The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Leadership and generations at work: A critical review T

a,⁎ a b
Cort W. Rudolph , Rachel S. Rauvola , Hannes Zacher
a
Saint Louis University, USA
b
Leipzig University, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We present a critical review of theory, empirical research, and practical applications regarding generational
Aging differences in leadership phenomena. First, we consider the concept of generations both historically and through
Generations contemporary arguments related to leadership. Second, we outline and refute various myths surrounding the
Lifespan development idea of generational differences in general, and critique leadership theories that have been influenced by these
Leadership development
myths. Third, we describe the results of a literature review of primary empirical studies that have invoked the
Review
notion of generational differences to understand leadership phenomena. Finally, we argue that the lifespan
developmental perspective represents a useful alternative to generational representations, as it better captures
age-related dynamics that are relevant to leadership, followership, and leadership development. Ultimately, our
work serves as a formal call for a moratorium to be placed upon the application of the ideas of generations and
generational differences to leadership theory, research, and practice.

Introduction
In the popular leadership and management literature, the notion
that there are demonstrable generational differences in work attitudes,
motivation, and behavior is so ubiquitous that it borders upon axio-
matic (e.g., Espinoza & Ukleja, 2016; Fitch & Van Brunt, 2016; Grubbs,
2015; Kelan, 2012; Tulgan, 2009). Beyond the popular press, the
idea that generational differences exist has also emerged within
contemporary leadership theory (e.g., Balda & Mora, 2011;
Bennis & Thomas, 2002; Graen & Schiemann, 2013) and empirical re-
search (e.g., Arsenault, 2004; Gentry, Griggs, Deal, Mondore, & Cox,
2011; Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, & Brown, 2007). For example, a recent
article published in The Leadership Quarterly decrees, “…millennials are
most assuredly different than their predecessors with respect to ideas,
behaviors and viewpoints, and … organizational leaders will have to
lead these employees, by necessity, differently” (Anderson, Baur,
Griffith, & Buckley, 2017, p. 245).
There are at least three fundamental problems with these assump-
tions, and indeed with the entire idea of generational differences at
large, that are theoretical, methodological, and empirical in nature.
First, theories of generational differences are based upon flawed as-
sumptions about the role that “generations” (i.e., represented as higher
order, aggregate constructs) play in shaping individual-level outcomes.
Second, because we do not possess sufficient methods for studying
whether or not generational differences exist, these tenuous theories
cannot be empirically tested with necessary or sufficient precision.
Finally, across those studies that have attempted to tease apart the
effects of generational differences, there is little to no empirical
evidence to suggest that such differences exist, or that they manifest
as differences in work attitudes, motivation, or behavior
(Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015, 2017). For example, a meta-analysis of
K = 20 studies by Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt, and Gade (2012)
found no appreciable evidence for generational differences in job sa-
tisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions (see
also Stassen, Anseel, & Levecque, 2016, for a systematic qualitative re-
view that arrived at similar conclusions). As a result of these three
fundamental problems, the scant evidence that does seem to suggest
that generational membership influences work outcomes (e.g.,
Smola & Sutton, 2002; Twenge & Campbell, 2008; Twenge, Campbell,
Hoffman, & Lance, 2010) is based upon flawed logic (i.e., the in-
appropriate conflation of chronological age, contemporaneous period,
and/or birth year cohort effects), confounded methodologies, and ar-
guably weak theoretical rationales (Fineman, 2011; Walker, 1993).
Notwithstanding the weaknesses of theory and the lack of evidence to
the contrary, even if generational differences did matter for work out-
comes, we would be unable to capture such effects through available
empirical methodologies.
In response to the call for papers for the 2018 The Leadership
Quarterly Yearly Review, the present manuscript aims to “…identify
measures, theories, or practices that should be discontinued in the
field.” Specifically, we argue in the following critical review that future
leadership research should abandon the concept of generations, and

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
E-mail addresses: cort.rudolph@health.slu.edu (C.W. Rudolph), shelly.rauvola@slu.edu (R.S. Rauvola), hannes.zacher@uni-leipzig.de (H. Zacher).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.004
Received 8 November 2016; Received in revised form 24 August 2017; Accepted 26 September 2017
Available online 02 October 2017
1048-9843/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
C.W. Rudolph et al.
that we should eschew the notion of “generational differences” as a
basis for future leadership theory, research, and practice. In other
words, we call for placing a moratorium on the generations concept as
it is currently applied to our understanding of leadership. Moreover,
based upon and extending previous research in this journal and else-
where (e.g., Day, 2011; Rudolph & Zacher, 2017b; Walter & Scheibe,
2013; Zacher, Clark, Anderson, & Ayoko, 2015), we explain why a
lifespan developmental approach to leadership constitutes a promising
alternative to research on leadership and generational differences.
To frame our arguments, we have organized this manuscript around
five interrelated goals. First, we review the concept of generational
differences, as it is broadly understood, by defining the concept, tracing
its historical development, and outlining its contemporary (mis)appli-
cation to understanding various leadership-related phenomena. Second,
we debunk several myths surrounding the idea that generational dif-
ferences matter in the workplace, and we offer theoretical, methodo-
logical, and empirically grounded arguments to this end. Third, we
outline and critique leadership theories that have been influenced by
popular myths regarding generational differences. Fourth, we review
and critique primary empirical studies that have invoked the notion of
generational differences to understand leadership phenomena. Finally,
we discuss the lifespan developmental approach as a promising alter-
native way of thinking about and representing the complexities of age
and leadership. With these five goals accomplished, we call for a “cease
and desist” on the application of the idea of generational differences as
an explanatory framework in leadership theory, research, and practice.
Reconsidering the problem of generations
The modern notion of “generations” as distinct units of study
emerged within the field of sociology. Beginning in the early twentieth
century, sociologists sought explanations for the mechanisms re-
sponsible for bringing about large-scale social change (Kertzer, 1983).
The agent of such change, according to some, was the natural “churn”
associated with over-time dynamics across birth cohorts (e.g.,
Mannheim, 1952; Ryder, 1965). The argument offered by these re-
searchers was that each successive birth cohort brings their own par-
ticular experiences to bear on those problems faced by society. Because
each successive cohort is temporally and, thus, historically embedded
within a given social context, early formative experiences during
childhood were thought to uniquely shape the “shared consciousness”
of each generation (Mannheim, 1952). The formation and codification
of such a shared consciousness from cohort-to-cohort gives rise to un-
ique and distinguishable features that are broadly characteristic of each
new generation. From this thinking, the notion of “generations” as we
understand them today emerged. As we will review in greater detail
later, the role of history and social context underlies explanations for
the emergence of generational differences in leadership in con-
temporary leadership theory (e.g., Bennis & Thomas, 2002).
While interesting from the perspective of a sociological thought
experiment that offers explanations for the mechanisms of social
change, the ideas of generations and their unique characteristics have
been adopted quite broadly to explain myriad other phenomen-
a–including cross-temporal changes in trait narcissism (Twenge,
Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008), preferences for wine
packaging (Nuebling & Behnke, 2015), and changes in baseball fandom
(Nightengale, 2016). The concept of generational differences has like-
wise made its way into the domains of IO/OB/HR research over the past
two decades (Joshi, Dencker, & Franz, 2011; Smola & Sutton, 2002),
and into research concerning leadership, specifically (Arsenault, 2004;
Gentry et al., 2011). Recently, however, a general consensus has
emerged from systematic qualitative (Stassen et al., 2016), quantitative
(Costanza et al., 2012), and critical (Rudolph & Zacher, 2017a, 2017b)
reviews of this literature which suggests that generational differences
do not have an appreciable influence on work processes and outcomes.
While these reviews are by-in-large damning to the concept of
45
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
generational differences at work, such reviews have not adequately
considered the role of generations in leadership processes and outcomes
(cf. Rudolph & Zacher, 2017b, a conceptual work that debunks various
“myths” regarding leadership and generations). Thus, there is still a
notable gap in our understanding of the totality and scope of this
phenomenon, which can be explained by the fact that the literature on
generational differences in leadership is quite fragmented and largely
prescriptive in nature (Anderson et al., 2017). Here, we begin closing
this gap by offering a systematic review and critique of leadership
theory and research concerning generations that builds upon and ex-
tends past conceptual works.
Criticisms of generational differences research
Beyond the general conclusion of literature reviews that generations
exert a null influence on various work processes and outcomes, it is
important to critique how theories of generations influence the conduct
of generational differences research. As suggested by Rudolph (2015),
generational differences research most often adopts cross-sectional (i.e.,
single time point) research designs. To translate theories of generations
into operationalized variables, generational differences researchers ty-
pically split the continuous variable chronological age into several ca-
tegories to represent the various assumed generational cohorts present
in their data. Subsequently, these artificially created categories are re-
lated statistically to various work outcomes. This splitting is typically
justified on the basis of theory, which proposes that generations can be
constructed by grouping people together by ranges of age/birth year
cohorts. However, there is little to no consensus about how these ca-
tegorized ranges of age/birth year cohort should be constructed. Fig. 1
depicts the range and variability in the different operationalizations of
generations found in the studies we review, below. There is a great deal
of overlap between these groupings from study to study, and, as sug-
gested by Costanza et al. (2012), “This lack of consistency has im-
plications for the conceptual definition of the generations, their oper-
ationalization (i.e., when they start and finish), and the assessment of
their impact on outcomes” (p. 377).
These categorization efforts are undertaken to circumvent what is
actually a far more complex mathematical concern regarding the nature
of chronological age and birth year cohort in single time point designs:
they are perfectly correlated with one another (Glenn, 2005). More
specifically, with knowledge of the present year or “period” (e.g., 2018)
and the birth year of a given leader or “cohort” (e.g., 1978), this leader's
“age” (e.g., 40) is determined. Thus, because “period” is a constant in
single time point designs, age and cohort effects are necessarily per-
fectly confounded with one another (i.e., not mathematically distin-
guishable). To make this point more concrete, one cannot under any
circumstances draw valid conclusions regarding the influence of cohort
versus age effects from single time point data. Moreover, the categor-
ization of the continuous variable age into categories comes at the ex-
pense of both theoretical precision, as arbitrary age boundaries are
imposed inconsistently across studies (see Fig. 1), and statistical pre-
cision, resulting in a distinct challenge to valid inferences (i.e., via
decreased power, see MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002;
Rudolph, 2015).
These criticisms extend to various cross-temporal methodologies
(e.g., Twenge et al., 2010), including so-called cross-temporal meta-
analysis (Twenge et al., 2008). Cross-temporal approaches investigate
similarly-aged individuals over time, and in doing so isolate (i.e., via
purposefully confounding) cohort and period effects from age effects.
For example, the responses of five independent samples of 20-year-olds,
surveyed in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010, could be compared to
one another. Under the strong assumptions of cross-temporal analyses,
observed systematic temporal differences cannot be due to age (i.e., as
it is held constant across time and sample), however either cohort or
period effects are equally-likely “causes” of such observed differences.
Accordingly, cross-temporal methods ignore the possibly important
C.W. Rudolph et al.
influences of contemporaneous contextual factors, and inherently rely
on a special case of the long-admonished ecological correlation (i.e., the
dubious practice of correlating group-level means; Robinson, 1950) to
draw conclusions about cohort effects (see Rudolph & Zacher, 2017a,
for a review and critique of such methods). Importantly, several studies
directly speak to the importance of period effects. For example, con-
temporaneous unemployment rates have been linked to differences in
both narcissism (e.g., Bianchi, 2014) and job satisfaction (e.g., Bianchi,
2013) that are often attributed to generational differences.
A great deal of methodological innovation has emerged to account
for the confounded nature of age, cohort, and period effects. Recently,
Costanza, Darrow, Yost, and Severt (2017) reviewed three popular
analytical methods for studying generational differences (i.e., group
comparisons using cross-sectional data, cross-temporal meta-analysis
using time-lagged panels, and cross-classified hierarchical linear mod-
eling using time-lagged panels). When analyzing generational effects
from the same dataset using these methods, the comparative results of
each method failed to converge upon the same conclusions. That is to
say, common analytic methods for studying generations cannot be tri-
angulated with one another. There is a twofold irony to this observa-
tion: on the one hand, research has generally yielded equivocal results
regarding the impact of generational differences on work outcomes
(Costanza et al., 2012). On the other hand, with very few exceptions,
nearly every study that has ever attempted to tease these complex ef-
fects apart is based on a flawed methodology (Costanza et al., 2017).
Perhaps more troubling, this tenuously grounded body of research has
served to inform recent thinking about the role of generations in lea-
dership processes and outcomes (e.g., Anderson et al., 2017).
The pervasiveness of generations
Notwithstanding the preceding limitations and critiques, research in
the IO/OB/HR realm is particularly wed to the notions of generations
and generational differences as meaningful and useful concepts
(Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). This observation is particularly evident
when considering leadership scholarship, specifically (e.g., Anderson
et al., 2017; Graen & Schiemann, 2013). There are at least two possible
explanations as to why this idea is so pervasive in our literature. First, a
social–cognitive explanation suggests that representing age in terms of
generations rather than the continuous process of aging provides an
inherent advantage for understanding the complex role of age within
one's social world. This is a reductionist sensemaking explanation for
46
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
Fig. 1. Definitions of generational cohort birth year ranges used
in the leadership and generations literature.
Note. Line endpoints indicate generational cohort minimum and
maximum values as reported by each study. If the authors pro-
vided ambiguous year parameters (e.g., “pre-1975,” Cox,
Hannif, & Rowley, 2014; “the early 1980s,” Nelson, 2012; “1975
and later,” Wilson, Squires, Widger, Cranley, & Tourangeau,
2008; “the 1980s,” Yi, Ribbens, & Morgan, 2010), approxima-
tions are reflected here (e.g., 1920 as minimum and 1975 as
maximum for Cox et al., 2014; 1980 to 1985 for Nelson, 2012;
1975 to 2000 for Wilson et al., 2008; 1980 to 1989 for Yi et al.,
2010). If only participant ages were provided, cohort year ranges
were calculated by subtracting participant age ranges from the
year of data collection, when provided by the authors, or from
the year of publication.
generational thinking (Rudolph & Zacher, 2015, 2017a). From the
standpoint of the “cognitive miser” (Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen,
1994), construing generations and general characteristics of people
who “belong” to them has a distinct adaptive advantage. Within com-
plex and dynamic work contexts, it is not surprising that it is simply
easier to understand age-related processes in terms of group-based
generational differences, rather than continuous maturational differ-
ences.
As Rudolph and Zacher (2015) suggest, a second explanation for the
pervasiveness of generations and assumed differences among them is
that they are strongly socially constructed. This is to say, in many ways,
we have “willed” generations and generational differences into being
simply by acknowledging them and by various sociocontextual ele-
ments that support their culturally embedded existence. This is
the social determinism explanation for generational thinking
(Rudolph & Zacher, 2015, 2017a). Research concerning leadership age
prototypes speaks to these phenomena. For example, a study by Spisak,
Grabo, Arvey, and van Vugt (2014) examined how the perceived age of
a leader maps onto follower preferences for different situational dy-
namics. Specifically, adopting an evolutionary theoretical perspective,
this research hypothesized and found support for the prediction that
younger leaders are favored during times of change, whereas older
leaders are favored in times of stability. This finding was replicated
across three empirical studies and suggests that these preferences serve
an adaptive function that is both culturally and socially situated
(see also Spisak, 2012, and similar arguments related to leader ap-
pearance offered by Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009, and more recently by
Antonakis & Eubanks, 2017).
Indeed, because many social institutions adopt a necessarily age-
graded structure, the social–cognitive and social constructivist ex-
planations for the pervasiveness of generations are both complementary
and mutually determined. On the one hand, we make sense of age by
relatively automatic categorization (i.e., younger vs. older leader;
generation “A” vs. generation “B”) because it is optimally efficient to do
so. On the other hand, we have consequently designed various aspects
of social institutions to support and justify our efforts at such categor-
izations.
Organizations support this process as well, as many administrative
systems (e.g., recruitment and selection, promotion, retirement) are
inherently age-graded in that they follow a prototypical en-
try–ascension–exit timeline (Lawrence, 1984). Indeed, the sociological
life course perspective (Diewald & Mayer, 2009) would argue that
C.W. Rudolph et al.
because initial entry into the workforce generally occurs en masse, it
follows a cohort-like biocultural process (see Schaie, 1986).
Theoretical frameworks of leadership and generations
Scholars have written about leadership and generations for quite
some time. Early works on this topic generally considered the concept
of generations in terms of continuous lineage and leadership succession,
and the implications that these have for transitions of power and the
maintenance of continuity within organizations from one generation to
another. It is important to note that this conceptualization of genera-
tions in a genealogical sense is quite different from more contemporary
treatments of generations in the IO/OB/HR literature as separate and
meaningful units in and of themselves. For example, early work by
Gusfield (1957) discusses the emergence of age-graded hierarchies of
authority within organizations, and outlines how various intergenera-
tional conflicts may arise when such organizations are faced with
questions regarding the allotment of power and the adoption of new
policies. Other early works reflect similar questions about leadership
and the role of generations. For example, Diamant (1960) describes
generational differences in political leadership. Still other early works
by Paul and Schooler (1970) and DeSalvia and Gemmill (1971) both
report on “generation gaps” in work values that may influence man-
agerial outcomes. A more recent, yet by many accounts “seminal” for its
sheer impact (over 1300 citations on Google Scholar), work concerning
generational differences by Smola and Sutton (2002) concludes with
the suggestion that, “Continued enquiry in this field is important to
business leaders as they attempt to understand, motivate, and suc-
cessfully lead the individuals in their organizations and function as
good corporate citizens” (p. 381).
In his classic work on leadership and organizational culture, Schein
(2004) invokes a lineage-based argument to explain how leadership
influences culture within organizations. Schein refers to the unique role
that leadership plays in the establishment and maintenance of organi-
zational culture as an “evolutionary perspective,” suggesting that, “…
cultures begin with leaders who impose their own values and as-
sumptions on a group. If that group is successful and the assumptions
come to be taken for granted, we then have a culture that will define for
later generations of members what kinds of leadership are acceptable”
(p. 2). Schein also applies this argument to explain the transmission of
culture via a socialization process across “generations” of organiza-
tional members: “Once a group has a culture, it will pass elements of
this culture on to new generations of group members…” (p. 18). Of
note, these arguments provide no inherent meaning to the idea of
generations other than as a unit of succession and transmission of
culture within organizations. Moreover, generational differences and
their potential associations with work outcomes are not invoked here
at all.
Other theorists take a very different perspective on the role of
generations for understanding leadership. They make several strong
assumptions about how generations operate in the workplace, and how
they influence leadership processes and outcomes, specifically. The
underlying argument is that members of different generational
cohorts desire and/or require different forms of leadership to realize
optimal performance (e.g., Anderson et al., 2017; Deal, Stawiski,
Gentry, & Cullen, 2014). This argument has given rise to several myths
about leadership and generations recently outlined by Rudolph and
Zacher (2017b): 1) That generational differences affect work attitudes,
motivations, and behaviors, 2) that generational group membership
matters more than age-related changes or contemporaneous contextual
influences for predicting work attitudes, motivations, and behaviors,
and 3) that actively managing generational differences (i.e., applying
differentiated strategies for leading members of generational groups)
can alleviate differences in work attitudes, motivations, and behaviors.
Two ancillary assumptions about generations support these myths.
First, because assumed differences are tied to generations (and hence
47
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
one's birth year), they are relatively immutable and thus must be ac-
tively managed in the workplace. This assumption rests upon a fallacy
that others have characterized as “cohort determinism” (Walker, 1993),
which is the idea that assumed qualities of generational cohorts are
prescriptive of the behavior exhibited by its members. Second, a failure
to manage generational differences will somehow be maladaptive to the
success of an organization (i.e., assumed differences between genera-
tions are understood to be negative or counterproductive if left un-
checked).
Bennis and Thomas (2002) present an inductively generated theory
of leadership and generations based on 43 interviews with both
younger and older leaders (pejoratively labeled as “geeks” and “gee-
zers,” respectively). The crux of this theoretical model is that leadership
competencies develop because formative events (i.e., those surrounding
one's “era”) along with individual differences mutually inform a process
that is termed a “crucible.” According to Bennis and Thomas, “It is a
model that explains how individuals make meaning out of often diffi-
cult events–we call them crucibles–and how the process of ‘meaning-
making’ both galvanizes individuals and gives them their distinctive
voice” (p. 4).
The crucible model attempts to differentiate between the concepts
of generation and era, however these two mechanisms are somewhat
indistinct. For example, generations are defined by Bennis and Thomas
as “those periods that occur every eighteen years or so and define all
who fall within them” (p. 10). Eras, in contrast, “…are characterized by
defining events, and may occur every twenty years or less” (p. 10).
According to Bennis and Thomas, differences between the “analog” and
“digital” eras define the current workforce. We suggest that these two
concepts (generation and era) are indistinct as defined by Bennis and
Thomas, because the idea of era closely maps onto the proposed causal
mechanisms that are posited to give rise to generations in other lit-
eratures (i.e., this distinction is inherently tautological when compared
to other theories of generations). For example, from a sociological
perspective, Eyerman and Turner (1998) offer that generations are
groups of people born during the same time span who have shared si-
milar life experiences (e.g., “eras” as Bennis and Thomas would de-
scribe them) simply because of sharing similar chronological age. Si-
milar sentiments are presented in earlier work by Mannheim, 1952.
Two other points raised by Bennis and Thomas bear some further
consideration here. First, these scholars correctly offer that, “Members
of the same generation may react quite differently to the opportunities
and challenges that each new era creates” (p. 10). As we have sug-
gested, the overemphasis on the role of generations for shaping psy-
chosocial manifestations of attitudes, motivations, and behaviors has
been deemed the “cohort trap” (Walker, 1993). Second, Bennis and
Thomas take a far less deterministic perspective on the role that gen-
erations play in shaping leadership behaviors than other perspectives
(e.g., Anderson et al., 2017). For example, Bennis and Thomas offer
that, “The one key asset that our leaders share, whether young or old, is
their adaptive capacity. The ability to process new experience and find
their meaning and to integrate them into one's life is the signature skill
of leaders…” (p. 18). The introduction of this concept of adaptive ca-
pacity across age groups that supersedes generations further erodes
their power for explaining the emergence of leadership competencies,
and hints at a developmental perspective rather than a “gen-
erationalized” one. Indeed, this notion of the potential for change re-
flects the basic tenets of the lifespan developmental perspective (i.e.,
interindividual differences in intraindividual change; see Nesselroade,
1991).
More recently, a theoretical extension of the leader–member ex-
change (LMX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) theoretical framework by Graen
and Schiemann (2013) suggests the need for organizations to design
team structures to optimally and strategically engage members of
younger generations. This need is justified based upon the assumption
that such individuals have undergone an “…entitled socialization pro-
cess, and have seldom been subordinated by a command and control
C.W. Rudolph et al.
style from parents, teachers, or other authority figures until perhaps
their first organizational role” (p. 459). Graen and Schiemann's (2013)
extended LMX theoretical framework therefore integrates the idea of
generational differences, and this integration is supported by the as-
sertion that, “Recent data suggest that the leadership of people is not
adequate work [sic] engaging millennial employees (Espinoza,
Ukleja, & Rusch, 2010). We cannot afford to lose the creativity and
other contributions of this generation as a result of less than friendly
managerial climates” (p. 458). Of note, the Espinoza et al. (2010) text
cited herein is a popular-press text, which espouses the need to differ-
entially manage millennials. Thus, all of the assertions offered in sup-
port of this model are based on secondary data that, like all research
concerning generational differences, are of questionable validity.
The crux of the Graen and Schiemann model is that leadership cli-
mates must be adapted to be more “millennial friendly” (p. 452). Such
climates should be adapted by enhancing leadership skills, changing
reward and incentive systems, and recognizing those individuals who
model effective leadership behaviors. Of note, these very broad sug-
gestions could apply to changing organizational leadership climate in
general. Moreover, Graen and Schiemann derive a variety of more
specific propositions from their model. The first and most relevant
proposition is that, “The new ‘Leadership-Motivating Excellence’ prac-
tices will be more effective with members of the millennial generation
than traditional command and control management practices” (p. 462).
Speaking to the possible policy implications of this model, these ideas
have been translated into a SHRM and SIOP co-sponsored white paper
(Graen & Grace, 2015) and an associated text by Grace and Graen
(2014) that forewarns the coming “millennial spring” and the need to
radically redesign organizational structures to account for the on-
slaught of this new generation in the workforce.
A more recent “generationalized” reconceptualization of various
leadership theories by Anderson et al. (2017) offers 16 propositions on
how various assumptions regarding generational differences must be
integrated into leadership theory. Their propositions are organized
within five main categories related to specific leadership theories, in-
cluding transformational leadership, information processing (i.e., cog-
nitions and attributions regarding leadership), leader–member ex-
change, authentic leadership, and ethical leadership, as well as a
broader category pertaining to leaders in general. To take one example,
citing work by Twenge and colleagues (Twenge, 2010; Twenge et al.,
2010) on generational increases in individualism and the desire to
reach personal rather than collective goals, the authors contend that
transformational leadership is less effective for motivating members of
younger generations to place organizational needs above their own.
They also propose that members of younger generations, who are
purported in the generational work values literature (e.g.,
Hansen & Leuty, 2012) to be more highly motivated by extrinsic factors,
are less motivated to pursue quality relationships with leaders (i.e.,
LMX relationships). Aside from changes in individualism and extrinsic
motivation, the authors' other propositions rest on additional assumed
generational shifts in work values and attitudes. Decreased work cen-
trality and an increased focus on work–life balance are cited as sources
of younger generations' reduced desire to “emulate leaders with a
strong work ethic” (p. 252) and, thereby, the degradation of lea-
der–follower relationships between authentically work-driven leaders
and younger generations (e.g., Twenge & Kasser, 2013). Similarly,
cross-temporal increases in self-entitlement and rejection of authority
(e.g., Laird, Harvey, & Lancaster, 2015) are cited as the source of em-
ployees' decreased interest in being led by others, which, in turn, is
assumed to lead to the re-definition of traditional leader–follower re-
lationships and to prompt reformulation of leadership theory to fit these
shifts. Interestingly, the authors also present evidence to contradict
many of their points, including suppositions that millennials may
benefit from the personalized attention and feedback provided by
transformational leaders and could pragmatically use high-quality LMX
relationships to attain the extrinsic rewards they seek.
48
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
Finally, while the works of Schein, Bennis and Thomas, Graen and
Schiemann, and Anderson and colleagues represent reasonably codified
theoretical perspectives on leadership and generations (i.e., in terms of
developing explicit and testable propositions and predictions), there
have been other less-formal attempts to outline new theories of lea-
dership and generations. For example, Balda and Mora (2011) integrate
the concept of generations into the existing servant‑leadership model.
The crux of this integration is that, “…millennials will actively seek
leadership opportunities as well as extrinsic rewards for leadership
roles due to parental messages about the benefits of leadership in terms
of individual achievement and success…” (p. 19). This argument is
offered on the basis of assumptions that “…millennials need hand-
holding (i.e., attention), rapid advancement, and job flexibility…” be-
cause of their “…powerful egos and selfish ambition…” (p. 19). A si-
milarly vague model, “cloud leadership,” is offered by Rodriguez and
Rodriguez (2015). This model suggests that, “The millennial require
[sic] information in a lighting speed using the latest gadgets and apps
with flexibility and diversity. A ‘Cloud Leader’ shows availability ‘to be
accessed’ with an open schedule for personal encounters and gains re-
spect and ascendency by showing updated, pertinent and condensed
information” (p. 859).
Review of the empirical literature on leadership and generations
In this section, we outline the results of a literature review of pri-
mary empirical studies that have invoked the notion of generational
differences to understand leadership phenomena and/or have applied
generational theories of leadership. Interestingly, there is relatively
little empirical research that studies leadership and generations, sug-
gesting that most of the literature that claims evidence for generational
differences in leadership phenomena is based on little more than
(theoretical) supposition and (anecdotal) conjecture. While there is
scant empirical evidence present in the literature to refer to, this has not
stopped a minor proliferation of peer-reviewed academic journal arti-
cles that purport to summarize such phenomena.
To identify the literature relevant to leadership and generations, we
searched common databases (e.g., Web of Science, Google Scholar) for
the search terms “leadership” and “generations.” We also conducted
forward searches from Arsenault's (2004) frequently cited and foun-
dational study of generational differences and leadership preferences.
Then, we conducted additional backward searches from relevant stu-
dies that were obtained through this process to locate further literature
pertaining to leadership and generations. Of the literature identified via
our searches, we further considered only empirical studies that were
published in peer-reviewed, SSCI (social sciences citation index) or ESCI
(emerging sources citation index) journals, or non-indexed but society-
sponsored (e.g., American Psychological Association; Society for the
Advancement of Management), journals (K = 18). Our review includes
K = 14 (77.78%) studies from SSCI journals, K = 1 (5.56%) studies
from ESCI journals, and K = 3 (16.67%) studies from society-sponsored
journals. Table 1 summarizes the studies reviewed here; Fig. 1 provides
a visual representation of the generational cohort year ranges used in
these studies. In the following, we first review studies that used cross-
sectional survey studies, followed by a review of mixed-method ap-
proaches. Unless otherwise specified, these studies utilized participant
samples from a variety of industry sectors.
Cross-sectional survey studies
As is the case with many other topics, cross-sectional survey
methods are most common in the leadership and generations literature.
While many studies directly analyze leadership variables (e.g., ranking
leader attributes), a number of other studies examine generational
differences in work outcomes to generate recommendations for cohort-
specific leadership practices. Wilson et al. (2008), for example, were
interested in how components of job satisfaction that differ across
 Table 1
Empirical studies of leadership and generations.
Citation
Ahn and Ettner (2014)b
a
Arsenault (2004)
a
Brunetto et al. (2013)
Brunetto, Farr-Wharton,
and Shacklock (2012)a
Collins, Hair, and Rocco
(2009)a
Cox et al. (2014)a
Farag, Tullai-McGuinness,
and Anthony (2009)a
Farr-Wharton, Brunetto,
and Shacklock (2011)a
Gentry et al. (2011)c
Kultalahti and Viitala
49
(2014)a
Murphy, Gibson, and
Greenwood (2010)c
Nelson (2012)a
Sessa et al. (2007)c
Shacklock and Brunetto
(2012)a
Wieck, Prydun, and Walsh
(2002)a
Wilson et al. (2008)a
Yi et al. (2010)a
Yu and Miller (2005)a
a
SSCI journal.
b
ESCI journal.
c
Society-sponsored journal.
Brief description
Reports a study of generational differences in
leadership values.
Reports a study of “admired” leadership
characteristics.
Reports a study of generational differences in various
work outcomes for nurses.
Reports a study of generational differences in
satisfaction with training and supervisor–subordinate
communication in nurses.
Reports a study of age-reversed
supervisor–subordinate dyads, leadership
expectations, and leadership effectiveness.
Reports a study of generational differences in
perceptions of and responses to different leadership
styles.
Reports a study of generational differences in
perceptions of leadership style and climate.
Reports a study of generational differences in
supervisor–nurse relationship quality.
Reports a study of the influence of generational
differences in leadership practices on leadership skills.
Reports a study examining “millennial” responses to
positive and negative work motivation-related
anecdotes.
Reports a study of generational differences in
instrumental and terminal work values for managers
and non-managers.
Reports a study of generational differences in
leader–member exchange and other work outcomes in
nurses.
Reports two large studies of differences in leadership
preferences between generations.
Reports a study of generational differences in factors
impacting continuance intentions (e.g.,
supervisor–nurse relationship).
Reports a study of leadership trait preferences in two
generations of nurses.
Reports a study of generational differences in various
categories of job satisfaction.
Reports a study of desired manager attributes in
different generational groups.
Reports a study on generational differences in
preferred leadership style.
Methodology & sample size
Cross-sectional mixed-methods; N = 150
Cross-sectional mixed-methods; N = 790
Cross-sectional survey; N = 726
Cross-sectional survey; N = 900
Cross-sectional survey; N = 319
Cross-sectional mixed-methods; N = 57
(interviews); 5–6 in each of 6 focus groups
Cross-sectional survey; N = 394
Cross-sectional survey; N = 900
Cross-sectional survey; N = 6869
Cross-sectional qualitative survey; N = 62
Cross-sectional survey; N = 4446
Cross-sectional survey; N = 550
Cross-sectional survey; N = 447, 20,640
Cross-sectional survey; N = 900
Cross-sectional survey; N = 234
Cross-sectional survey; N = 6541
Cross-sectional survey; N = 277
Cross-sectional survey; N = 437
Generations of interest
“Older,” “younger”
Veterans, baby boomers,
Generation X, Generation Y
Baby boomers, Generation X,
Generation Y
Baby boomers, Generation X,
Generation Y
“Older,” “younger”
Pre-1975, 1975–1986, post-1986
Baby boomers, Generation X
Baby boomers, Generation X,
Generation Y
Baby boomers, Generation X,
Generation Y
Millennials
Baby boomers, Generation X,
Generation Y
Baby boomers, Generation X,
Generation Y
Matures, early baby boomers, late
baby boomers, early Gen-Xers, late
Gen-Xers, millennials
Baby boomers, Generation X,
Generation Y
“Twenty-somethings,” baby
boomers
Baby boomers, Generation X,
Generation Y
“Cultural Revolution,” “Social
Reform,” millennials
Baby boomers, Generation X
Summary of reported findings
C.W. Rudolph et al.
There are few observed difference in leadership values between
“generations” (i.e., CEOs vs. MBA students).
Members of all generations admired “honesty” most and
“imagination” least among preferred leadership characteristics.
Supervisor–subordinate relationship satisfaction, as well as
teamwork satisfaction, did not differ across generational cohorts,
although some other outcomes did.
Satisfaction was uniformly low in the three generational groups
studied
Older workers with younger supervisors expected and reported less
effective leadership, supporting the “reverse pygmalion effect.”
Each generation expressed leadership style and attribute
preferences (e.g., oldest generation valued directive as well as
performance-oriented leadership).
Generational differences in perceptions of unit climate, but not
leadership style, were observed.
Supervisor–nurse relationship quality differed in its importance for
other positive work outcomes across generational cohorts.
Managers from different generations show more similarity than
differences in terms of both favored leadership practices and skills.
Qualitative responses suggest that millennials prefer encouraging
and attentive supervisors who support intrinsic motivators (e.g.,
development opportunities).
Generational differences were observed in both classes of values,
and the authors conclude that Gen Y employees would benefit from
leader support for status, rank, and ambition values.
Observed generational disparities were very minimal, and nurse
cohorts seemed to be more homogenous than different.
There is variability in preferences for different leadership styles that
can be tied to artificially-constructed generational groupings.
All three generations studied were influenced by work attachment,
but each cohort also manifested specific differences in relative
factor importance.
There were no differences found in generational rankings of
desirable and undesirable leadership traits.
Gen X and Gen Y nurses would respond well to leaders who support
self-scheduling, career development, formal recognition, and shared
decision-making.
Millennials “expect more” from their leaders than do other
generations, evidenced by differences in ratings of mentorship and
loyalty, among other traits.
Mixed results for culture-by-generation interactions on leadership
preferences.
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
C.W. Rudolph et al.
generations could be used as tools for leading and managing different
cohorts of nurses. As such, they examined job satisfaction differences
among registered nurses from different generations (“baby boomers”
(1940–1959), “Generation X” (1960–1974), “Generation Y” (1975 and
later)) using a cross-sectional survey design. Their results indicated that
generational cohorts did not differ in their satisfaction with social in-
teractions in the workplace; in fact, no differences between Gen X and
Gen Y were observed at all. The baby boomers, however, manifested
higher satisfaction with extrinsic rewards (i.e., compensation and
benefits) and scheduling than did Gen X and Gen Y, as well as higher
satisfaction with professional opportunities, praise and recognition, and
control and responsibility than did Gen X. As such, the authors re-
commend that nurse leaders support self-scheduling, career develop-
ment opportunities, formal recognition programs, and shared govern-
ance models of decision-making to better lead and retain Gen X and Gen
Y nurses.
Farag et al. (2009) also examined generational differences in re-
gistered nurses with a cross-sectional survey approach, focusing on
“baby boomer” (1946–1964) and “Gen-Xer” (1965–1980) nurses' per-
ceptions of their manager's leadership style (i.e., transformational,
transactional, passive–avoidant) and their unit climate. They found no
generational differences in perceived leadership styles, but they did find
generational differences in perceptions of unit climate. Specifically,
baby boomers characterized their climate as warmer and more ad-
ministratively supportive than did Gen-Xers. Gen-Xers were particularly
dissatisfied with rewards and recognition, their (in)ability to “speak
their mind,” at work, and the focus of their manager's energy and re-
sources (i.e., they prefer managers who focus on “getting things done”
within the nursing unit rather than at an organizational level). The
authors attributed these differences to Gen-Xers' need for immediate
gratification as well as their reluctance to follow traditional chains of
command, and to adhere to leader-imposed structure or expectations.
In the first of a number of studies by these authors, Farr-Wharton
et al. (2011) used cross-sectional surveys to examine the quality of
nurses' relationships with their supervisor and their impact on intuitive
decision-making as well as consequent perceived empowerment and
affective commitment. Specifically, they found that the super-
visor–nurse relationship quality explained more variance in intuitive
decision-making in Gen X (1965–1979) and Y (1980–2000) nurses as
compared to baby boomer (1946–1964) nurses. The authors conclude
that management practices for nurses must, as a result, become more
sensitive to the differing importance of supervisor–nurse relationships
for workplace outcomes across different generational cohorts and re-
commended “stratified, targeted” management policies. Shacklock and
Brunetto (2012) further reported findings from this sample with addi-
tional outcomes and different analyses included. They examined gen-
erational differences in factors affecting continuance intentions, in-
cluding supervisor–nurse relationships, autonomy, and flexible working
arrangements. They found that all three generations' intentions to
continue working were influenced by work attachment, while Xers
were also influenced by their supervisory relationship and baby
boomers were influenced by work–family conflict, work autonomy,
satisfying interpersonal relationships, and work centrality. Taken to-
gether, the authors recommend that leaders focus on improving re-
lationships with Gen X and baby boomer subordinates and take a more
complex approach with boomers, such as supporting participative de-
cision-making and providing time and opportunities for peer relation-
ships. They further suggested that Gen X and Y may benefit most from
leaders who help them develop a “passion for nursing.”
Brunetto et al. (2012) examined a variety of generational differ-
ences in a nursing sample using a comparable sampling and methodo-
logical approach. Among other variables, the 2012 study examined
satisfaction with training and development and supervisor–subordinate
communication relationship quality (i.e., communication frequency,
mode, direction, content) using self-report surveys completed by “baby
boomer” (1946–1965), “Gen X” (1966–1980), and “Gen Y”
50
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
(1980–2000) nurses. The authors found no differences in (dis)satisfac-
tion with supervisor–nurse communication relationships or training
and development opportunities across generational groups, suggesting
that low levels of satisfaction were present regardless of one's genera-
tional cohort membership.
Brunetto et al. (2013) conducted a similar study with a sample of
nurses, finding that the supervisor–subordinate relationship and team-
work satisfaction did not differ across generational cohorts (although
other outcomes, such as affective commitment, well-being, and turn-
over intentions, did). While most of their operationalizations of gen-
erations were similar to previous studies, the “baby boomer” cohort
differed, encompassing individuals born during the years of 1943 to
1964. The authors recommend generation-targeted retention strategies
to counteract nursing turnover, particularly given that supervisor–nurse
relationships, teamwork, and well-being explained almost half of the
variance in affective commitment and turnover intentions across co-
horts.
Nelson (2012) also studied nurses and supervisor–subordinate re-
lationships (i.e., LMX), as well as other related outcomes such as
work–family conflict (WFC), discretionary power, and affective com-
mitment, using a cross-sectional survey approach. This study examined
“baby boomers” (1946–1965), “Gen X” (1966–1980), and “Gen Y”
(early 1980s) as generational cohorts, finding mean differences in su-
pervisor relationship satisfaction across the three groups. These differ-
ences were very small, however, and baby boomers and Gen-Xers in
particular seemed to be more homogenous than different in their sa-
tisfaction. Although the other results of the study (i.e., path analysis
examining LMX, WFC, discretionary power, and commitment) did not
suggest the three former variables accounted for a high percentage of
variation in affective commitment, their impact was even less pro-
nounced in Gen-Yers in particular. Overall, there was neither support
for substantial generational differences in relationship satisfaction nor
clear management practice recommendations as a result of the study.
Instead of examining more general workplace outcome variables as
they relate to leadership, Murphy et al. (2010) used a ranking approach
to examine generational differences in work values. These authors used
the Rokeach Value Survey to assess generational differences in 18
terminal (i.e., aspirational) and 18 instrumental (i.e., modes of conduct)
values. Their cross-sectional sample represented “baby boomers”
(1946–1964), “Generation X” (1965–1979), and “Generation Y” (1980
and later) cohorts in both managerial and non-managerial roles from
airline companies, public sector organizations, and government agen-
cies. Differences in terminal and instrumental value rankings were
found for both managers (30 of the 36 traits) and non-managers (36 of
the 36 traits), and the authors used this data to derive recommendations
for applied management practices. While baby boomer and Gen X non-
managers placed less value on ambition as compared to capability, Gen
Y non-managers ranked ambition as the most important instrumental
value. Thus, the authors suggest that this cohort is more concerned with
status and rank than are their other generational counterparts, and
leaders would do well to support these instrumental values for this
generation of employees.
Rather than examining individuals in isolation, Collins et al. (2009)
examined age-reversed supervisor–subordinate dyads (i.e., older
workers with younger supervisors) and their respective leadership ex-
pectations and ratings of leadership effectiveness. The authors utilized a
cross-sectional sample for their survey-based study and found that older
workers (i.e., ages 50 and above) with younger supervisors (i.e., ages 39
or below) expected less effective leadership behaviors as compared to
all other supervisor–subordinate dyads (i.e., older–older, young-
er–younger, older–younger). This same effect was found in older sub-
ordinates' ratings of their younger supervisors' effectiveness as well. The
authors suggested that these findings confirm the reverse pygmalion
effect, with subordinates' (lower) expectations having a deleterious ef-
fect on their supervisors' performance. Moreover, they attribute these
exchange relationship effects to generational differences.
C.W. Rudolph et al.
While these studies are not explicitly linked to leadership attributes,
other authors utilize much more direct (i.e., focused on leadership
preferences rather than work values, generational perceptions, or
dyadic phenomena) methods in their surveys. Yu and Miller (2005)
utilized two generational groups for their cross-sectional survey study:
“baby boomers” (1945–1964) and “Xers” (1965–1980). While they did
not find generational group differences in work expectations, work
characteristics, and preferred leadership styles in the overall sample,
they did find differences between the two industries included in their
sample (i.e., education and manufacturing sectors). Specifically, they
found generational differences within the manufacturing (but not the
education) group, such that baby boomers preferred a task-oriented
leadership style, while Xers preferred a relationship-oriented leadership
style. Generational differences in work values, attitudes, and expecta-
tions (e.g., job security, job satisfaction, reward preferences) were also
observed in the manufacturing group within the sample, but the specific
manifestations of these differences were unfortunately not elaborated
upon in publication. In contrast, Gentry et al. (2011) explored gen-
erational differences from a managerial perspective. They used a cross-
sectional survey approach to examine generational differences in per-
ceptions of leadership skill importance and actual leadership skill in
these areas. They included “baby boomer” (1946–1963), “Gen X”
(1964–1976), and “millennial” (1976 and later) cohorts in public and
private sector organizations, finding that managers from different
generations showed more similarities than differences in preferred
practices and skills, with no generational skill or preference effect sizes
of practical significance.
Wieck et al. (2002) examined desired leadership traits using cross-
sectional samples of nursing students and management, which were
intended to be representative of both “emerging workforce” (ages
18–35, the “twenty-something generation”) and “entrenched work-
force” (35 +, the “baby boomers”) cohorts, respectively. These re-
spondents were asked to indicate and rank the six leadership traits that
they viewed as most and least desirable (each with three traits, re-
spectively). There were no differences between the generational groups
with regard to desirable and undesirable leadership traits, with both
groups valuing honesty, supportiveness, and good communication,
among other qualities. Still, areas of divergence between the genera-
tions are noted: while “twenty-somethings” placed higher value on af-
firmation and confidence building (i.e., leaders who are “team players”
and “motivate others”) as well as knowledge, baby boomers valued
different professional skills (i.e., “high integrity,” “fair,” and “empow-
ering”). Furthermore, the twenty-somethings ranked vision and a sense
of humor as less desirable in leaders, while the baby boomers ranked
friendliness and availability as less desirable.
This trait ranking approach has been used by others in the literature
as well. For instance, Sessa et al. (2007) conducted two large survey-
based studies of leadership attribute and behavior preferences. They
defined six generational groups of interest (“matures” (1925–1945),
“early baby boomers” (1946–1954), “late baby boomers” (1955–1963),
“early Gen-Xers” (1964–1976), “late Gen-Xers” (1977–1982), and
“millennials” (1983 or later)), although not all generational groups
were represented in both studies. In examining respondents' top 12
rankings of leadership attributes in the first study, the authors con-
cluded that there are similarities as well as differences related to gen-
erational cohort membership. All cohorts valued honesty, organiza-
tional knowledge, listening, and helping others. However, matures
valued delegation more than other groups, while millennials valued
focus, dedication, and optimism more highly, and honesty, big-picture
orientation, and cultural sensitivity less, than the other groups. There
were additional differences as well, such as the high value placed on
feedback by late bloomers and Gen-Xers (and the relatively low value
on feedback attributed by millennials), and younger generations' pre-
ference for individually caring leaders and day-to-day focus (rather
than “big-picture focus,” as with older generations). Furthermore, their
behavioral analysis (using a 360-degree leadership evaluation tool)
51
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
showed parallels with these attribute rankings, with managers in cer-
tain cohorts manifesting behaviors in line with attributes that were
highly valued by those in their cohort (e.g., matures were more likely to
exhibit delegation behaviors).
Yi et al. (2010) also surveyed generational differences in desired
manager attributes. These authors used cohorts specified in accordance
with political and societal shifts in their country (i.e., China), including
the “Cultural Revolution” (1960s), “Social Reform” (1970s), and “mil-
lennial” (1980s) generations. All three generations differed in their
preferences of manager “ambitiousness,” with the Social Reform re-
spondents expressing the strongest desired manager identification with
this trait, followed by millennials and then by Cultural Reform re-
spondents. Additionally, mentorship, “team player,” and loyalty traits
were most highly preferred by millennials, followed by Social Reform
and then by Cultural Revolution respondents. Taken together, the au-
thors conclude that this is evidence for millennials “expecting more”
from their leaders than do other generational cohorts. In summary,
results of cross-sectional survey studies on leadership and generations
provide mixed results regarding the existence of generational differ-
ences in leadership preferences. The recommendations derived from
these studies are accordingly contradictory. For instance, it is difficult
to reconcile the need to focus on improving relationships with boomers
with their low ranking of leader availability and friendliness
(Shacklock & Brunetto, 2012; Wieck et al., 2002).
Mixed-method approaches
In the leadership and generations literature, a number of divergent
methodological approaches (i.e., aside from cross-sectional surveys)
have been undertaken. In perhaps one of the most formative papers in
this literature, Arsenault (2004) conducted a cross-sectional mixed-
methods study with four generational groups: “veterans” (1922–1943),
“baby boomers” (1944–1960), “Xers” (1961–1980), and “nexters”
(1981–2000). This study was intended to investigate different genera-
tions' cultural experiences as well as their views of admired leadership
characteristics (e.g., “ambitious,” “caring,” etc.). For this latter goal,
Arsenault (2004) made use of a modified version of the Checklist of
Admired Leaders (Kouzes & Posner, 2002), upon which respondents
were asked to rank 10 leadership characteristics. Analysis of the four
groups' mean rankings indicated that veterans and baby boomers
ranked honesty and caring as more important than did Xers and nexters,
while Xers and nexters ranked determination and ambition as more
important than veterans and baby boomers. However, most of the traits
(e.g., honesty, loyalty, competence, and many of the others) were in
similar relative ranking positions across the generations (e.g., all groups
ranked “honesty” as most important, “imagination” as least important).
Arsenault (2004) also used qualitative data from interviews, and spe-
cifically those responses pertaining to individuals' “favorite leaders,” to
corroborate trait ranking inferences: for example, Xers and nexters
noted admired leaders such as Bill Gates and Tiger Woods, which,
Arsenault (2004) argues, supports these groups' preferred leadership
qualities of competence and ambition.
Ahn and Ettner (2014) completed a qualitative study of generational
differences in leadership values, conducting interviews and surveys
with both business leaders (i.e., CEOs) and MBA students to examine
their views on and rankings of leadership values (e.g., leadership by
example, good judgment) derived from Virgil's 19th century B.C.E. epic
poem The Aeneid. There were very few differences observed between
these two “generations,” with only integrity (rated more highly by ex-
ecutives) and trust (rated more highly by MBA students) having dif-
ferent ratings between cohorts. Cox et al. (2014) took a mixed-methods
approach as well, including interviews, focus groups, and case studies,
to assess generational differences in perceptions of and responses to
different leadership styles (i.e., participative, performance-oriented).
Similar to Yi et al.' (2010) approach, they adopted nation-specific
generational cohorts for their study, examining (a) those who were
C.W. Rudolph et al.
born before 1975, (b) those born between 1975 and 1986, and (c) those
born after 1986 (as 1975 and 1986 were established as key social and
historical turning points in Vietnam). They concluded that those in the
oldest generational group were characterized by “resilience,” naturally
preferring a strict hierarchical order and directive leadership but also
open and adaptive to performance-oriented leadership. The middle
generation was characterized by “adaptability,” as well as a need for
autonomy and comfort with both participative- and performance-or-
iented leadership. The youngest generation (referred to as the “arrival”
generation) was highly individualistic and willing to question their
leaders' decisions, valuing autonomy, delegation, and proactive in-
volvement in setting objectives within performance-oriented leadership
contexts.
In yet another approach, Kultalahti and Viitala's (2014) study, which
gathered data using the method of empathy-based stories through Fa-
cebook, was primarily concerned with “millennials'” (1982–2000) mo-
tivational influences in the workplace. By examining millennials' re-
sponses to positive and negative work motivation-related anecdotes, the
authors concluded that “nice” (i.e., supportive and attentive) supervisors
and intrinsic motivating factors (e.g., development opportunities) were
most relevant to this generation. Subsequently, they recommend leaders
adopt a “coaching” style for millennial employees. In summary, the re-
sults of these mixed-method studies on leadership and generations are
equivocal in nature: while some qualitative differences between gen-
erational cohorts were found, particularly in terms of leadership trait
rankings, many of these thematic divergences are not mutually exclusive
(e.g., “resilience” and “adaptability” can coexist; Cox et al., 2014) and
suggest overlap between generations.
Recommendations for leadership theory, research, and practice
Considering the preceding critique and review, and the arguments
we have offered regarding the dubious nature of applying generational
thinking to the study of leadership, we are left to answer the question,
“If not generations, then what?” To address this question, we next
consider the lifespan developmental perspective as a promising alter-
native way of representing age-related leadership phenomena (in-
cluding both leader and follower processes and outcomes), as well as
leadership development. Because this theoretical perspective focuses on
individual trajectories of continuous development, it is arguably better
positioned to explain age-related differences and changes in leaders' and
followers' attitudinal, motivational, and behavioral outcomes across
time. Our discussion is based on and expands previous research that has
applied the lifespan developmental perspective to understanding lea-
dership processes and outcomes (e.g., Day, 2011; Walter & Scheibe,
2013; Zacher et al., 2015).
A lifespan perspective on leadership
The lifespan perspective is an integrative meta-theory that origi-
nated from the field of developmental psychology. It focuses on general
principles of intraindividual development, interindividual differences
in developmental trajectories, and malleability of development at dif-
ferent ages (Baltes, 1987; Baltes, Reese, & Lipsitt, 1980; Nesselroade,
1991). For example, lifespan researchers have observed that, on
average, fluid cognitive abilities such as fast information processing,
memory, and reasoning decline with advancing age (Baltes,
Staudinger, & Lindenberger, 1999). However, research also shows that
people differ not only in the absolute level, but also the rate, of cog-
nitive decline. For example, people who work in more complex jobs or
occupations over their careers show slower cognitive decline and later
onset of dementia (Finkel, Andel, Gatz, & Pedersen, 2009;
Kohn & Schooler, 1978; Oltmanns et al., 2017). Moreover, intervention
research has shown that fluid cognitive abilities can be maintained
and improved even at higher ages (Hertzog, Kramer,
Wilson, & Lindenberger, 2009).
52
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
Adopting a lifespan perspective offers leadership researchers a more
sophisticated toolkit for thinking about age-related differences.
Compared to investigating simple mean differences between broad
generational groups, leadership research based on the lifespan per-
spective focuses on age as a continuous variable and developmental
changes, relationships of age with important leader and follower ex-
periences and behavior, and individual or contextual mediators and
moderators of relationships between age and leadership outcomes (cf.
Zacher, 2015). Beyond providing more sophisticated methodologies,
the lifespan perspective offers a way of thinking about aging that
transcends the limitations of generationalized thinking, reviewed above
(Rudolph, 2015). We next review core propositions from the lifespan
perspective to introduce this mode of thinking about aging to leader-
ship researchers. Then, we review leadership research that has already
successfully adopted lifespan thinking. Finally, we consider applica-
tions of the lifespan perspective for leadership development practice.
Core propositions of the lifespan perspective
Baltes (1987) put forward a set of seven propositions that char-
acterize the lifespan perspective and have implications for research on
age and leadership. First, the lifespan perspective assumes that devel-
opment entails both continuous (cumulative) and discontinuous
(emergent) processes, and that no age period (e.g., young, middle, older
age) is superior to others (Baltes, 1987). This implies that there is no
clear-cut distinction between “younger” and “older” leaders and fol-
lowers, and that leadership research could focus either on the entire
adult lifespan or on specific age-related transitions (e.g., school-to-work
transition, retirement entry). Second, development occurs along mul-
tiple dimensions (e.g., cognitive functioning, personality) and can take
multiple directions (e.g., growth, decline, maintenance). Third, gains
and losses in functioning are possible at all phases of the lifespan, but
losses increasingly outweigh gains with age. Fourth, development is
malleable at any age (i.e., plasticity; Baltes, 1987). These propositions
imply that leadership research based on a lifespan perspective needs to
take multidirectional age-related changes in multiple psychological
dimensions into account.
Fifth, development takes place in and is influenced by a given his-
torical and sociocultural context. Sixth, development is influenced by
age-graded normative influences (e.g., decline in memory experiences
by most people), history-graded normative influences (e.g., historical
events), and non-normative (idiosyncratic) influences (e.g., becoming
unemployed). Finally, the study of human development requires a
multilevel, interdisciplinary approach, ranging from the neurobiolo-
gical, to the behavioral, and the macro-institutional levels (Baltes,
1987). These propositions suggest that leadership research based on a
lifespan perspective needs to take contextual factors as moderators of
relationships of age with leadership processes and outcomes into ac-
count.
While Baltes (1987) outlined seven lifespan theoretical proposi-
tions, the fifth (i.e., that development is influenced by historical, evo-
lutionary, and sociocultural factors) and sixth propositions (i.e., that
development is the result of the interplay of normative age-graded in-
fluences, normative history-graded influences, and non-normative
idiosyncratic influences) are arguably most relevant to an alternative
way of representing age and leadership phenomena. Importantly, while
the lifespan perspective does not use the concept of generations, it ac-
knowledges that historical and sociocultural conditions can impact
experiences and behavior at the individual level. However, the lifespan
perspective does not assume that contextual factors have shared effects
on entire generations at an aggregate level (Rudolph & Zacher, 2017a).
Thus, a fundamental difference between a generational and a lifespan
approach to leadership concerns levels of analysis (Chen,
Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005). While the generational approach analyzes
relationships at the group level only, the lifespan perspective explicitly
takes a dynamic and multilevel approach.
C.W. Rudolph et al.
Previous applications of a lifespan perspective to leadership
Thirty years ago, Avolio and Gibbons (1988) pointed out that re-
search on leadership was largely “timeless,” in that it did not explicitly
adopt a lifespan perspective. An exception is an early article by Post
(1973), who suggested that average age-related increases in cerebral
degenerative disease may impact older leaders' cognitive functioning
and personality which, in turn, may negatively impact their political
and decision-making abilities. Moreover, Post (1973) proposed that,
“there is a tendency for an increased urge [among older leaders] to
accomplish long-cherished goals… Of particular importance is the in-
teraction of exaggerated pre-existing attitudes with decrease in judg-
ment” (p. 109).
Since Post's (1973) article, only a few researchers have used pro-
positions from the lifespan perspective to gain a better understanding of
leadership processes and outcomes (e.g., Day, 2011; Walter & Scheibe,
2013; Zacher et al., 2015; see Rosing & Jungmann, 2016, and
Truxillo & Burlacu, 2015, for reviews). However, in contrast to the
current article, this research does not explicitly position the lifespan
perspective as a useful alternative to the notion of generational differ-
ences in leader and follower behaviors and outcomes. In the following,
we describe initial theoretical and empirical approaches that demon-
strate the usefulness of adopting a lifespan perspective on leadership.
Reflecting on a set of special issue articles presenting longitudinal
studies in The Leadership Quarterly, Day (2011) observed that re-
searchers had neglected studying changes in leadership across the en-
tire adult lifespan: “The focal question in this area is why do some in-
dividuals continue to be effective and productive leaders well into their
60s, 70s and even beyond that age, yet others reach a pinnacle in their
40s and 50s?” (p. 569). Adopting a lifespan perspective, Day (2011)
suggested that investigating successful aging and lifelong development
with regard to leadership would be particularly important in times of
demographic change and workforce aging.
Walter and Scheibe (2013) reviewed the literature on relationships
of age with leadership behaviors (e.g., task, relational, and change-or-
iented) and outcomes (e.g., task and relational effectiveness), and
concluded that findings are highly inconsistent. They developed a fra-
mework of leadership, age, and emotional experiences based on the
lifespan literature on emotional aging (Charles & Carstensen, 2010).
According to the model, and consistent with the lifespan theory of so-
cioemotional selectivity (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999), lea-
ders' age influences leadership behaviors and outcomes via two paths,
an increase in emotional regulation abilities and an increase in posi-
tivity maintenance orientation with age. The links between leader age
and these mediators are moderated by leaders' “functional age” (e.g.,
physical health) and “psychosocial age” (e.g., future time perspective).
Furthermore, the effects of the mediators on leadership behaviors and
outcomes are moderated by cognitive and emotional demands pre-
sented by the work context.
A limitation of Walter and Scheibe's (2013) model is that it does not
take the role of followers into account. However, researchers have
emphasized the importance of followership in leadership processes and
outcomes (e.g., Foti, Hansbrough, Epitropaki, & Coyle, 2014; Uhl-Bien,
Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014), and generational research also focuses
frequently on follower preferences for certain leadership styles (e.g.,
Cox et al., 2014; Sessa et al., 2007). To address this gap, Zacher et al.
(2015) proposed a broader lifespan model of leadership that takes
follower characteristics into account. Specifically, they proposed that
leader age is not only associated with changes in certain leader traits
and characteristics (e.g., task competence, interpersonal attributes, and
motivation to lead) but, based on implicit leadership theory (Lord,
Foti, & De Vader, 1984), the relational demography approach
(Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989), and theorizing on organizational age norms
(Lawrence, 1984), also with follower attribution and identification
processes. The age difference between leaders and followers is likely to
influence the strength of associations of leader age, age-related
53
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
characteristics, and behaviors with follower attributions and identifi-
cation.
Over the past decade, a small but growing number of studies have
adopted a lifespan perspective to investigate the role of age in leader-
ship. For example, Kearney (2008) showed that age differences between
team leaders and team members moderated the association between
transformational leadership and team performance, such that the re-
lationship was positive when the team leader was older than the
members, and non-significant when the leader's age was more similar to
the average team age. In a series of studies, Zacher and colleagues
(Zacher & Bal, 2012; Zacher, Rosing, & Frese, 2011; Zacher, Rosing,
Henning, & Frese, 2011) showed that follower evaluations of older
leaders' effectiveness depend on whether followers perceive a fit be-
tween leaders' age and their behavior (e.g., older leaders are expected
to show more supportive and mentoring behavior than younger lea-
ders), as well as follower age stereotypes.
More recently, Buengler, Homan, and Voelpel (2016) showed that
younger leaders deviate from common leader prototypes in terms of
(older) age and (high) status. Moreover, these researchers found that
contingent reward behavior was more effective among younger com-
pared to older leaders in terms of negatively predicting turnover. In
contrast, participative leadership was ineffective among younger lea-
ders, supposedly because this form of leadership behavior requires
leaders to be prototypical and to have high status. Finally, Kunze and
Menges (2017) conducted a study on the consequences of average age
differences between leaders and followers, specifically age differences
between younger leaders and older followers, at the organizational
level. Using a sample of 61 companies, they found that greater average
age differences were associated with the experience of more negative
emotions, which, in turn, related to company performance. Moreover,
follower expression of emotions moderated these relationships, such
that there was only an indirect relationship between average age dif-
ferences and company performance if followers expressed their feelings
toward their supervisors. Overall, these recent empirical studies de-
monstrate the usefulness of adopting a lifespan perspective to study
age-related differences in leader and follower processes and outcomes.
Lifespan perspectives on leadership development
Beyond research on leadership processes and outcomes, the benefits
of lifespan thinking could inform leadership development practice.
Popular press works have offered a variety of top-down strategies for
managing generational differences via various provisions for devel-
oping younger generations at work (e.g., Dep, 2016; Espinoza & Ukleja,
2016). One recent publication has gone so far as to suggest that equine-
assisted interventions (i.e., leadership development involving horses)
may be useful for promoting leadership competency development
among millennials (Meola, 2016). Interestingly, more recent works
have offered corollary bottom-up strategies (i.e., specifically aimed at
members of younger generations) about how to overcome generational
differences when assuming leadership roles in organizations (e.g.,
Espinoza & Schwarzbart, 2015; Karsh & Templin, 2013). Apart from
the popular press, recent academic works have likewise emphasized
leadership development from a generationalized lens (e.g.,
Hagemann & Stroope, 2013; Marcinkus-Murphy, 2012).
As alluded to, a lifespan perspective takes a more nuanced and
continuous approach to understanding age-related influences on the
development of leadership skills over time. This perspective is thus a
natural link to improved thinking about aging and leadership devel-
opment (cf. Day, 2011). From a lifespan perspective, learning and de-
velopment is a lifelong process. Arguably, leadership development
theory has already adopted a lifespan perspective to some extent. For
example, Day and Harrison (2007) have offered that, “…investments
made in leader and leadership development need to be strategically
made over time and with an integrative purpose” (p. 370). Likewise,
Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, and McKee (2014) comprehensively
C.W. Rudolph et al.
Table 2
Dangers of generationalized thinking and advantages of lifespan thinking.
Generationalized thinking...
1. ... is exclusive, not inclusive: It encourages a focus on groups and
group differences.
2. ... represents reductionism: It distills very complex age-related
phenomena into grossly over-simplified terms.
3. ... focuses attention on “wrong” mechanisms of age-related change by
overemphasizing the role of cohorts.
4. ... is deterministic: It assumes category membership determines
individual attributes.
review various developmental theories that have been applied to lea-
dership development.
Quite a bit of scholarship has focused on intergenerational learning
and mentoring as a means of facilitating leadership development.
Indeed, a recent review by Gerpott, Lehmann-Willenbrock, and Voelpel
(2016) outlines a comprehensive agenda regarding the classification,
promotion, and design of such initiatives. Beyond obvious benefits for
leadership development, at least two relevant and important outcomes
of intergenerational contact may be realized through such mentoring
programs. First, intergenerational exchanges are of central importance
to the transfer of both institutional (i.e., organizational) and substantive
(i.e., job) knowledge (Harvey, 2012; Rudolph & Zacher, 2015). Second,
intergenerational exchanges are important for engaging the gen-
erativity motives that emerge in older adulthood (Henry,
Zacher, & Desmette, 2015). Generativity motives include both a con-
cern for guiding future generations and for leaving an enduring legacy
(see McAdams & de St Aubin, 1992). Generativity has been shown to be
an important mechanism in a variety of leadership processes and out-
comes. For example, Zacher et al. (2011) examined the moderating
influence of generativity on relationships between age and various
leadership behaviors, finding that higher generativity in older leaders
facilitates both transformational and transactional leadership beha-
viors. Similarly, Zacher et al. (2011) found that leader generativity
moderated the relationships between leader age and three criteria of
leadership success (i.e., lower perceptions of leader effectiveness, fol-
lower satisfaction with leader, and follower extra effort). More speci-
fically, older leaders with higher generativity had higher levels of lea-
dership success than leaders lower in generativity. In summary, a
nuanced and dynamic lifespan developmental perspective (i.e., con-
trasted against a reductionist and static generational perspective) on
leadership and leadership development is better positioned to explain
age-related patterns in leadership. A lifespan developmental perspec-
tive offers that age-based and history-based normative effects, as well as
various idiosyncratic influences, must be taken into account to fully
understand intraindividual dynamics in leadership.
Contributions to the leadership knowledge base
This critical review contributes to the accumulated “knowledge
base” regarding leadership in at least three important ways. First, we
would argue that the leadership literature has run amok with claims
that generational differences are worthy of our (i.e., researchers' and
practitioners') attention. We have attempted to redirect these in-
tractable claims to more important issues surrounding aging and lea-
dership that have empirically demonstrable and substantively mean-
ingful implications to leadership theory, research, and practice (i.e., a
lifespan perspective on leadership and leadership development).
Second, even if we could suspend our judgment of the evidence for or
against generational differences, claims either way would still be mis-
applied on the basis of developmental theory. Finally, our critique of
leadership theories that invoke the notion of generational differences
will hopefully sound the call for more thoughtful and integrated theo-
retical perspectives on aging and leadership. We see a great opportunity
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
Lifespan thinking…
… directly conceptualizes and operationalizes age as a continuous variable; does not impose meaning
on age by constructing and comparing artificially construed age groups/clusters.
… represents the complexities of aging more accurately by taking an inherently multilevel approach
(i.e., focusing on changes in individuals within and across developmental contexts).
… focuses on interindividual differences in absolute levels and rate of change and intraindividual
development (i.e., ontogenesis).
… explicitly includes principles of plasticity and malleability – i.e., change is possible at any age;
individual characteristics are not “set in stone” at a certain age.
to unite our arguments for a differentiated lifespan developmental
perspective on leadership by extending previous efforts in The
Leadership Quarterly (e.g., Day, 2011; Walter & Scheibe, 2013) and
elsewhere (e.g., Zacher et al., 2015).
Summary of the critique of generational differences
We have been particularly critical here of past attempts at under-
standing the role of generations and generational differences in the
workplace in general, and to leadership more specifically. Our criticism
of this mode of understanding the complexities of age underlies what
we can classify here as four dangers in “generationalized thinking” (i.e.,
engaging the schema of generational differences to interpret age-related
phenomena) with respect to leadership processes and outcomes. In
contrast, the lifespan perspective has corollary advantages to that of-
fered by generational thinking. Table 2 summarizes these dangers and
how adopting a lifespan perspective remediates them.
The first danger in generationalized thinking is that it creates false
dichotomies; it is exclusive rather than being inclusive as it encourages
a focus on groups and group differences, rather than on individuals and
individual differences. The lifespan perspective does not require one to
artificially construct age groups or clusters, but rather conceptualizes
and operationalizes age directly as a continuous variable (Baltes, 1987).
Second, generationalized thinking is dangerous because it represents a
crude model of the world; it represents reductionism in that it distills
very complex aging phenomena into grossly over-simplified terms. The
lifespan perspective represents the complexities of aging more accu-
rately by adopting an inherently multilevel approach (i.e., by con-
ceptualizing development within contexts). The third danger in gen-
erationalized thinking is that it is distracting; it focuses attention on the
“wrong” mechanisms of age-related change by overemphasizing the
role of cohorts at the expense of developmental processes (i.e., onto-
genesis). The lifespan perspective focuses instead on interindividual
differences and intraindividual development in absolute levels and rates
of change. Finally, generational thinking is dangerous because it pre-
scribes a resignation to fate; it is deterministic in that it assumes cate-
gory membership determines individual attributes. The lifespan per-
spective explicitly includes principle of plasticity/malleability, which
suggests that intraindividual change is possible at any age (i.e., in-
dividual characteristics are not explicitly codified/ratified at any cer-
tain age). By calling attention to these dangers and how adopting a
lifespan perspective can address them, our hope is that they can be
proactively mitigated in the future.
Summary of literature review
Despite the dangers of generation-based leadership research as it is
currently conducted, is it apparent that this topic of study has taken
hold within the empirical literature. This research is not limited to any
one industry or perspective in particular: from nursing to education,
from managers to employees (and dyadic relationships between the
two), studies exploring generational differences in leadership pre-
ferences and other relevant outcomes are increasingly found in the
54
C.W. Rudolph et al.
literature. Additionally, this research has been conducted not only in
the United States, but also in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South
America. A variety of methods are present across this literature, in-
cluding qualitative interviews and focus groups alongside more tradi-
tional cross-sectional survey approaches, and data analysis approaches
vary accordingly.
Regardless of the methods employed by these authors, however,
valid generational inferences cannot be drawn from this work. There is
great variability in how authors operationalize generational cohorts,
with ages or birth years varying widely even for the same defined group
(e.g., Generation Y: 1986 and later in Cox et al., 2014; 1975 and later in
Wilson et al., 2008; “the 1980s” in Yi et al., 2010), or even collapsed
into “younger” and “older” groups rather than more traditional gen-
erational cohorts (e.g., Collins et al., 2009; see Fig. 1). Not only does
this lead to a lack of continuity across the leadership and generations
literature, but, as aforementioned, these arbitrary generational group-
ings are implicitly conflated with chronological age. Moreover, the
results of these studies are mixed at best, suggesting minimal differ-
ences between generations in terms of leadership preferences and
producing leadership recommendations that are difficult to reconcile.
Still, the influence of these publications cannot be underestimated, as
this literature resides in relatively impactful journals, is highly cited in
both published and unpublished works (i.e., theses, dissertations), and
is used as a basis for many of the popular press articles and books
consulted by students, researchers, and practitioners alike.
Summary of the lifespan perspective
We argued that the lifespan developmental perspective offers a
more sophisticated way of thinking about age and leadership than re-
search on generations. The good news is that the major propositions of
the lifespan perspective and its associated theories have received much
empirical support over the past three decades, both within and outside
of the work context (Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 2006;
Rudolph, 2016). However, while a few researchers have already ap-
plied the lifespan perspective to gain a better understanding of the role
of age in leadership, our reviews of the literature suggest that gen-
erationalized thinking is still the more dominant approach among lea-
dership researchers and practitioners.
Thus, the most crucial next step appears to be that existing theo-
retical models, such as the emotion-based model of age and leadership
(Walter & Scheibe, 2013) and the lifespan model of leadership (Zacher
et al., 2015), are empirically tested and theoretically integrated. For
example, researchers could adopt a dynamic leader–environment fit
framework (cf. Zacher, Feldman, & Schulz, 2014) to study how age-re-
lated changes in leaders interact with changes in environmental char-
acteristics (including age-related changes in follower attitudes, moti-
vation, and behaviors) in predicting leadership behaviors and
outcomes. Conducting research across the lifespan, in the longitudinal
sense of the term, is a time-consuming and challenging endeavor (e.g.,
specific concerns regard timing of measurements, reactivity, and attri-
tion effects, to name a few; see Wang et al., 2017) that is only com-
pounded by the complexities of conducting research within organiza-
tions. Despite these challenges, we hope that our framing of the lifespan
perspective as a paradigm rather than a prescriptive, rigid methodolo-
gical framework allows for the adoption of lifespan thinking in nearly
any research context. We hope that the ideas presented here serve to
inspire future research efforts to this end.
Conclusions
In this article we presented a critical review of theory, empirical
research, and practical applications that purport to consider genera-
tions and generational differences in leadership. We have considered
both historical and contemporary accounts of leadership-related phe-
nomena concerning generations. These discussions suggested the
55
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
existence of several “myths” surrounding generational phenomena,
which were refuted accordingly. We also critiqued academic leadership
theories regarding generations and reviewed primary empirical studies
that apply generational differences to understand leadership phe-
nomena. To account for the shortcomings and dangers of gen-
erationalized thinking, we presented an integrative and extended life-
span developmental perspective that better captures age-related
dynamics that are relevant to leadership and leadership development.
Considering the various perspectives reviewed and critiqued herein
(i.e., theoretical, empirical, or applied) and the paucity of evidence to
support the existence of distinct generational groups, we now call for a
formal moratorium to be placed on the application of the idea of gen-
erational differences as an explanatory framework in leadership theory,
research, and practice. Our hope is that this manuscript serves as a
critical and provocative, yet also theory- and evidence-based call-to-
reason, and that we can catalyze new debates by bringing controversies
surrounding these phenomena to light.
References
Ahn, M., & Ettner, L. W. (2014). Are leadership values different across generations? A
comparative leadership analysis of CEOs v. MBAs. Journal of Management
Development, 33, 977–990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jmd-10-2012-0131.
Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you
may not work for (Gen) Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new
generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 245–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2016.08.001.
Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child's play!. Science, 323, 1183.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1167748.
Antonakis, J., & Eubanks, D. L. (2017). Looking leadership in the face. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 26, 270–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721417705888.
Arsenault, P. M. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legitimate diversity and
leadership issue. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25, 124–141.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410521813.
Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A life span
approach. In J. A. Conger, & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.). Charismatic leadership: The elusive
factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 276–308). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Balda, J. B., & Mora, F. (2011). Adapting leadership theory and practice for the net-
worked, millennial generation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 13–24. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/jls.20229.
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On
the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–626.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.23.5.611.
Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (2006). Life span theory in devel-
opmental psychology. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.). Handbook of child psy-
chology: vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 569–664). (6th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Baltes, P. B., Reese, H. W., & Lipsitt, L. P. (1980). Life-span developmental psychology.
Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 65–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.
020180.000433.
Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory
and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 471–507.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.471.
Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Geeks & geezers: How era, values, and defining
moments shape leaders. USA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Bianchi, E. C. (2013). The bright side of bad times: The affective advantages of entering
the workforce in a recession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 587–623. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839213509590.
Bianchi, E. C. (2014). Entering adulthood in a recession tempers later narcissism.
Psychological Science, 25, 1429–1437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0956797614532818.
Brunetto, Y., Farr-Wharton, R., & Shacklock, K. (2012). Communication, training, well-
being, and commitment across nurse generations. Nursing Outlook, 60, 7–15. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2011.04.004.
Brunetto, Y., Shriberg, A., Farr-Wharton, R., Shacklock, K., Newman, S., & Dienger, J.
(2013). The importance of supervisor–nurse relationships, teamwork, wellbeing, af-
fective commitment and retention of North American nurses. Journal of Nursing
Management, 21, 827–837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12111.
Buengler, C., Homan, A. C., & Voelpel, S. C. (2016). The challenge of being a young
manager: The effects of contingent reward and participative leadership on team-level
turnover depend on leader age. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 1224–1245.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2101.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A
theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.54.3.165.
Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2010). Social and emotional aging. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61, 383–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100448.
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical
procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology.
Organizational Research Methods, 8, 375–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
C.W. Rudolph et al.
1094428105280056.
Collins, M. H., Hair, J. F., Jr., & Rocco, T. S. (2009). The older-worker–younger-supervisor
dyad: A test of the reverse Pygmalion effect. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
20, 21–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012).
Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 27, 375–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-
9259-4.
Costanza, D. P., Darrow, J. B., Yost, A. B., & Severt, J. B. (2017). A review of analytical
methods used to study generational differences: Strengths and limitations. Work,
Aging and Retirement, 3, 149–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/workar/wax002.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the
workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8,
308–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.15.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2017). Generations, age, and the space between:
Introduction to the special issue. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3, 109–112. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1093/workar/wax003.
Cox, A., Hannif, Z., & Rowley, C. (2014). Leadership styles and generational effects:
Examples of US companies in Vietnam. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.778311.
Day, D. V. (2011). Integrative perspectives on longitudinal investigations of leader de-
velopment: From childhood through adulthood. The Leadership Quarterly, 22,
561–571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.012.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in
leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004.
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership
development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 360–373. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007.
Deal, J. J., Stawiski, S., Gentry, W. A., & Cullen, K. L. (2014). What makes a leader
effective? U.S. boomers, Xers, and millennials weigh in [White paper]. Retrieved
from Center for Creative Leadership https://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/04/WhatMakesLeaderEffectiveUS.pdf.
Dep, T. (2016). Millennial code: The art of leading, motivating, and empowering millennials.
So So Good Press.
DeSalvia, D. N., & Gemmill, G. R. (1971). An exploratory study of the personal value
systems of college students and managers. Academy of Management Journal, 14,
227–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255309.
Diamant, A. (1960). The relevance of comparative politics to the study of comparative
administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5, 87–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2307/2390826.
Diewald, M., & Mayer, K. U. (2009). The sociology of the life course and life span psy-
chology: Integrated paradigm or complementing pathways? Advances in Life Course
Research, 14, 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2009.03.001.
Espinoza, C., & Schwarzbart, J. (2015). Millennials who manage: How to overcome work-
place perceptions and become a great leader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Espinoza, C., & Ukleja, M. (2016). Managing the millennials: Discover the core competencies
for managing today's workforce (2nd Edition). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Espinoza, C., Ukleja, M., & Rusch, C. (2010). Managing the millennials: Discover the core
competencies for managing today's workforce (1st Edition). New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Eyerman, R., & Turner, B. S. (1998). Outline of a theory of generations. European Journal
of Social Theory, 1, 91–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136843198001001007.
Farag, A. A., Tullai-McGuinness, S., & Anthony, M. K. (2009). Nurses' perceptions of their
managers' leadership style and unit climate: Are there generational differences?
Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 26–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.
2008.00964.x.
Farr-Wharton, R., Brunetto, Y., & Shacklock, K. (2011). The impact of intuition and su-
pervisor–nurse relationships on empowerment and affective commitment by gen-
eration. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68, 1391–1401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-2648.2011.05852.x.
Fineman, S. (2011). Organizing age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Finkel, D., Andel, R., Gatz, M., & Pedersen, N. L. (2009). The role of occupational com-
plexity in trajectories of cognitive aging before and after retirement. Psychology and
Aging, 24, 563–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015511.
Fitch, P., & Van Brunt, B. (2016). A guide to leadership and management in higher education:
Managing across the generations. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315691596.
Foti, R., Hansbrough, T. K., Epitropaki, O., & Coyle, P. (2014). Special issue: Dynamic
viewpoints on implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly,
25, 411–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.02.004.
Gentry, W. A., Griggs, T. L., Deal, J. J., Mondore, S. P., & Cox, B. D. (2011). A comparison
of generational differences in endorsement of leadership practices with actual lea-
dership skill level. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 39–49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023015.
Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Voelpel, S. C. (2016). Intergenerational
learning in organizations: A framework and discussion of opportunities. In A. S.
Antoniou, R. J. Burke, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.). The aging workforce handbook: Individual,
organizational, and societal challenges (pp. 241–267). . http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
978-1-78635-448-820161010.
Glenn, N. D. (2005). Cohort analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grace, M., & Graen, G. B. (Eds.). (2014). Millennial spring: Designing the future of organi-
zations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Graen, G., & Grace, M. (2015). New talent strategy: Attract, process, educate, empower,
engage and retain the best [White paper]. Retrieved from Society for Human
Resource Management http://www.shrm.org/Research/Documents/SHRM-SIOP
%20New%20Talent%20Strategy.pdf.
56
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
Graen, G. B., & Schiemann, W. A. (2013). Leadership-motivated excellence theory: An
extension of LMX. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 452–469. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/jmp-11-2012-0351.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6,
219–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.
Grubbs, J. R. (2015). Leading the lazy: Get the most from today's workforce. Charleston, SC:
CreateSpace Independent Publishing.
Gusfield, J. R. (1957). The problem of generations in an organizational structure. Social
Forces, 35, 323–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2573321.
Hagemann, B., & Stroope, S. (2013). Developing the next generation of leaders. Industrial
and Commercial Training, 45, 123–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
00197851311309570.
Hansen, J. I. C., & Leuty, M. E. (2012). Work values across generations. Journal of Career
Assessment, 20, 34–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069072711417163.
Harvey, J. F. (2012). Managing organizational memory with intergenerational knowledge
transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16, 400–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
13673271211238733.
Henry, H., Zacher, H., & Desmette, D. (2015). Reducing age bias and turnover intentions
by enhancing intergenerational contact quality in the workplace: The role of op-
portunities for generativity and development. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1,
243–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/workar/wav005.
Hertzog, C., Kramer, A. F., Wilson, R. S., & Lindenberger, U. (2009). Enrichment effects on
adult cognitive development: Can the functional capacity of older adults be preserved
and enhanced? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 1–65. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01034.x.
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., & Franz, G. (2011). Generations in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 31, 177–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.002.
Karsh, B., & Templin, C. (2013). Manager 3.0: A millennial's guide to rewriting the rules of
management. New York, NY: AMACOM Publishing.
Kearney, E. (2008). Age differences between leader and followers as a moderator of the
relationship between transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 803–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/
096317907X256717.
Kelan, E. (2012). Rising stars: Developing millennial women as leaders. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1057/9781137284631.
Kertzer, D. I. (1983). Generation as a sociological problem. Annual Review of Sociology, 9,
125–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001013.
Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of
work and intellectual flexibility: A longitudinal assessment. American Journal of
Sociology, 84, 24–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226739.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kultalahti, S., & Viitala, R. L. (2014). Sufficient challenges and a weekend ahead –
Generation Y describing motivation at work. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 27, 569–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2014-0101.
Kunze, F., & Menges, J. I. (2017). Younger supervisors, older subordinates: An organi-
zational-level study of age differences, emotions, and performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38, 461–486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2129.
Laird, M. D., Harvey, P., & Lancaster, J. (2015). Accountability, entitlement, tenure, and
satisfaction in Generation Y. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 87–100. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1108/JMP-08-2014-0227.
Lawrence, B. S. (1984). Age grading: The implicit organizational timetable. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 5, 23–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030050104.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. G., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization
theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of
dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19.
Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving
devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 37–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.37.
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.). Essays in the
sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul (Original
work publised 1927).
Marcinkus-Murphy, W. (2012). Reverse mentoring at work: Fostering cross-generational
learning and developing millennial leaders. Human Resource Management, 51,
549–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21489.
McAdams, D. P., & de St Aubin, E. D. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment
through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1003–1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.62.6.1003.
Meola, C. C. (2016). Addressing the needs of the millennial workforce through equine
assisted learning. Journal of Management Development, 35, 294–303. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/jmd-08-2015-0110.
Murphy, E. F., Jr., Gibson, J. W., & Greenwood, R. A. (2010). Analyzing generational
values among managers and non-managers for sustainable organizational effective-
ness. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75, 33–55.
Nelson, S. A. (2012). Affective commitment of generational cohorts of Brazilian nurses.
International Journal of Manpower, 33, 804–821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
01437721211268339.
Nesselroade, J. R. (1991). Interindividual differences in intraindividual change. In L. M.
Collins, & J. L. Horn (Eds.). Best methods for the analysis of change: Recent advances,
C.W. Rudolph et al.
unanswered questions, future directions (pp. 92–105). . http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
10099-006.
Nightengale, B. (2016, February 16). MLB won't fear going extreme to attract a new gen-
eration. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/
2016/02/16/mlb-youth-outreach-play-ball-cal-ripken-jr-rob-manfred/80468196/.
Nuebling, M., & Behnke, C. (2015). Wine on tap–an innovation for younger generations?
Wine & Viticulture Journal, 30(4), 69–71.
Oltmanns, J., Godde, B., Winneke, A. H., Richter, G., Niemann, C., Voelcker-Rehage, C., ...
Staudinger, U. M. (2017). Don't lose your brain at work–The role of recurrent novelty
at work in cognitive and brain aging. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00117.
Paul, R. J., & Schooler, R. D. (1970). An analysis of performance standards and generation
conflict in academia. Academy of Management Journal, 13, 212–216. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/255109.
Post, J. M. (1973). On aging leaders: Possible effects of the aging process on the conduct
of leadership. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 6, 109–116.
Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American
Sociological Review, 15, 351–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2087176.
Rodriguez, A., & Rodriguez, Y. (2015). Metaphors for today's leadership: VUCA world,
millennial and “Cloud Leaders”. Journal of Management Development, 34, 854–866.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2013-0110.
Rosing, K., & Jungmann, F. (2016). Leadership and aging. In N. Pachana (Ed.).
Encyclopedia of geropsychology (pp. 1–8). . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-
080-3_23-1.
Rudolph, C. W. (2015). A note on the folly of cross-sectional operationalizations of
generations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 362–366. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/iop.2015.50.
Rudolph, C. W. (2016). Lifespan developmental perspectives on working: A literature
review of motivational theories. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2, 130–158. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw012.
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2015). Intergenerational perceptions and conflicts in multi-
age and multigenerational work environments. In L. M. Finkelstein, D. M. Truxillo, F.
Fraccaroli, & R. Kanfer (Eds.). Facing the challenges of a multi-age workforce: A use-
inspired approach (pp. 253–282). . http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203776322.
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2017a). Considering generations from a lifespan devel-
opmental perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3, 113–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1093/workar/waw019.
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2017b). Myths and misconceptions about leading gen-
erations: Setting the record straight. In T. A. Scandura, & E. Mourino (Eds.). Leading
diversity in the 21st century (pp. 243–278). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American
Sociological Review, 30, 843–861. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2090964.
Schaie, K. W. (1986). Beyond calendar definitions of age, time, and cohort: The general
developmental model revisited. Developmental Review, 6, 252–277. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0273-2297(86)90014-6.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differences in
leader values and leadership behaviors. The Psychologist–Manager Journal, 10, 47–74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10887150709336612.
Shacklock, K., & Brunetto, Y. (2012). The intention to continue nursing: Work variables
affecting three nurse generations in Australia. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68, 36–46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05709.x.
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational
work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.147.
Spisak, B. R. (2012). The general age of leadership: Older-looking presidential candidates
win elections during war. PLoS One, 7, e36945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0036945.
Spisak, B. R., Grabo, A. E., Arvey, R. D., & van Vugt, M. (2014). The age of exploration
and exploitation: Younger-looking leaders endorsed for change and older-looking
leaders endorsed for stability. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 805–816. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.001.
Stassen, L., Anseel, F., & Levecque, K. (2016). Generatieverschillen op de werkvloer: What
people believe is true is frequently wrong. Gedrag & Organisatie, 29, 86–92.
Truxillo, D. M., & Burlacu, G. (2015). Does age matter to LMX and its outcomes? A review
and future research directions. In T. N. Bauer, & B. Erdogan (Eds.). The Oxford
handbook of leader–member exchange (pp. 397–412). . http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199326174.013.0014.
Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance
of relational demography in superior–subordinate dyads. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 402–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256368.
57
The Leadership Quarterly 29 (2018) 44–57
Tulgan, B. (2009). Not everyone gets a trophy: How to manage generation Y. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in
work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 201–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s10869-010-9165-6.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits
and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 862–877.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904367.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational
differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and in-
trinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117–1142. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0149206309352246.
Twenge, J. M., & Kasser, T. (2013). Generational changes in materialism and work cen-
trality, 1976–2007: Associations with temporal changes in societal insecurity and
materialistic role modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 883–897.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167213484586.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, K. W., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos
inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76, 875–902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2008.00507.x.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A
review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83–104. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007.
Walker, A. (1993). Intergenerational relations and welfare restructuring: The social
construction of an intergenerational problem. In V. L. Bengtson, & W. A. Achenbaum
(Eds.). The changing contract across generations (pp. 141–165). New York, NY: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Walter, F., & Scheibe, S. (2013). A literature review and emotion-based model of age and
leadership: New directions for the trait approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 24,
882–901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.003.
Wang, M., Beal, D. J., Chan, D., Newman, D. A., Vancouver, J. B., & Vandenberg, R. J.
(2017). Longitudinal research: A panel discussion on conceptual issues, research
design, and statistical techniques. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3, 1–24. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/workar/waw033.
Wieck, K. L., Prydun, M., & Walsh, T. (2002). What the emerging workforce wants in its
leaders. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34, 283–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1547-5069.2002.00283.x.
Wilson, B., Squires, M., Widger, K., Cranley, L., & Tourangeau, A. (2008). Job satisfaction
among a multigenerational nursing workforce. Journal of Nursing Management, 16,
716–723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00874.x.
Yi, X., Ribbens, B., & Morgan, C. N. (2010). Generational differences in China: Career
implications. Career Development International, 51, 601–620. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1108/13620431011084439.
Yu, H.-C., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The X generation and baby boomers
compared in different cultural contexts. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 26, 35–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730510575570.
Zacher, H. (2015). Using lifespan developmental theory and methods as a viable alter-
native to the study of generational differences at work. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 342–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1017/iop.2015.47.
Zacher, H., & Bal, P. M. (2012). Professor age and research assistant ratings of passi-
ve–avoidant and proactive leadership: The role of age-related work concerns and age
stereotypes. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 875–896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
03075079.2011.557829.
Zacher, H., Clark, M., Anderson, E. C., & Ayoko, O. B. (2015). A lifespan perspective on
leadership. In P. M. Bal, D. T. A. M. Kooij, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.). Aging workers and
the employee–employer relationship (pp. 87–104). . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-08007-9_6.
Zacher, H., Feldman, D. C., & Schulz, H. (2014). Age, occupational strain, and well-being:
A person–environment fit perspective. In P. L. Perrewé, C. C. Rosen, & J. R. B.
Halbesleben (Vol. Eds.), The role of demographics in occupational stress and well being
(Research in occupational stress and well-being). Vol. 12. The role of demographics in
occupational stress and well being (Research in occupational stress and well-being) (pp.
83–111). . http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/s1479-3555_2014_0000012002.
Zacher, H., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2011). Age and leadership: The moderating role of
legacy beliefs. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 43–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2010.12.006.
Zacher, H., Rosing, K., Henning, T., & Frese, M. (2011). Establishing the next generation
at work: Leader generativity as a moderator of the relationships between leader age,
leader–member exchange, and leadership success. Psychology and Aging, 26, 241–252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021429.