced by differences among the generations in retention,
values, motivation, work style preferences, and the perception of what it means to
be a leader, as well as the concept of what it takes to be a good leader (Arsenault,
2004; Crainer & Dearlove, 1999; Rhodes, 1983; Wah, 1999; Woodward, 1999;
Zemke et al. 1999).
Differences in attitudes, values, and beliefs of the several generational cohorts
are believed to influence how each generational cohort views leadership, which
then manifests itself in use of different preferred leadership styles (Zemke et al.,
1999). In rank ordering of characteristics most admired in leaders, 8 of the
10 characteristics were significantly different among generations (Arsenault,
2004), although there were also similarities. For example, although each generation believed honesty is the most important characteristic for leaders, WWIIers

54

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

and Silents (together) and Baby Boomers ranked honesty as more important
than Gen-Xers and Millenials did. They also ranked caring as more important,
whereas Gen-Xers and Millenials ranked determination and ambition as more
important. Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers ranked competence more important than
the other two groups.
Zemke and colleagues (1999) proposed the following preferred generational
leadership styles. The WWIIers and Silents (together) prefer a well-defined
structure with respect for hierarchy and authority. They tend toward a directive
style that is simple and clear. Baby Boomers prefer a collegial and consensual
stylecommunication and sharing responsibility. They do not like the traditional
hierarchy. Gen-Xers are egalitarian and do not respect authority. They value
honesty, fairness, competence, and straightforwardness. They like change. The
Millennials prefer a polite relationship with authority. They like collective action
and expect their leaders to pull people together. This leads us to the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There are generational differences in todays U.S. managers in terms
of attributes perceived to be most important for leaders.

Generational Cohorts and Perceptions of Own

Characteristics as Leaders
In research on age and differences in leadership styles, some research suggests
that older leaders perceive themselves to be more participative and consultative
than younger workers (Kabacoff & Stoffey, 2001; Oshagbemi, 2004). Older
managers are also more apt to rely on their experiences and the subtleties of
the situation whereas younger workers have an energetic, take-charge style,
pushing vigorously toward the achievement of short-term goals (Kabacoff &
Stoffey, 2001). However, when approaching from a generational rather than an
age standpoint, Bennis and Thomas (2002) found that Silent Generation leaders
embraced a command-and-control style that often mimicked the military organizations in which many of them had served. By contrast, Gen-Xers embraced a
team-building, engagement, and partnership leadership style as they came of age
during an era of flatter, more nimble organizational structures. Again, it appears
that no studies have taken into account the full spectrum of generational cohort
differences in how leaders perceive themselves. This leads us to the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: There are generational differences in todays U.S. managers in terms
of leadership behaviors as perceived by the managers themselves.

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

55

Generational Cohorts and Perceptions of their Leadership

Characteristics by Others
There is little research that considers how leaders in different generational
cohorts are perceived by their subordinates, although there are a few studies
that consider age. One study has demonstrated that younger adults view older
adults in a different fashion from the way they view people of their own age
(Slotterback, 1996). Regarding specifically how managers are perceived by their
subordinates, studies have shown that older leaders are more likely to be seen
as delegating more (Kabacoff & Stoffey, 2001) and more effectively (Gilbert,
Collins, & Brenner, 1990) as well as being seen as more conservative and
structured (Kabacoff & Stoffey, 2001). Younger leaders tended to be seen as
more attentive, have more off-the-job relations, and be more enjoyable (Gilbert
et al., 1990; Kabacoff & Stoffey, 2001). They were also more results-oriented
(Kabacoff & Stoffey, 2001).
More research has looked at how the leaders perceive their subordinates by
age (who could also be leaders)and that research is also inconclusive. Bosses
perceived older subordinates (who are also leaders) to be more conservative and
structured with higher cooperation, empathy, and deference to authority whereas
they perceived younger subordinates to be innovative, strategic, and persuasive,
and clearly communicating their results orientation (Kabacoff & Stoffey, 2001).
Older employees received the lowest performance evaluations from older
managers but higher evaluations from younger managers (Shore, Cleveland, &
Goldberg, 2003). Vecchio (1993) found that teachers who were older than their
principals experienced superior relations, made higher ratings of leader considerateness, and received higher job-relevant performance ratings than teachers who
were younger than their principals.
Some evidence suggests that younger leaders are seen as more effective than
older leaders (Kabacoff & Stoffey, 2001). However, other evidence suggests
that there are no differences in the effectiveness of leaders by age (Griffith &
Bedeian, 1989). All of these studies considered age as a linear variable and did
not take into account the possibility that generational cohort may be another
explanation for differences.
More research is clearly needed to determine if leaders in different generational cohort groups are perceived to behave differently by their subordinates
and their own superiors. This leads us to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: There are generational differences in todays U.S. managers in

terms of leadership characteristics as perceived by their subordinates.
Hypothesis 3b: There are generational differences in todays U.S. managers in
terms of leadership characteristics as perceived by their bosses.

56

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

To test these hypotheses, we sampled U.S. managers and professionals in two

existing databases.1 We used a sample of managers and professionals from a
larger study conducted by the Center for Creative Leadership to test Hypothesis 1.
We discuss this in Study 1. We used a sample of managers from the Management
Research Group database to test Hypotheses 2 and 3. We discuss this in Study
2. For both samples, due to sample sizes present in the existing databases, we
defined the following generational cohorts: the Mature Generation (19251945),
the Early Baby Boomers (19461954), the Late Baby Boomers (19551963), the
Early Gen-Xers (19641976), the Late Gen-Xers (19771982), and the Millenials
(1983on).

STUDY 1
Are there generational differences in todays U.S. managers and professionals in
terms of attributes perceived to be most important for leaders?

Method
Participants. This study was drawn from a larger database from the Center
for Creative Leadership. The larger database included 4,810 individuals from
around the world who were recruited to participate in a study on emerging
leaders through multiple methods. Some organizations asked their employees to
participate; some people who came through the Center for Creative Leadership
custom and open enrollment programs participated; and some participants heard
about the study through friends and colleagues. We used a subset of this database,
limiting participants to those who were born and were working in the United
States who also filled out the Leadership Descriptives Sort, for a study sample
size of 447 (34 Matures, 95 Early Baby Boomers, 114 Late Baby Boomers,
138 Early Gen-Xers, 15 Late Gen-Xers, and 51 Millenials). Average age was
42.5. Slightly over half (55.9%) were women and 84.9% identified themselves
as White. They were predominately upper-middle managers (21.4%), middle
managers (28.1%), or professional nonmanagers (20.8%). They had been with
their current organization on an average of 3.85 years and in management for
an average of 3.58 years.
Measures and procedures. This research was part of a larger survey on
emerging leaders around the world. Participants were asked to participate in
1

Access to existing data sets used in this research was provided as a result of authors affiliations
with the Management Research Group and the Center for Creative Leadership.

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

57

a 20-min, online (Web-based) survey. Participants were informed that results

would be used for research purposes. Data were analyzed in an anonymous
fashion, with identifying information removed. The survey consisted of a series
of questions on general lifestyle issues, work patterns, employee work attitudes,
developmental areas, interest in training options, values, perks, learning tactics,
and leadership attributes. Measures used in this study included the demographic
items (year of birth) and the Leadership Descriptives Sort.
The Leadership Descriptives Sort is a procedure developed for the larger
Center for Creative Leadership survey that provides the participants with 40
leadership attributes (with definitions) to choose among so that participants
can discover the attributes they think are the most important in a leader.
The attributes included in the Leadership Card Sort came from the Campbell
Leadership Descriptor (used by permission). The attributes used are described
as a universal list of leadership components applicable for leaders at every level
in every type of organization (Campbell, 2002, p. 2). For the attributes and their
definitions, see Table 1.
Participants were shown the defined attributes up to five at a time and could
choose up to three in each list. After 30 iterations of choices among three to five
leadership descriptors, participants were presented with the 8 to 12 attributes
they chose every time these attributes appeared on the screen. Participants then
rank-ordered these final attributes from most important (1) to least important
(8 to 12).
Results
To test Hypothesis 1, the following steps were taken. First, the top 12 rankings
by the generational cohorts were determined. These are detailed in Table 2.
Second, using the KruskalWallace nonparametric rank test, each of the top
12 rankings was assessed for exhibiting significant ranking differences among the
six generational cohorts collectively. Third, for attributes that were significantly
different using KruskalWallace, a MannWhitney nonparametric rank test was
conducted on each possible pairing of generational cohorts to determine which
pairs were significantly different. See Table 3 for the mean rankings for each
attribute, the KruskalWallace overall chi-square, and the MannWhitney U
tests.
Hypothesis 1 was supported. There were generational differences in todays
U.S. managers and professionals in terms of attributes perceived to be most
important for leaders. Six of the top 12 rankings were significantly different:
credible, listens well, farsighted, focused, dedicated, and optimistic. The
Millenial Generation differed from all other generations in ranking dedicated as
more important and credible as less important. The Millenial Generation differed
from the Mature Generation, the Early Boomers, the Late Boomers, and the Early

58

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

TABLE 1
Leadership Descriptor Sort
Attribute
Farsighted
Enterprising
Persuasive
Resourceful
Has a Global View
Dedicated
Delegating
Dependable
Focused
Systematic
Encouraging
Mentoring
Perceptive
Supporting
Trusting
Diplomatic
Tactful
Trusted
Well Connected
Culturally Sensitive
Leader
A Good Coach
A Good Teacher
Candid and Honest
Listens Well
Numerically Astute
Adventuresome
Creative
Durable
Good Fund Raiser
Globally Innovative
Credible
Experienced
Optimistic
Publicly Impressive
Leadership Image
Balanced
Energetic
Physically Fit
Wholesome
Resilient

Definition
Sees the big picture in developing a vision for the future
Likes to take on new projects and programs
Presents new ideas in ways that create buy-in from necessary constituencies
Uses existing resources to create successful new ventures
Thinks beyond national and cultural boundaries
Determined to succeed; will make personal sacrifices for the vision
Effectively assigns responsibility and the necessary authority to others
Performs as promised; meets established deadlines
Sets clear work priorities for self and others
Develops systems and procedures for efficiently organizing people and
material resources
Helps others to achieve more than they thought they were capable of
Provides challenging assignments and related coaching
Recognizes talent early and provides growth opportunities
Helps others deal with difficult personal situations
Sees the best in others; is not suspicious of differences
Understands the political nuances of important decisions readily in
individuals and groups who will be affected
Gains goodwill by not being offensive, even when disagreeing
Is trusted by individuals and groups in conflict to be a fair mediator
Knows a wide range of people who can help get things done
Develops teamwork among individuals of different cultures, races, religions,
and nations
Gives constructive feedback in a way that individuals can benefit from
Communicates critical information needed by groups to perform well
Does not suppress information that might be personally embarrassing
Open and responsive when receiving ideas from others
Organizes data in informative ways to show trends in individual and
organizational performance
Is willing to take risks on promising but unproven methods
Thinks independently and comes up with many novel ideas
Persists in the face of criticism or failure; hard to discourage
Adept at securing funds for new projects
Enjoys the challenge of creating new programs and projects that go beyond
cultural and national boundaries
Believable, ethical, trustworthy, has few hidden motives
Skilled in and knowledgeable about the organizations core activities
Sees many positive possibilities; is constantly upbeat
Presents an appealing, energizing leadership image; a good speaker
Provides an effective global leadership image across cultural categories and
national borders
Adapts well to conflicting personal and work demands
Active, constantly on the go, radiates energy
In good health, physically durable, seldom sick
Lives a healthy lifestyle with no troublesome addictions
Comfortable crossing time zones, eating unfamiliar foods, dealing with new
customs, and generally adapting to other cultures

Note. Adapted, with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., from Campbell Leadership Descriptor
Facilitators Guide, by D. P. Campbell, 2002, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Copyright 2002 by John
Wiley & Sons.

TABLE 2
Generational Cohort Comparison of Top 12 Rankings on the Leadership Descriptives Sort

Ranking

Average Across
Generations

Mature a

Early Boomer b

Late Boomer c

Early Gen-Xer d

Late Gen-Xer e

Millenial f
Dedicated
Listens well
Focused
Encouraging
Optimistic
Dependable
Trusted
Experienced

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Credible
Trusted
Listens well
Farsighted
Encouraging
Experienced
Dependable
Focused

Listens well
Credible
Delegates
Dedicated
Good teacher
Trustedg
Experiencedg
Farsighted

Credible
Trusted
Listens well
Farsighted
Encouraging
Experienced
Dependable
Persuasive

Credible
Farsighted
Experienced
Trusted
Encouraging
Listens well
Dependable
Focused

Credible
Trusted
Farsighted
Listens well
Focused
Experienced
Encouraging
Optimistic

Dedicated

Dedicated

A good coach

Dependable

10

Optimistic

Candid and honest

Dedicated

Perceptive

Focused

Trusting

11
12

Candid and Honest

Trusting

Candid and
honest
Publicly
impressive
Encouraging
Has global
view

Credible
Listens well
Dependable
Trusting
Encouragingg
Experiencedg
A good coach
Numerically
astute
Perceptive

Diplomatic
Delegates

Trusting
Global leadership
image

Persuasive
A good coach

Trusted
Optimistic

Creative
Candid and
honest

Note. Italicized labels indicate rankings that do not occur in the Average across Generations column
a
n = 34.
b
n = 95.
c
n = 114.
d
n = 138.
e
n = 15.
f
n = 51.
g
Tied rank.

Supportive

59

60

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

Gen-Xers in ranking focused and optimistic as more important. The Millenial

Generation also differed from the Early Boomers, the Late Boomers, and the
Early Gen-Xers in ranking farsighted as less important. The Late Boomers ranked
listens well as less important than Early Boomers, Late Gen-Xers, and Millenials.
Early Gen-Xers also ranked listens well as less important than Early Boomers
and Millenials.
Brief Discussion
Generational cohorts do differ in the leadership attributes they value in their
leaders. According to our two ranking profiles (listed in Tables 2 and 3, which
we discuss together), Matures value attributes of leaders that suggest a publicly
impressive and dedicated leader with experience and a big-picture orientation
(e.g., global view, farsighted) who shares in decision-making responsibility
through listening, teaching, delegation, and encouragement and is trustworthy
(credible, trusted, candid and honest). The attribute of delegating most clearly
differentiates this cohort from all others.
Early Boomers value attributes that suggest a politically astute leader
(persuasive and diplomatic) with experience and a big-picture orientation
(farsighted). For them, trustworthiness is a big factor (credible, trusted,
dependable, candid and honest), followed by sharing in the decision-making
responsibility (listens well, encouraging, delegating). Late Boomers value
attributes that suggest a desire for a global leadership image and dedication. They
value trustworthiness in terms of credible, trusting, trusted, and dependable.
Although they value experience and a big-picture orientation, they also value
clear focus. Finally, they value listening and encouraging rather than sharing
leadership, and they want feedback.
Early Gen-Xers value attributes that suggest an optimistic and persuasive
leader with experience. They value trustworthiness (credible, trusted,
dependable). Like Late Boomers, although they value a big-picture orientation,
they want a clear focus. They value listening and encouraging. Rather than
sharing leadership, they want perceptive leaders who recognize their talents
and give feedback. Late Gen-Xers value attributes that suggest an optimistic
leader with experience. They value trustworthiness (credible, trusting, trusted,
dependable). They are more interested in leadership activities focused on the
short term, such as being focused and numerically astute. Listening is more
important to Late Gen-Xers than other groups, and they also value a perceptive
leader who is encouraging and gives feedback.
Finally, Millenials want a dedicated and creative leader who cares about
them personally (encouraging, listens well, supportive). Big-picture orientation
does not appear in their top rankings; they want focus. Although they value
trustworthiness (trusted, dependable, trusting, candid and honest), they do not

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

61

TABLE 3
Results of KruskalWallis and MannWhitney Rank Tests on Mean
Ranking of Top 12 Attributes

Variable
Credible
Trusted
Listens Well
Farsighted
Encouraging
Experience
Dependable
Focused
Dedicated
Optimistic
Candid and
Honest
Trusting

Overall
Early
Late
Meana Matureb Boomer c Boomer d
13.194
15.203
15.704
16.585
17.625
17.702
18.221
18.621
18.901
19.639
20.488

14.971a
17.353
14.412
17.912
19.382
17.353
19.794
21.882a
16.647a
20.618a
18.588

20.564 22.706

Early
GenXer e

Late
GenXer f

Millenial g

Chi
Square
(Kruskal
Wallis)

10.968b
13.828
14.161ad
15.344a
17.763
18.989
19.688
20.742b
19.839b
21.215b
19.979

10.597c
16.184
17.360abc
15.263b
16.930
16.149
17.491
19.290c
19.868c
20.904c
21.632

13.735d
13.993
17.831de
14.949c
18.838
18.360
19.272
18.066d
20.787d
19.125d
21.294

9.667e
18.667
9.933b
21.333
17.867
17.867
10.800
18.600
22.133e
19.267
19.400

21.471abcde
16.294
11.706ce
23.882abc
14.451
17.255
14.922
12.569abcd
10.549abcde
14.765abcd
18.294

37.41**
ns
13.92*
18.35**
ns
ns
ns
18.39**
35.17**
13.99*
ns

20.989

20.202

21.493

16.333

17.941

ns

Note. Means with identical superscripts are significantly different, MannWhitney U test
(p < .05).
a
n = 447.
b
n = 34.
c
n = 95.
d
n = 114.
e
n = 138.
f
n = 15.
g
n = 51.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

place it as high as other groups. Higher values in dedication, focus, and optimism,
along with lower values in credibility and farsightedness, differentiate Millenials
from other groups.
Generational cohorts do appear to differ in their profiles of important attributes
they value in leaders. The next question is, Do managers in different generational
cohorts behave differently? We begin to address this question in the next study.

STUDY 2
Are there generational differences in todays U.S. managers in terms of leadership
behaviors as perceived by selves? as perceived by others?

62

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

Methods
Participants. Participants consisted of 20,640 business professionals
sampled from more than 6,000 North American companies. Participants were
drawn from 23 industries and 48 states. Fifty-four percent of participants were
male, 32% were senior executives, 54% were midlevel executives, 11% were
frontline supervisors, and 3% were employed in a technical or professional role.
Of the total sample, 2,440 were born between 1925 and 1945 (Silents); 6,631
were born between 1946 and 1954 (Early Boomers); 7,722 were born between
1955 and 1963 (Late Boomers); and 3,847 were born between 1964 and 1982
(Gen-Xers). Gen-Xers were considered in one group (rather than two as in
Study 1) due to a small sample size. The Millenial Generation was not included
due to the very small number of participants currently in the data pool.
Measures. Each participant completed a 360-degree evaluation process
called Leadership 360 (Management Research Group, 1992). The Leadership
360 is a descriptive, behaviorally oriented instrument, providing scores on
22 dimensions of leadership behavior in six functional areas. The instrument
has demonstrated high reliabilities, low interscale correlations, and excellent
construct and criterion-related validity in extensive large sample studies
(Kabacoff, 1998). The North American normative sample consists of the
questionnaire responses of 387,895 business professionals. Scale intercorrelations are low (M = 0.14, SD = .011), and the mean testretest reliability is
0.78 (SD = .07). Criterion groups validity has been established in studies of
both management level and job function (N = 24,454). Concurrent validity
studies have been conducted with the Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970), California Psychological Inventory
(Gough, 1975), MyersBriggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1989),
Wessman Personal Classification Test (Wesman, 1965), and Individual Directions Inventory (Kabacoff, 1998). Additionally, predictive validity studies
assessing relations with leadership and organizational effectiveness have been
conducted in 18 industries with sample sizes ranging from several hundred to
several thousand. Brief descriptions of the 22 leadership dimensions assessed
are provided in Table 4.
Design and procedure. Data were obtained by sampling from an extensive
archive of 360-degree leadership evaluations maintained by the Management
Research Group, an international human resource development firm. Evaluations
were completed in the course of ongoing organizational development projects.
Participants were selected for this study if they worked in the United States,
fit one of the age groups described previously, fulfilled a management function
within their organization, and worked in a business rather than a government

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

63

TABLE 4
Leadership 360 Scale Denitions
Behavior
Creating a Vision
Conservative
Innovative
Technical

Self
Strategic

Developing Followership
Persuasive
Outgoing

Excitement

Restraint
Implementing the Vision
Structuring

Tactical
Communication

Delegation

Following Through
Control

Feedback

Definition

Studying problems in light of past practices to ensure

predictability, reinforce the status quo, and minimize risk
Feeling comfortable in fast-changing environments; being willing
to take risks and to consider new and untested approaches
Acquiring and maintaining in-depth knowledge in your field or
area of focus; using your expertise and specialized knowledge
to study issues and draw conclusions
Emphasizing the importance of making decisions independently;
looking to yourself as the prime vehicle for decision-making
Taking a long-range, broad approach to problem solving and
decision making through objective analysis, thinking ahead,
and planning
Building commitment by convincing others and winning them
over to your point of view
Acting in an extroverted, friendly, and informal manner; showing
a capacity to quickly establish free and easy interpersonal
relationships
Operating with a good deal of energy, intensity, and emotional
expression; having a capacity for keeping others enthusiastic
and involved
Maintaining a low-key, understated, and quiet interpersonal
demeanor by working to control your emotional expression
Adopting a systematic and organized approach; preferring to
work in a precise, methodical manner; developing and
utilizing guidelines and procedures
Emphasizing the production of immediate results by focusing on
short-range, hands-on, practical strategies
Stating clearly what you want and expect from others; clearly
expressing your thoughts and ideas; maintaining a precise and
constant flow of information
Enlisting the talents of others to help meet objectives by giving
them important activities and sufficient autonomy to exercise
their own judgment
Adopting an approach in which you take nothing for granted, set
deadlines for certain actions, and are persistent in monitoring
the progress of activities to ensure that they are completed on
schedule
Letting others know in a straightforward manner what you think
of them, how well they have performed, and if they have met
your needs and expectations
(Continued)

64

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

TABLE 4
(Continued)
Behavior
Achieving Results
Management Focus
Dominant
Production

Team Playing:
Cooperation

Consensual
Authority

Empathy

Definition

Seeking to exert influence by being in positions of authority,

taking charge, and leading and directing the efforts of others
Pushing vigorously to achieve results through an approach that is
forceful, assertive, and competitive
Adopting a strong orientation toward achievement; holding high
expectations for yourself and others; pushing yourself and
others to achieve at high levels
Accommodating the needs and interests of others by being
willing to defer performance on your own objectives to assist
colleagues with theirs
Valuing the ideas and opinions of others and collecting their
input as part of your decision-making process
Showing loyalty to the organization; respecting the opinions of
people in authority and using them as resources for
information, direction, and decisions
Demonstrating an active concern for people and their needs by
forming close and supportive relationships with others

Note. Adapted, with permission, from Leadership Effectiveness Analysis: Technical Considerations, (p. 55) by R. Kabacoff, 1998, Portland, ME: Management Research Group. Copyright
1998 by Management Research Group.

organization. Participants were informed that, in addition to their own individual

development, results would be used for aggregate research purposes. Data were
analyzed in an anonymous fashion, with identifying information removed. Peers
and direct reports completed evaluations anonymously. This process provided
a median of one boss, four peer, and four direct report evaluations for each
participant. Our investigation focused on self (n = 20,640), boss (n = 23,320),
and direct report ratings (n = 79,866).
Results and Brief Discussion
To identify the leadership dimensions that most highly differentiated leaders of
different generations, raw scores on the 22 Leadership Effectiveness Analysis
(LEA) dimensions were subjected to a canonical discriminant analysis with the
four generation categories as the outcome variable and the 22 LEA dimensions as
the predictor variables. Self, boss, and direct report data were analyzed separately.
Because leadership behaviors and cohort can vary by level of position within an
organization, management level was employed as a covariate prior to completion
of the canonical analyses, statistically removing the influence of this variable.

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

65

The purpose of canonical discriminant analysis is to identify linear combinations of predictor variables that most strongly predict a categorical outcome
variable. In this case, canonical discriminant analysis was employed to identify
the combinations of leadership practices that most strongly differentiate among
individuals in different generational cohorts. The analysis takes place in stages.
In the first stage, the linear combination of predictor variables that most strongly
correlates with the outcome variable is identified. This linear combination is
called a canonical variate, and the correlation between the canonical variate and
the outcome is called a canonical correlation. Then the second canonical variate
and correlation are identified (the linear combination of predictor variables most
strongly correlated with the outcome but uncorrelated with the first canonical
variate). The process continues until all significant explanatory power is extracted
from the data. The maximum number of possible canonical variates and canonical
correlations is k 1 where k is the number of categories in the outcome
variable. The result is sets of predictor variables (leadership practices) that are
maximally related to the outcome (generational cohort) but independent of each
other.
The first three canonical correlations for self-rating data, adjusting
for management level, were 0.32, F(66, 61564) = 36.06, p < .0001; 0.07,
F(42, 41232) = 3.10, p < .0001; and 0.04, F(20, 206172) = 3.10, p < .08, respectively. The first three canonical correlations for boss rating data, adjusting for the
leaders management level, were 0.30, F(66, 57508) = 30.59, p < .0001; 0.08,
F(42, 38516) = 3.81, p < .0001; and 0.05, F(20, 19259) = 2.28, p < .0001, respectively. Finally, the first three canonical correlations for direct report rating data,
adjusting for the leaders management level, were 0.30, F(66, 61564) = 33.86,
p < .0001; 0.09, F(42, 41232) = 5.09, p < .0001; and 0.05, F(20, 206172) = 2.53,
p < .0002, respectively. F tests evaluate the significance of the current and all
later canonical correlations. As can be seen from these results, differences by
generation are captured almost exclusively in the first canonical variate for each
of the rater groups (self, boss, direct reports).
The first canonical variates for self, boss, and direct report were similar to
each other. The first self canonical variate for self-ratings was characterized
by high positive values in outgoing, excitement, tactical, management focus,
dominant, and production and by high negative values in delegation, cooperation, and consensual. This suggests an individual leadership style of asserting
ones own power, capability, and authority to get the job done on one end
of the continuum and a more consensual style of leadership concerned with
creating conditions for others to contribute and participate in leadership on the
other. Individuals scoring highly on this dimension perceived themselves to be
assertive, using positions of authority to push selves and others to perform.
Concentration was on short-term goals. Manner toward others was outgoing
and energetic. Individuals scoring low on this dimension demonstrated a more

66

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

consensual style of leadershipdelegating to others, valuing the input of others,

and cooperating and assisting colleagues.
The first canonical correlation for boss ratings was characterized by high
positive values in innovative, excitement, communication, control, management
focus, dominant, and production and by high negative values in conservative, restraint, delegation, cooperation, and empathy. Like the self ratings,
individuals scoring highly on this dimension were perceived by their bosses
to be energetic risk takers who clearly stated what they want and expect,
monitored others closely, and used positions of authority to push themselves
and others to perform. Individuals scoring low on this dimension were perceived
by their bosses to be conservative and more low-key in approach, with a
more consensual style of leadershipdelegating to others and forming close
relationships.
The first canonical correlation for direct report ratings was characterized
by high positive values in excitement, tactical, and production and by high
negative values in conservative and delegation. Individuals scoring highly on
this dimension were perceived by their direct reports to be energetic people who
monitored others closely toward achievement of short-range goals. Individuals
scoring low on this dimension were perceived by their direct reports to be
conservative in approach and consensual in management style by delegating and
giving others autonomy.
Pooled within-groups correlations for the first canonical variate are presented
in Table 5. These are the correlations between the LEA leadership practices
and the canonical variate, averaged over the generational cohorts. They tell us
which practices most differentiate among individuals in the different cohorts.
As can be seen by the group centroids in Table 6, there were differences in
generational cohorts, and the differences appeared to vary linearly by age. In
other words, the canonical variate ranked the cohorts in order from Silents to
Early Boomers, to Late Boomers, to Gen-Xers, with roughly equal spacing
between each group. This is the pattern one would expect if the results were
due primarily to chronological age rather than cohort. Younger leaders tended to
perceive themselves and be perceived by others (both bosses and direct reports)
to utilize the more individual leadership style whereas older leaders tended to
perceive themselves and be perceived by others (both bosses and direct reports)
to utilize a more consensual leadership style, with middle-age leaders falling
somewhere in between.
Thus, although Hypothesis 2 (managers in different generational cohorts
differ in behavior as perceived by self) and Hypothesis 3 (managers in
different generational cohorts differ in behavior as perceived by others) are
partially supported, the differences suggest a maturational effect (as indicated
by linearity) rather than a generational cohort effect (as indicated by categorical
differences).

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

67

TABLE 5
Pooled Within-Groups Correlations for the First Canonical Variate
by Rater Group
Scale
Conservative
Innovative
Technical
Self
Strategic
Persuasive
Outgoing
Excitement
Restraint
Structure
Tactical
Communication
Delegation
Control
Feedback
Management Focus
Dominant
Production
Cooperation
Consensual
Authority
Empathy

Self Ratings a

Boss Ratings b

Direct Report Ratings c

0.190
0.160
0.148
0.036
0.046
0.131
0.287
0.399
0.090
0.001
0.345
0.018
0.363
0.110
0.065
0.223
0.283
0.457
0.241
0.254
0.075
0.120

0.547
0.281
0.128
0.071
0.071
0.099
0.003
0.441
0.237
0.045
0.132
0.204
0.211
0.263
0.025
0.311
0.256
0.701
0.226
0.078
0.151
0.258

0.520
0.098
0.010
0.095
0.032
0.021
0.154
0.446
0.195
0.005
0.239
0.179
0.243
0.238
0.008
0.195
0.148
0.529
0.129
0.177
0.045
0.189

(n = 20,640)
(n = 23,320)
c
(n = 79,866)
a

TABLE 6
Group Centroids on the First Canonical Variate by Rater Group
Generation
Silents
Early Boomers
Late Boomers
Xers

Self-Ratings

Boss Ratings

Direct Report Ratings

0.570
0.230
0.113
0.532

0.557
0.229
0.128
0.463

0.565
0.210
0.118
0.484

GENERAL DISCUSSION
We had two overarching questions that we addressed in this article: (a) Do
managers and professionals in different generational cohorts differ in attributes

68

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

they consider important in leaders? (b) Do managers in different generational

cohorts differ in their leadership behaviors? Our research indicates that, yes,
managers and professionals in different generational cohorts do differ to some
extent in attributes they consider important, and yes, managers in different
generational cohorts do behave differently (as perceived by selves and others).
However, similar to other research, our research indicates that these differences
are not as large as they have been made out to be in the popular press (Craig &
Bennett, 1997).

Important Attributes
We found that some attributes were similar across generations and some attributes
differed. All cohorts valued honesty in their leaders. They all valued knowledge
about the organizations core activities. They all valued listening, and they all
valued helping others to achieve more than they thought they were capable
of. However, there were also differences. The Matures valued the attribute of
delegation more than the other groups. The Millenials valued such attributes
as focus, dedication, and optimism more highly and such attributes as honesty,
big-picture orientation, and cultural sensitivity less than other generations. Some
generations (Matures, Early Boomers, Late Gen-Xers, and Millenials) were
more concerned with listening than other generations (Late Boomers and Early
Gen-Xers).
Our results are similar to previous research findings reported in the literature.
For example, honesty was important for all groups, though slightly less so for
Millenials (Zemke et al., 1999). As another example, previous research suggests
that Gen-X workers do not accord people respect or authority because of their
position (Hays, 1999; Holtz, 1995, Raines, 1997). Instead, they expect people in
authority to earn respect by demonstrating they can get the work done themselves.
Our data support this, with the Gen-X and Millenials showing a preference for
such leadership attributes as focus and the Millenials wanting dedication. Finally,
earlier research has found that Gen-Xers want frequent feedback (Burke, 1994).
Our research demonstrates that Late Boomers and all Gen-Xers rated feedback
highly, although this did not continue with the Millenial Generation.
Our findings also differ a bit from others found in previous research. For
example, the Matures in this research indicated a strong desire for leaders
to share responsibility although earlier research suggested that they preferred
a more directive style (see Zemke et al., 1999). In terms of competence,
older generations valued a big-picture orientation but younger generations
valued a more day-to-day focus. In addition, contradicting previous research,
younger generations valued a more individually caring leader than earlier
generations.

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

69

Important Behaviors
We also found that managers in different generational cohorts differed in their
behaviors as perceived by themselves and by their bosses and their subordinates.
Our data demonstrated that manager behavior differed by generation along a
continuum of individually focused leadership behaviors to a more consensual
style of leadership. The picture of differences emerging from our results suggests
that leaders in the older generations bring a calm, considered approach that draws
on the skills and abilities of others. Leaders in the younger generations bring an
energizing presence; they are focused on attaining short-term results; and they are
more self-focused. These differences are in line with the two overarching leader
behavior themes that have continuously arisen over the course of leadership
studies. On the one side is a focus on asserting ones own power, capability,
and authority to get the job done. On the other side is a focus on creating
conditions for others to contribute and lead (see Bass, 1990; Kaplan & Kaiser,
2003; Leonard, 2003). Both foci are needed for effective leadership (Kaplan &
Kaiser, 2003).

The Link Between Important Attributes and Behaviors

Although we were unable to measure directly the relation between important
attributes in leaders and behaviors exhibited, there were similarities between what
generational cohorts in one sample said they value in leadership attributes and
the behaviors the same cohort managers in the other sample are said to exhibit
themselves. For example: Matures indicated that they valued delegation more
highly than the other groups in Study 1, and they were more likely to exhibit
delegation and other consensually based behaviors as rated by themselves, their
bosses, and their subordinates in Study 2. Gen-Xers indicated that they valued
optimism in the first study, and they exhibited outgoingness and excitement in
the second study. In addition, they valued clarity in such things as organizational
performance indicators, setting priorities, and giving feedback in the first study,
and they exhibited similar leadership behaviors of closely monitoring activities
in the second study. They rated farsightedness a bit lower (particularly Late GenXers) in the first study and were more likely to exhibit behaviors that emphasize
immediate short-range results in the second.

Implications for Practicing Psychologist-Managers

Our results suggest that organizations do need to take into account generational cohorts. Different generational cohorts value different attributes in leaders,
managers in different generational cohorts manifest leadership differently, and
valued attributes appear to be in line with the way managers of that generation

70

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

enact leadership. The challenge of todays organizations is to find ways to use

and value the contributions of each generation of leaders. Organizations need
high-achieving leaders who will drive production. They also need leaders who are
willing to develop talent pools in the organization through delegation and other
consensual leadership behaviors. They need both calm, structured approaches
based on what has worked in the past and innovative risk-taking. They need
focus on the big picture and focus on the day-to-day. There is room for both
stars and those who want to develop stars. As organizations increasingly mix
generations in leadership ranks, differing expectations in how a leader should
act and differing behaviors enacted need to be openly acknowledged so that this
diversity can be appreciated and utilized to the best advantage of the organization.
This article helps bring these differences to light and may help managers begin
discussions regarding what they value in leaders, how they behave as leaders,
and how this diversity is actually a good thing for organizational functioning
and effectiveness.
Strengths and Weaknesses
A strength of our research is that we were able to sample a large number
of managers and professionals in U.S. organizations across a wide variety of
companies and industries using publicly available professionally constructed
instruments. In addition, we were able to sample a large number of respondents
across generations in a number of different industries, whereas most research to
date has used smaller samples, has concentrated on only one or two generational
cohorts, or has drawn samples from a single industry. From this research, we
were able to add to the existing literature that managers in different generational
cohorts do differ in valued leadership attributes and in their behaviors.
In this investigation, management level may have been correlated with age
cohort effects. However, it is unlikely that the differences found can be explained
solely on the bases of management-level effects on leadership practices. Although
we were unable to control for management level in the first study, management
level was employed as a covariate in the second studys canonical analyses,
statistically removing the influence of this variable. Additionally, in a previous
large-scale study using the same instruments and methodology as the second
study (Kabacoff & Stoffey, 2001), age differences in leadership practices were
compared in a sample of midlevel executives (department heads and unit
managers) and senior level executives (division heads, vice presidents, and senior
vice presidents). The age differences were virtually identical in both studies and
consistent with those reported in this investigation.
One question our research methodology did not address was why managers
in different generational cohorts differ in valued attributes and behaviors. We
used the idea of generational cohorts (a categorical explanation) to build our

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

71

argument. The argument for using generational cohorts is based on current

interest in the popular press and the business world. There, it is assumed that
generations differ. However, our data in part suggest that differences, particularly in behaviors, are maturational in nature (a linear explanation). Because
we used cross-sectional data measuring individuals at one point in time, it is
difficult to disentangle generational cohort differences from maturational differences. However, in reality, it is unrealistic to use a research design that follows
managers for a long enough time to determine their maturational differences in a
management setting. In addition, in any new area of study, the first thing to ask
when approaching a problem is Are there differences; is this phenomenon worth
exploring? Our study, fundamentally, asks these very questions, and we feel
confident in answering with Yes, there are differences and this phenomenon is
worth studying.
In addition, our research methodology did not indicate how these existent
differences between generations are impacting the workplace. The existing literature assumes that differing values, cognitions, and behaviors lead to conflict
and detrimental effects on communication and working relationships, which in
turn keep plans, products, and ideas from moving forward.

Future Research
This research has added to the nascent literature on the impact of generational
differences in the workplace. Future research is needed in three areas. First, we
need to continue to map out and more clearly define the differences among generations. Second, we need to begin to understand the impact of these differences.
There is already a rich literature on diversity in the workplace. Although age
diversity has been included in almost one third of diversity studies (Jackson et al.,
2003), little explicit attention has yet been directed toward why age diversity
might have an impact on employee interactions. Third, to begin to determine
which differences are generational and which differences are maturational, longitudinal projects using the same participants across time are needed. This is
difficult to do. Continued inquiry in these areas is needed to help employees in
organizations work and learn together for their own success and for the continued
success of the organization as a whole.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 20th Annual Conference
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA
(2005).

72

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

REFERENCES
Adams, S. J. (2000, January). Generation X: How understanding this population leads to better safety
programs. Professional Safety, 45, 2629.
Arsenault, P. M. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legitimate diversity and leadership
issue. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 124141.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Geeks and geezers: How era, values, and defining moments
shape leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bower, C., & Fidler, M. (1994). The importance of generational literacy. Association Management,
46, 3035.
Burke, R. J. (1994). Generation X: Measures, sex, and age differences. Psychological Reports, 74,
555562.
Campbell, D. (2002). Campbell leadership descriptor facilitators guide. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Cattell, R., Eber, H., & Tatsuoka, M. (1970). The 16-Factor Personality Questionnaire. Champaign,
IL: IPAT.
Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic: Working values and values that work. New York:
AMACOM.
Conger, J. (2001). How Gen Xs manage. In J. Osland, D. Kolb, & L.W. Rubin (Eds.), Organizational
behavior reader (pp. 919). Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1999). Personalities across cultures: Studies focused on age factors.
Aging Today, 20, 5.
Craig, S. C., & Bennett, S. E. (Eds.). (1997). After the bonus: The politics of Generation X. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Crainer, S., & Dearlove, D. (1999). Death of executive talent. Management Review, 88, 813.
Cufaude, J. B., & Riemersma, M. (1999). The future face of the workforce. Association Management,
51, 13.
Daboval, J. M. (1998). A comparison between Baby Boomer and Generation X employees
bases and foci of commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University,
Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Deal, J. J., Peterson, K., & Gailor-Loflin, H. (2001). Emerging leaders: An annotated bibliography.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
DeMeuse, K. P., Bergmann, T. J., & Lester, S. W. (2001). An investigation of the relational
component of the psychological contract across time, generation, and employment status. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 13, 102118.
Dittmann, M. (2005). Generational differences at work. Monitor on Psychology, 36, 5455.
Gilbert, R. G., Collins, R. W., & Brenner, R. (1990). Age and leadership effectiveness: From the
perceptions of the follower. Human Resource Management, 29, 187196.
Gough, H. (1975). The California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Griffith, R. W., & Bedeian, A. G. (1989). Employee performance evaluations: Effects of ratee age,
rater age, and ratee gender. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 8390.
Hays, S. (1999). Generation X and the Art of Reward. Workforce, 78, 4448.
Holtz, G. T. (1995). Welcome to the jungle: The why behind Generation X. New York:
St. Martins.
Howe, H., Strauss, W., & Matson, R. J. (2000). Millenials rising: The next great generation.
New York: Vintage.
Is the Boomer/Gen-X war over? (2000). HR Focus, 77, 113.
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational
diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801830.

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

73

Joyner, T. (2000). Gen-Xers focus on life outside the job, fulfillment. Secured Lender, 56, 6468.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel Management,
29, 5574.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Bradley, D. B. (2002). Generational ethics: Age cohort and healthcare executives values. HEC Forum, 14 ,148171.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R.G. (1998). GenXers vs boomers vs Matures: Generational comparisons
of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 1837.
Kabacoff, R. (1998). Leadership effectiveness analysis: Technical considerations. (Available from
the Management Research Group, 14 York Street, Portland, ME 04101)
Kabacoff, R., & Stoffey, R. (2001, April). Age differences in organizational leadership. Paper
presented at the 16th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Kakabadse, A., & Kakabadse, N. (1999). Essence of leadership. New York: International Thomson
Business.
Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. (2003). Rethinking a classic distinction in leadership: Implications
for the assessment and development of executives. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 55, 1525.
Karp, H., Sirias, D., & Arnold, K. (1999). Teams: Why Generation X marks the spot. The Journal
for Quality and Participation, 22, 3033.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). The extras Xers want. Across the Boards, 35, 5152.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective management. The
Health Care Manager, 19, 6576.
Leonard, H. S. (2003). Leadership development for the postindustrial, postmodern information age.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 314.
Management Research Group. (1992). Leadership effectiveness analysis. Portland, ME: Author.
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology
of knowledge (pp. 276320). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mannheim, K. (1972). The problem of generations. In P. G. Altbach & R. S. Laufer (Eds.), The new
pilgrims: Youth protest in transition (pp. 101138). New York: David McKay.
Miniter, R. (1997, October). This generation means business. Readers Digest, 8185.
Mitchell, S. (1998). American generations: Who they are. How they live. What they think. Ithaca,
NY: New Strategist.
Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. (1989). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the MyersBriggs
Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Neuborne, E., & Kerwin, K. (February 15, 1999). Generation Y. Business Week, Online. Retrieved
February 15, 2007, from http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_07/b3616001.htm
OBannon, G. (2001). Managing our future: The Generation X factor. Public Personnel Management,
30, 95109.
Oshagbemi, T. (2004). Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviors of managers. Employee
Relations, 26, 1429.
Patterson, C. (2005, January). Generational diversity: Implications for consultation and teamwork.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Council of Directors of School Psychology Programs on
generational differences, Deerfield Beach, FL.
Parker, B., & Cusmir, L. H. (1991). A generational and sex based view of managerial work values.
Psychological Reports, 66, 947951.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Raines, C. (1997). Beyond Generation X: A practical guide for managers. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp.
Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and
conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 328367.

74

SESSA, KABACOFF, DEAL, & BROWN

Robinson, R. V., & Jackson, E. F. (2001). Is trust in other declining in America? An age-period-cohort
analysis. Social Science Research, 30, 117145.
Rodriguez, R. O., Green, M. T., & Ree, M. J. (2003). Leading Generation X: Do the old rules apply?
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 6775.
Ryan, M. (2000, September 10). Gerald Celente: He reveals what lies ahead. Parade Magazine,
pp. 2223.
Schaeffer, J. (Ed). (2000). Kemper reports (winterspring). Chicago: Kemper Distributors.
Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories. American Sociological
Review, 54, 359381.
Scott, J. (2000). Is it a different world than when you were growing up? Generational effects on
social representations and child rearing values. British Journal of Sociology, 51, 355376.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Goldberg, C. B. (2003). Work attitudes and decisions as a function
of manager age and employee age. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 529537.
Slotterback, C. S. (1996). Projections of aging: Impact of generational differences and the aging
process on perceptions of adults. Psychology and Aging, 11, 552559.
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values
for the New Millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vecchio, R. P. (1993). The impact of differences in subordinate and supervisor age on attitudes and
performance. Psychology and Aging, 8, 112119.
Wah, L. (1999). Older bosses are best. Management Review, 88, 7.
Watkins, C. (1999). Grads to grannies, managing the generation gap. Food Management, 34, 3135.
Wessman, A. (1965). Wesman Personnel Classification Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Woodward, N. H. (1999). The coming of the managers. HR Magazine, 44, 7480.
Wyatt, D. (1993). Out of the sixties: Storytelling and the Vietnam generation. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press:
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans,
Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. New York: AMACOM.