View
7
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
EXECUTIVE MASTER IN CONSULTING AND COACHING FOR CHANGE
SERVANT LEADERSHIP:
A SHIFT IN LEADERSHIP PARADIGM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY,
MULTI-GENERATIONAL WORK FORCE
ANNA ANG STUDENT NO: 520219 INSEAD – WAVE 11 DECEMBER 1, 2013
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
1
Executive Summary
The challenges faced by leaders today go beyond not just having to manage a
multi-generational workforce but also the complexity that comes with globalization
and technological evolution. This study seeks to make a case for servant
leadership as the new leadership paradigm to engage the 21st century multi-
generational workforce. Today’s multi-generational workforce requires a different
level of leadership engagement. With the pace of change today, retardation in
decision-making and innovation can put organizations on the back foot and
possibly out of the competition. In the traditional models of leadership, the center
of power and decision-making rests with leaders at the top of the organizational
hierarchy. In servant leadership, the focus is on the leaders’ influence to create
an environment of trust and confidence; that engages and enables the followers to
step up, take ownership and contribute to the performance of the organization.
The benefits of servant leadership have been much discussed. However, the
concept is not widely adopted in organizations. To bridge the gap in the practical
implementation of servant leadership in organizations, this paper proposes a
leadership engagement framework based on the principles of servant leadership.
The proposed framework can be integrated into existing leadership models used
in organizations. A survey was conducted to establish the common denominators
of key leadership practices that are deemed important for organizational success
shared across different generational cohorts. The key elements of the leadership
engagement framework are based on the common denominators of servant
leadership practices central to all in a multigenerational workforce.
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
2
Key Words
traditional leadership, generational differences, servant leadership, boundary,
empowerment, association, mentoring
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
3
Content
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Overview of the issue 5
1.2 Research question 6
1.3 Structure of study 7
2. Literature Review 8
2.1 Characteristics of different generational cohorts and their 9
core values
2.1.1 Baby Boomers 9
2.1.2 Gen X 10
2.1.3 Gen Y 11
2.2 Inconclusive evidence of significant generational 13
differences in workplace values and motivation
2.3 Key themes on workplace motivation and endorsement 16
of leadership practices across generational cohorts
2.4. Impact of globalization and technological evolution on 18
leadership
2.5. Traditional leadership models 20
2.6 Servant leadership – a new leadership paradigm 24
2.7 Summary 27
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
4
3 Research Methodology and Design 31
4 Analyses and Findings 32
5 Conclusion and Recommendation 41
5.1 Summary of findings 41
5.2 What is in the way of greater adoption of servant leadership 42
practice?
5.3 Recommendation - proposed servant leadership engagement 43
framework
5.4 Limitations 48
5.5 Future research opportunity 48
5.6 Conclusion 49
6 References 52
Tables
Table 1: Survey Results on the Four Dimensions of Servant 39
Leadership on Workplace Motivation
Table 2: Factors of Workplace Motivation across Generational Cohorts 40
Table 3: Endorsement of Leadership Practices across Generational 40
Cohorts
Diagram
Diagram 1: Servant Leadership Engagement Framework 47
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
5
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview of the issue
With globalization and technological advancement, leaders today are faced
with the pressure to keep up with the pace of change; challenging dynamics
given the cultural diversity in the labor force, and technological evolution and
its impact on work. Overlaying the diversity of culture is the added challenge
of integrating the deemed differences of a multi-generational workforce.
The changing dynamics of today’s workforce and business economic
environment challenges the traditional theories of leadership models and
competencies, and its relevance to the success and effectiveness for today’s
organizations. The 21st century multigenerational workforce calls for a
different level of leadership engagement. This paper seeks to make the
case for servant leadership as the new leadership paradigm to engage
today’s 21st century multigenerational workforce.
The focus and much discussed subject in the recent decades has been over
the management and leadership challenges in organizations; brought about
by the entrance of the millennial generation into the workforce. The
millennials are known to have different perspectives on the value of work,
expectations and behaviors that they bring to bear in organizations they
joined. The millennials or Gen Y is seen as the blunt, techno-savvy,
demanding and high maintenance lot (Martin, 2005) that has proven to be a
challenge for leaders.
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
6
Many research papers and journals have been written on inter-generational
differences in their attempts to understand how to better lead and manage a
multi-generational workforce. The literature on generational differences
generalizes (stereotypes) each cohort in respect to their expressed values,
manifested behaviors, learning styles, motivations and leadership
expectations. There are also studies done which reported greater alignment
across generational cohorts on workplace motivational factors, views on
leadership attributes and practices than had been previously anticipated.
Whilst studies have been done on generational differences and various
theories of leadership to address the perceived conflicts and leadership
challenges of a multigenerational workforce, there is still an absence of an
effective model that organizations can adopt to address the conundrum of a
multigenerational workforce. It is imperative that organizations adopt a
model of adaptive leadership to address the changes in behavioral trends of
today’s multi-generational workforce, further fuelled by the increase in
cultural diversity brought about by globalization. This is so as to effectively
build and tap on the full potential of the talent for organizational growth and
effectiveness.
1.2 Research question
The research question asked herein: How can servant leadership be the new
leadership paradigm to engage the 21st century complex, challenging,
multigenerational and culturally diverse workforce under one roof.
Servant leadership is not a new concept. Many including leadership gurus
have written on the subject and advocated the value of servant leadership in
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
7
organizations (Keith, 2008; Parris & Peachey, 2012). A number of
companies such as Southwest Airlines, TDIndustries, Synovus Financial
Corporation, to name a few, have adopted the principles of servant
leadership in their organizations (Keith, 2008). These companies have been
known to be great places to work and the principles of servant leadership is
said to be the key element of their success, including their ability to attract
and retain good people, which is a strategic business advantage (Keith,
2008). Yet why are companies not jumping to implement servant
leadership?
1.3 Structure of study
The study first looked at the characteristics, attitudes, core values and
workplace motivations of the three generational cohorts in today’s workforce
– the Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y. The study seeks to establish if
there are more similarities than differences in the drivers for workplace
motivation across all groups, and to establish the common denominators of
key leadership practices that are deemed important for organizational
success shared across different generational cohorts. Next, we looked at
the findings from a study by Professor Lynda Gratton of the London
Business School on the Future of Work and its impact on leadership
challenges. We reviewed traditional models of leadership, the principles of
servant leadership and why the latter may be deemed as more relevant and
effective to lead today’s workforce.
Whilst the subject of servant leadership has attracted increased interest in
recent years, predominantly within the academic circle, the same level of
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
8
interest is neither shared nor translated into practical application in
organizations; nor is it a subject being widely discussed at governing boards
or leadership levels. We looked at factors restraining the implementation of
servant leadership in today’s organization. To bridge the gap between the
theory of servant leadership and the practical implementation for effective
leadership in organizations, this paper proposes a leadership engagement
framework built on the principles of servant leadership. The key elements of
the leadership engagement framework are based on common denominators
of leadership practices central to all three generational cohorts for success.
The proposed servant leadership framework is an extension of the studies
done so far on the subject.
For the purpose of this paper, servant leadership and service leadership are
used synonymously.
2. Literature Review
In the past decade, studies on generational differences have been focused
on understanding the motivations, attitudes, core values and work values of
the different cohorts, particularly the millennial generation. The studies
looked at the impact of motivation and behavioral differences on leadership
effectiveness, organizational success and the need, if at all, to adopt
different reward programs to attract, motivate and retain talent. There are
mixed views on whether generational differences in fact exist (Gentry, Deal,
Griggs, Mondore, & Cox, 2011; Wong, Gardiner, Lang, & Coulon, 2008).
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
9
2.1 Characteristics of different generational cohorts and their core
values
Generations are broadly defined as identifiable groups of people whose birth
years fall within defined periods and as such, share similar life experiences,
historical and social life events (Wong, et al., 2008; Somola & Sutton, 2002;
Kupperschmidt, 2000). The period that defines each generational cohort
differs with authors in terms of the start and end dates for a particular
generation.
Generational cohort theory suggests that each cohort is distinct in their
orientations on social values, priorities, motivations, professional goals,
expectations and preferences in their ways of working because of shared life
experiences and the different socio-economic, political events of each
generation (Gentry, et al., 2011; Salahuddin, 2010).
For the purpose of this research paper, the Baby Boomers refer to those
born between 1943 and 1960. Generation X (Gen X) refers to those born
between 1960 and 1980 and Generation Y (Gen Y) are those born between
1980 and 1999 (Salahuddin, 2010; Andert, 2011).
2.1.1 Baby Boomers
Baby Boomers refer to those born between 1943 and 1960. Their
experiences were marked by major events such as Vietnam War, the Civil
Rights movement and assassinations. Job security and stable environment
are said to be important to the Baby Boomers (Somola & Sutton, 2002).
They are generally respectful of authorities; loyal and attached to the
organizations they worked for (Wong, et al., 2008). Work ethics are
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
10
important to the Baby Boomers. They are driven and service-oriented, highly
committed to their work, good at relationships and are generally good team
players (Salahuddin, 2010). Baby Boomers value being in positions of
power within the organization (Wong, et al., 2008). They can also be
excellent mentors (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Baby Boomers started the
revolution of participative management, consensus building and quality
circles (Wong, et al., 2008; Salahuddin, 2010). Whilst they are good at
relationships and are good team players, Baby Boomers tend to be
uncomfortable with conflicts and may be judgmental to those who hold
different views from them (Salahuddin, 2010). Although work may be central
to them, Baby Boomers enjoy flexibility and flexible work options as they too
acknowledge the importance of work life balance (Kaifi, Nafei, Khanfar, &
Kaifi, 2012).
2.1.2 Generation X
Generation X refers to those born between 1960 and 1980, the generation of
latchkey kids. Gen Xs are the first generation growing up with both parents
working or from single-parent homes, a struggling economy and soaring
divorce rates. As a result of their latchkey childhoods, they are known to be
independent, resourceful, adaptable and generally not intimidated by rules
and authority (Salahuddin, 2010). Gen Xs do not like to be micromanaged
(Mhatre & Conger, 2011). They can be motivated to perform in
environments that offer flexibility and where there are not a lot of rules (Kaifi,
et al., 2012; Salahuddin, 2010). Gen Xs lead by challenging the thinking and
ideas of others (Salahuddin, 2010). They work hard and play hard by their
own rules. They are keen to develop new skills to keep themselves
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
11
marketable and are motivated by rewards. They are good at networking as
they started on it at an early age. Gen Xs are known to be impatient, lack
people skills and work from a place of cynicism (Salahuddin, 2010; Kaifi, et
al., 2012). They expect immediate and continuous feedback (Wong, et al.,
2008). Unlike the Baby Boomers, loyalty to organizations is not a trait of
Gen X. They are likely to seek out more challenging options and rewards
outside of the organization. Work life balance is important for them, as they
want to make themselves available to their children (Wong, et al., 2008).
2.1.3 Generation Y
The millennial generation refers to those born between 1980 and 1999.
They are generally educated, outwardly confident, technologically savvy and
connected (Petroulas, Brown & Sundin, 2010). They are born into a
generation of affluence, has been perceived to bear a sense of self worth
and entitlement that can be challenging and sometimes exasperating for
managers who manage them (Ng, Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010). Parents of
this generation are generally educated and protective, often careful to
provide a balanced feedback (Petroulas, et al., 2010)
At the workplace, Gen Ys are known to be impatient for progress and seek
instant gratification through results or recognition (Ng, et al., 2010). They
have a strong sense of self. In the publication – “New Generation, Great
Expectations: A Field Study Of The Millennial Generation” (Ng, et al., 2010),
it was suggested that whilst millennials may appear to often negotiate for pay
and benefits, they, nonetheless are after work that is meaningful and
fulfilling. It is important to them that their work has a positive impact (Balda &
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
12
Mora, 2011). They seek relentless pursuit of knowledge, relationships and
connectivity through social networks and media. They thrive in environments
that allow them to share ideas and collaborate. They seek challenges and
look to their colleagues as a resource for learning (Petroulas et al., 2010).
Learning for Gen Y is not only about advancement but also about keeping
themselves interested and knowledgeable in their field of interest. If they feel
they are not learning, they will look for alternative employment. Job security
is not an important factor for them (Wong, et al., 2008). Work life balance is
important for Gen Ys. Their engagement and loyalty to an organization is
contingent on them finding that balance (Mhatre & Conger, 2011).
According to the study by Linda Dulin on the leadership preference of Gen Y
cohort, Gen Ys are known to be high tech that needs high touch in their
relationships (Dulin, 2008). Whilst they may appear outwardly confident,
Gen Ys possess a delicate sense of self and can be a “high maintenance” lot
as they need high levels of interactions. Gen Ys prefer leaders who are
mentors to help them work around bureaucracies (Dulin, 2008). Unlike Gen
Xs, they want an inclusive style of leadership and look to have the
accessibility to the leadership network. They value being given responsibility
and opportunity to be involved in decision-making and actions (Wong, et al.,
2008). The “quality of managers” is also an important factor for the
millennials as they expect to be working in a nurturing environment where
managers are highly engaged in their development (Ng, et al., 2010).
Millennials do not only expect constant communication with their managers,
they expect that the communication be in the form of a dialogue (Balda &
Mora, 2011). They want frequent feedback and are unabashed about openly
asking for opportunities for career development and advancement (Ng, et al.,
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
13
2010).
Gen Ys are selective in the institutions that they join. They prefer to join
companies whose values are aligned to theirs and where the organizations
have a commitment to social responsibilities (Ng, et al., 2010).
2.2 Inconclusive evidence of significant generational differences in
workplace values and motivations
Despite numerous studies on the subject of generational differences in
workplace values and motivations, the reviews on whether the differences
are genuine or significant remains mixed (Salahuddin, 2010; Johnson &
Lopes, 2008; Parry & Erwin, 2011; Wong, et al., 2008). There are several
factors that may account for the lack of predictive scores. Firstly, the
definition of a generation by way of the period assigned to it varies with
different authors. Secondly, it remains to be established if the differences in
values and motivation are in effect a factor of generation or if it is more a
direct factor of age, which corresponds to the priorities and career
aspirations depending on the different stages of their lives. This in turn may
explain the variances in values placed on different drivers of motivations
(Twenge, 2010; Wong, et al., 2008). Thirdly, the list of factors being used by
different studies on generational differences to establish workplace values
and motivators differs and hence the lack of consistency and variation in
outcome. Lastly, cultural practices, personal values and personalities can
also be factors of influence on priorities for career and attitudes at different
life stages (Wong, et al., 2008).
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
14
In a survey of graduates (Gen Xs) and undergraduates (Gen Ys) at Hofstra
University, conducted by Patrick Montana and Janet Lenaghan (1999) on
workplace motivation, they found that the results of the responses from the
survey they did were similar to the responses of the same survey done on an
older cohort in the 1960s and 1970s by Leslie This and Gordon Lippitt.
Leslie This and Gordon Lippitt conducted the same survey on 6000 business
managers and 500 representatives from various organizations including
government agencies (Johnson & Lopes, 2008). The participants (the older
cohort) in This’ and Lippitt’s study were asked to pick six motivators out of a
list of 25 factors that would help them to do their work well. The six factors of
motivation that were picked (steady employment, respect for me as a
person, good pay, chance for promotion, opportunity for self development
and improvement, and large amount of freedom on the job) were closely
consistent to the six picked by the graduates and undergraduates in
Montana’s and Lenaghan’s study (Montana & Lenaghan, 1999). Where
they differ, the older group (in the 1960 & 1970 study) valued “steady
employment“ and “chance for promotion”. The Gen Xs and Gen Ys in
Montana’s and Lenaghan’s study picked “opportunities to do interesting
work” and “feeling my job is important” (Montana & Lenaghan,1999). Whilst
Gen Xs & Gen Ys were similar in their identified choice of motivators, Gen
Xs ranked “feeling my job is important” higher than “getting along well with
others on the job”, which was the reverse case for Gen Ys (Montana & Petit,
2008). In a similar study done by Appelbaum et al., (2004), common
motivational factors were compared between Gen X and Baby Boomers.
Four out of the five motivational factors deemed as important by both Gen X
and Baby Boomers (stable and secure future, high salary, chance to learn
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
15
new things and variety in work assignments) came out identical across both
cohorts (Wong, et al., 2008).
Further, if there have been any changes in motivators, it is generally
influenced by personal circumstances of the individuals as they go through
different life stages than it being attributed to generational factor (Wong et
al.; Johnson & Lopes, 2008). The study by Yang and Guy (2006) on
generational differences in workplace motivation drew the same conclusion
as the study done by Jurkiewicz and Brown (1998) where they found few
differences in workplace motivation between generational cohorts. The
differences identified were related to career stages rather than generational
specific differences (Yang & Guy, 2006).
In 2008, four companies, Booz Allen Hamilton, Ernst & Young, Time Warner
and UBS, came together to spearhead two large-scale surveys at national
levels to understand what it takes for companies to be employers of choice
(Hewlett, Sherbin & Sumberg, 2009). The study was part of a larger group
called the Hidden Brain Drain Task Force, formed by a group of 50
multinational companies committed towards global talent innovation. They
surveyed circa 4,800 people plus conducted focus groups and interviews.
The findings presented strong similarities between Gen Ys and Baby
Boomers, who were referred to as the “bookend” generations, because they
form the dominant group in the workforce that shapes an organization’s
agenda. The study revealed several common themes between these two
groups on factors that were important motivators for them. Both Baby
Boomers and Gen Ys shared the following common factors of motivation:
high quality colleagues, flexible work arrangements, access to new
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
16
experiences, challenges and recognition from their managers. In addition,
both groups value opportunities to give back to society as more important
than the sheer size of the financial rewards. (Hewlett, et al., 2009).
It appears from the various studies that all 3 generational cohorts in effect
share similar workplace motivational factors.
2.3 Key themes on workplace motivation and endorsement of
leadership practices across generational cohorts
Time lag studies have shown that more recent generations place less value
on work for its own sake. Work is not deemed to be central to life and this is
particularly true for both Gen Xs and Gen Ys (Twenge, 2010). All three
generational cohorts placed higher values on being more family-centric,
which Gen Ys define as having better work life balance (Twenge, 2010).
Intrinsic values such as meaningful work, work that allows one to learn new
things and skills, and jobs where they can see results of their contributions,
appear relatively consistent across all three generational cohorts (Twenge,
2010). On social values and affiliation, there was less consistency although
Gen Xs and Gen Ys scored these aspects higher than the Baby Boomers
(Twenge, 2010).
In a study comparing generational differences in the endorsement of
leadership practices by Gentry et al. (2011), slightly over 7000 practicing
American managers across the three different generations comprising 3,317
Baby Boomers, 3,303 Gen Xs, and 429 millennials participated in the survey.
The participants were asked to select eight out of sixteen leadership
practices that they deemed to be most important for success in their
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
17
organizations. Whilst the results presented statistically significant
differences amongst generational cohort in ten of the sixteen leadership
practices, a further analysis on the effect size revealed that none of the
differences was of practical significance. The conclusion from that study is
that all three generations are more similar than they are different in their
endorsement of leadership practices that are regarded to be important for
organizational success (Gentry, et al., 2011).
Of the sixteen leadership practices, six leadership practices were
unanimously agreed upon across all generations, as important for
organizational success (Gentry, et al., 2011). The six were:
1. Leading employees – delegate with clear performance expectations
2. Participative management – listen and involve others
3. Resourcefulness – be flexible problem solver, strategic thinker
4. Change management – use effective strategies to facilitate change
5. Doing whatever it takes – persevere through adversity, take full
responsibilities
6. Building and mending relationships – understand others, collaborate
and not alienate others
In 2011, John Gerzema and Michael D’Antonio did a study of 64 thousand
people across 13 countries in USA, UK, Europe and Asia, from diverse
cultures, age and gender. The study looked at leadership behaviours
considered as ideal to make the world a better place. The key findings
suggested that people look towards leaders to be more inclusive, nurturing,
listening, open to ideas, and be collaborative (Gerzema & D’Antonio, 2011). !
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
18
In another study carried out in a major urban area in United States, 340
young professionals from private and public sectors, as well as not-for-profit
organizations, were surveyed. The Gen Xs in that study were quoted, as
saying that leadership in the future “must be more inclusive and less top-
down” (Penny, 2011, P. 56). Leadership was described as both “L” spelt with
an upper case and “l” with a lower case. Leadership spelt with an upper
case “L” represents the traditional leadership of – “you lead, you tell us what
to do”. A lower case “l” suggests shared leadership. Emerging leaders
believe in enhancing the leadership qualities in everyone. The study
suggests that the best leadership development happens “when individuals
lead from where they are in the organization”. Successful organizations are
those whose leaders make it their responsibility to discover and develop their
human talent. Other essential leadership attributes cited by the group were:
collaboration, networking, inclusiveness, and communication (Penney,
2011).
2.4 Impact of globalization and technological evolution on leadership
In the last decade, the proliferation of information and data sources through
the advancement of technological capabilities of the internet and social
media tools have changed the mode and speed of communication. It has
certainly added another dimension to the ways of working and in how people
connect with each other across geographical and time boundaries.
Lynda Gratton, a professor with the London Business School, led a study on
the “Future of Work” which looked at the evolution of work and its impact on
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
19
organizations and individuals. The study was made up of a consortium of 21
global companies and more than 200 executives from private, public and
not-for-profit organizations (Gratton, 2010).
The study identified five major external forces that will fundamentally change
the way we work in the future. They are:
1. Technological changes and developments
2. Globalization
3. Demographic changes
4. Societal trends
5. Low carbon developments
The study posited that the interaction of all the above forces would have
profound consequences for both organizations and individuals on the future
of work. There will be a re-wiring of our working conscious towards work and
the value of work. The combination of technological evolution, trend towards
low carbon footprint and globalization will change the way organizations and
individuals connect with each other as the world become more joined up
than ever before (Gratton, 2010). Globalization and the development of
economic activities in new emerging economies will lead to greater spread of
talent, talent mobility and the need for greater connectivity and inclusion.
The future will require organizations to be more collaborative and relationally
driven. Individuals will be more focused on developing in-depth mastery and
quality of experiences over general skills and standard of living. There will
be a shift in terms of network relations as it would be less about working in
competition but more about working collaboratively with each other (Gratton,
2010). All of the above plus the impact of change in demographics and
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
20
societal trends will force change on organizations and the leadership of
people. Organizations will have to be agile and quick to respond to the
changing dynamics of the business environment in which they operate.
The inevitable challenge for leaders will be to create organizations that
support teams including virtual teams and communities. Organizations will
need to build effective network relations, provide tools for effective
communications, and facilitate collaboration and inclusion. In addition to
being visionary and transformational, leaders have to create conditions that
positively engage and empower the people to pro-actively respond to
business economic and environmental changes, and to innovate.
2.5 Traditional leadership models
The role of a leader is no longer just dictating work and directing changes.
The focus of leaders will have to be on people - to develop and unleash the
creative potential of people for innovation, and to create a positive workplace
that will attract and retain talent to build its competitive advantage.
Traditional theories of leadership define successful leadership by way of
traits, characteristics, styles & behaviors of leaders (Kirkpatrick, 1991;
Melchar, Bosco & Cantrell, 2008). In most instances, the definition of
successful leadership in trait theories of leadership is independent of the
constellation of the differing needs and motivation of the followers.
In the traditional models of leadership, leaders are known by the position and
power they hold in organizations. Leaders are respected for the authority
they hold in a command-led model. The center of power and exercise of
influence rests with leaders who sit on top of the organizational hierarchy
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
21
(Andert, 2011). There is an inherent assumption that the measure of an
organization’s success is based on the leaders’ capability as the leaders are
said to possess personality and character traits that can effectively influence
the people to accomplish tasks (Andert, 2011). In the traditional models of
leadership, communication and decision-making are predominantly uni-
directional. Consequently, the untapped collective potential of the people
limits the growth of the organization. Further, with the pace of change today,
retardation in decision-making and innovation can be a recipe that will put
the organization out of the competition.
This model of power and autocratic leadership can no longer be effective in
this new age particularly with the millennial generation who may not
necessary respond spontaneously to top-down orders and uni-directional
relationships. This model of leadership may have worked for the Baby
Boomers who were brought up in an era of unquestioning deference to
authority. Baby Boomers manifest respect for hierarchical structures and
obliged conformity. However with the millennial generation, they expect an
inclusive style of leadership whereby they are engaged and working to a
sense of purpose. Millennials expect bi-directional communications at all
levels regardless of hierarchical positions (Balda & Mora, 2011). As work is
no longer looked upon as work for its own sake, an organization runs the risk
of losing its key talents, particularly the younger generation, if the people are
not being engaged in meaningful work or be given opportunities to contribute
in a meaningful way.
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
22
Transformational leadership has been touted as the model to drive
innovation and group performance through charismatic leadership
(Salahuddin, 2010). And this is done through articulating compelling vision,
identifying strong sense of collective purpose and identity (Bass, 1985,
Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders have the ability to effectively direct
followers’ efforts and mobilize commitment to achieve the highest level of
performance through charismatic role modeling (Smith, Montagno, &
Kuzmenko, 2004; Schuh, Zhang, & Tian, 2013). Whilst there appears to be
a buy-in of vision, sense of collective purpose and engagement between the
leaders and the followers, the absolute power and influence on the desired
outcome remains with the leader. Transformational leadership focuses
mainly on the ability of leaders to influence and motivate the followers to
collaborate and work together for the sake of the good of the team or the
organization (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993; Salahuddin, 2010; Wang &
Rode, 2010). Although consideration is given to the development of the
followers, the followers’ creativity and commitment are dependent on the
extent to which the followers are able to identify with the leaders in the
leadership influence process. Followers “who have low identification with the
leaders are less likely to subscribe to the leaders’ values and beliefs” (Wang
& Rode, 2010, p.1112). This consequently limits the impact of the leaders’
influence on the followers’ performances (Wang & Rode, 2010). In
transformational leadership, the success of the organization and the
followers’ development are limited by the leaders’ personalities and moral
intentions, good or bad (Schuh, et al., 2013).
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
23
Distributed leadership was introduced to address the need for agility to
respond to changing market conditions and customer expectations.
Distributed leadership, sometimes synonymously referred to as shared or co-
leadership, is not a new concept (Bolden, 2011). This model of leadership
provides for individuals within the organizations, regardless of their role and
position in the hierarchy, the ability to exercise leadership discretion and
decision-making within defined parameters. Distributed leadership is
dissociated with the formalized position within the organizational hierarchy.
There is a redistribution of power and realignment of authority. There is a
blurring of roles between leaders and followers (Tomlinson, 2012). The
teams are fully engaged, and members are empowered and given leadership
responsibilities to improve ownership, creativity and responsiveness
(Tomlinson, 2012). Distributed leadership calls for a fundamental mindset
change that leadership is the responsibility of all. The distribution of
leadership tasks and functions may be formally planned or spontaneously
unplanned (Tomlinson, 2012, Bolden, 2011). Distributed leadership taps
into the energy and motivation of the followers as it engages and recognizes
the contribution of its followers. It engenders commitment through bottom-up
participation and provides opportunities for individual skills development
through increased leadership responsibilities (Tomlinson, 2012).
The distributed leadership model is goal and task-focused. The development
of people is secondary. There is an inherent assumption in this model of
leadership that all in the organization are willing and capable to take on
additional responsibilities. This may not necessary be true. Distributed
leadership does not take into consideration differing aspirations, readiness in
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
24
terms of maturity, capabilities of the individual and their needs. Distributed
leadership requires sustained investment in leadership development for all
(Tomlinson, 2012). This model of leadership also does not take into
consideration the dynamics of power and influence. It assumes that the
social structure in the organization is capable of self-regulating and
individuals capable of problem solving and making critical decisions in the
best interest of the organization (Bolden, 2011). .
2.6 Servant leadership – a new leadership paradigm
The theory of servant leadership is a radically different model of leadership
from the traditional hierarchical model, where power and control resides in a
few selected individuals. Servant leadership is defined as a leadership style
that emphasizes serving others first (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 1998; Parris
& Peachey, 2012). Servant leadership calls for a mindset shift that
influences how leaders relate to their followers (Shekari & Nikooparvar,
2012). This model of leadership works on the basic premise that “leaders
do not exercise authoritarian power and control to further their agenda”
(Greenleaf, 1977, p16). It is based on the notion of “primus inter pares – first
among equals” (Greenleaf, 1977, p 61). Servant leadership is relational
leadership. Servant leaders create opportunities for people to learn and
work together to achieve results (Balda & Mora, 2011). The servant leader
plays the role of a facilitator for the followers to achieve a shared vision and
for them to realize their own potential (Greenleaf, 1977; Smith, et al., 2004).
The focus is not on what one achieves as a leader but how the servant
leader goes about supporting the group to achieve the group’s goals
(Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Servant leaders understand that by developing
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
25
their colleagues, they will not only improve the performance of the
organization for today but will build one to last for the future (Keith, 2008).
“Servant leadership is about getting people to a higher level by leading
people at a higher level” (Blanchard, 2009, p.279). Unlike distributed
leadership, servant leadership meets the people where they are in terms of
their development, career aspiration and readiness to take on additional
responsibilities.
Servant leaders are value-based and character-driven people who look to
ensure that other people’s needs are being served (Greenfield, 1977). Their
primary orientation is to serve, which takes priority over holding a formal
leadership position. Servant leaders do not crave for limelight. They are
comfortable working behind the scene. They are not threatened by the
strength of others nor are they preoccupied with status and titles to reinforce
their leadership position (Doraiswamy, 2012). Servant leaders have strong
self-image, moral conviction and emotional stability that drive them to use
relation power, humility, authenticity and autonomy to influence and build a
community (Graham, 1991). They are skilled at building bridges between
people, cultures and even opposing values because there is no “us” and
“them” but rather the pursuit of shared goals that are important
(Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010). “Leadership is not something you do to
people but something you do with people” (Blanchard, 2009, p.89).
In high performing organizations, the people are energized and committed
because they are made to feel empowered, valued and respected for their
contributions (Blanchard, 2009). They are guided by a compelling vision and
are supported by systems and practices that are aligned to the organization’s
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
26
vision and strategic direction. The culture in high performing organizations is
open and collaborative (Blanchard, 2009). Information is shared and readily
available for people to make decisions. Leadership is key in these
organizations and is assumed at every level to encourage learning and
participation (Blanchard, 2009). Servant leadership embodies these
characteristics of leadership manifested in high performing organizations.
Servant leaders are said to be best placed to lead an organization through
change as they will not use organization change as an excuse to build their
own power position, make changes based on personalities and factional
politics. Their focus is on the needs of the organization and those they serve
(Keith, 2008).
Organizations that adopt the principles of servant leadership value their
people and their talents, that which in turn engenders highly motivated
employees, lower absences and better performances. (Trompenaars &
Voerman, 2010).
Southwest Airlines, which has been voted within the top ten of Fortune most
admired companies in the last three years, is often cited as a company that
embraces the principles of servant leadership. Underpinning the success of
the company is a culture, which emphasizes shared goals, shared
knowledge, mutual respect, and effective communication focused on solving
problems (Gittel, n.d.).
The culture of Southwest Airlines embraces the following values (McGee-
Cooper, Trammell, Looper, n.d.):
1. Leading with a servant’s heart
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
27
2. Be the change you want to see in others
3. Customers come second after employees
4. Deep listening with no agenda
5. Follow-up - take action
Unlike most companies where customers and shareholders often take top
spots in terms of the organization’s priorities, employees are at the top of the
pyramid of priorities in Southwest Airlines. The philosophy in Southwest
Airlines is to deliver good care and service to the employees so that the latter
can in turn provide great service to the customers. Leadership at Southwest
Airlines focuses on developing people, building great teams, thinking
strategically, seeking excellent results and aligning with the company’s
values. The people are empowered and held accountable to take ownership
in resolving problems and making decisions (Shekari & Nikooparvar, 2012).
2.7 Summary
Business and organization landscapes have changed significantly. Today
we operate in a highly networked and interconnected global economy. The
workforce is culturally diverse and multi-generational. Businesses are
operating in a period with unprecedented levels of volatility and complexity.
The centralized power of command and control type leadership may have
been appropriate during those days where industries and business
environments were more straightforward and somewhat more predictable.
The challenge for the 21st century leaders lie in their ability to effectively
influence, interact with the different attributes, motivations and learning styles
of its diverse workforce so as to unleash the potential and power of his
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
28
people.
Servant/Service leadership works on the basic premise of service to its
followers by engaging and meeting the followers where their needs are and
supporting them in their development (Balda & Mora, 2011; Shekari &
Nikooparvar, 2012). Unlike the traditional models of leadership where the
decision-making is predominantly top-down and relationships uni-directional,
servant leaders create cultures where followers feel that they can bring
themselves to work and be focused on delivering their best as their leaders
can be trusted to support them with a genuine interest to ensure their
success and development (Blanchard, 2009). The relationship between
leaders and followers in a servant leadership model is bi-directional. In
servant leadership, the measure of the leaders’ ultimate success is the ability
of the leaders to grow his followers (Blanchard, 2009). Servant leadership
recognizes that leveraging the collective intelligence and contribution of the
group can strengthen the potential of the organization’s success. Servant
leaders create environments of trust and confidence for their followers to
engage, take ownership, and the latter are empowered to create and
innovate. Servant leaders recognize that each employee is different, unique,
and have different talents and aspirations. There is therefore the need to
create a supportive environment to provide space and platform to unleash
the creative energy and power of each individual in the organization (Keith,
2008; Blanchard, 2009). Servant leaders embrace the “ideals of
empowerment, total quality, team-ship, participatory management and
service ethics into a leadership philosophy” (Shekari & Nikooparvar, 2012, p
54).
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
29
Although many renowned authors and leadership gurus have endorsed and
promoted the concept of servant leadership, it is a subject seldom discussed
at leadership levels in organizations or governing boards. The papers that
have been written thus far on this subject appear to describe characteristics,
attributes of servant leadership and positive benefits such as employees’
satisfaction, retention, etc. In order to move beyond the theory, it would
make sense to establish a leadership model that organizations can adopt
and pragmatically deploy the principles of servant leadership to foster
organizational effectiveness.
Dr Robert C Liden and Dr Sandy J Wayne, Professors of Management at the
University of Illinois, Chicago, conducted a recent study (2013) on “Servant
Leadership In Singapore”. The purpose of this study was to understand the
levels of servant leadership in Singaporean organizations, the gap between
desires for servant leadership and actual extent of practice and the outcome
(Liden, Wayne, Liao and Wu, 2013). The survey covered 409 full time
employees (88% response rate) and 78 supervisors (94% response rate)
from ten organizations across different sectors, ranging from healthcare,
education, and not-for-profit organizations.
The participants were asked questions on the ideal supervisors that
participants want to work for. The attributes associated with servant
leadership embedded in the questions included Empowerment (be given
responsibility to make decisions), Put Followers First (care about my success
more than their own), Development (putting follower’s career development a
priority), Mentoring (would know and help if there’s a problem), Ethics (hold
high ethical standards), and Community Service (the importance of giving
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
30
back to the community) (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, Henderson, 2008).
The results of the survey reported that whilst the principles of servant
leadership may purportedly have been practiced in some companies, there
remains a gap between the actual practice and behaviors exhibited, and the
desired level of this form of leadership. The average level of servant
leadership practised in the ten organizations is 4.96 on a 7-point scale. The
average level of desire for servant leadership in the ten organizations is 5.74
out of a possible 7. Employees from seven of the ten organizations reported
a strong desire for servant leadership. The employees from the remaining
three organizations had expressed a moderate to strong desire for servant
leadership. The overall analysis of the ten organizations revealed a
significant and positive correlation between servant leadership and the
subordinates’ positive attitudes, motivation and work behaviors.
Adopting servant leadership not only requires commitment from the
organization, leaders must be prepared to make themselves vulnerable and
be open to feedback and suggestions. Fons Trompenaars and Ed Voerman
(2010) in their book, “Servant-Leadership Across Cultures” cautioned that to
implement servant leadership in organization, one has to have the business
case with clarity of vision including the “higher goal” and mission of the
organization. Implementation of servant leadership in organization also calls
for wisdom to do it selectively and in moderation, where it is appropriate.
Servant leadership calls for a culture of openness in communication and has
no place for political agenda. Hence, servant leadership may not necessary
appeal to all organizations and leaders (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010).
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
31
3. Research Methodology and Design
The objective of this study is two-fold. The first objective is to ascertain if
there are differences in views and attitudes amongst generational cohorts on
leadership practices and the impact on employee motivation. The second
objective is to identify common denominators of leadership practices across
all three generational cohorts in the workplace that underpins workplace
motivation.
This study adopted a hybrid approach, first with a survey to establish if there
are common denominators on leadership practices deemed important for
workplace motivation across all three generational cohorts. Questionnaires
were sent via emails to participants. Participants included fresh graduates,
junior to middle level executives, from different age groups representing the
three different generational cohorts. The participants of the survey are
randomly picked from a representation of different industries both profit and
not-for-profit organizations. The random mix of participants serves to elicit
representation of views from each generational cohort and eliminates any
potential industry or organizational bias.
The scale used in the survey is a 5-point Likert scale: Strongly Agree,
Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree and Strongly Disagree.
There were twenty-eight statements presented to the participants in the
survey. The statements in the survey seek to establish the perceived values
placed by each generational cohort against attributes of leadership practices
and the impact on their workplace motivation in three areas – personal
motivation, leadership effectiveness and organizational effectiveness. Each
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
32
category measures the attitudes and degrees of importance of the various
leadership practices on organizational success.
The statements in the survey are co-related to servant leadership practices
based on the themes identified from the literature reviewed. The statements
were designed to tease out the participants’ attitude towards four attributes of
servant leadership practices and to validate if there were differing views with
generational cohorts on the impact such practices have on their workplace
motivation.
The four attributes of servant leadership practices used in the questionnaires
for this study are referenced from the results of the research done by Gentry
et al., (2011) on leadership practices deemed important for organizational
success asked of participants from all 3 different generations. The results of
the research by Gentry et al., (2011) presented the following: delegate with
clear performance goals, participative management and inclusion, supportive
leadership – do whatever it takes, and build collaborative relationships.
A thematic analysis was used to establish if generations share/differ in
motivational factors based on their responses to the values they attached to
leadership practices asked in the survey.
4. Analysis and Findings
The survey was sent out to 100 participants comprising a random mix of
Baby Boomers, Gen Xs and Gen Ys. Only 67 responded, of which only 10
from Baby Boomers. There were 27 & 30 respondents from Gen Ys and
Gen Xs respectively.
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
33
Of the 67 respondents, 9% were foreigners and the rest were local
Singaporeans from various industries.
Seven sets of data were discarded because some of the answers were either
outliers or there were missing values. The final sample size was 60. 25
each from Generation X and Generation Y and 10 from Baby Boomers.
The survey measures the four servant leadership practices and its impact on
workplace motivation of the participants. The term “follower” is loosely used
here in this context to refer to members of the organization.
Boundary defines the extent to which one can be autonomous and
responsible
Statements in the survey related to Boundary are:
• I am most motivated when I am given the space to be creative and told
only of the boundaries.
• Effective leaders always defines visions & boundaries
• Clearly defined structures and formalized procedures are important
elements of success
Empowerment refers to the extent to which the followers can exercise
discretionary decision-making, creativity and innovation.
Statements in the survey related to Empowerment are:
• I will leave an organization if I do not feel included and empowered to
make decision
• Effective leaders are confident and empowers their staff to make
decisions
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
34
• Team performance are at their best when they are allowed space to be
creative
• Leaders are important, but a supportive and empowering environment
is more effective in driving performance
Association refers to the extent to which the followers identify themselves to
the brand value and culture of the organization
Statements in the survey related to Association are:
• Whilst pay and career opportunities are important, I value the work
culture of an organization more
• Working for a company whose brand I am proud to be associated with
is a more important consideration than the job.
• It is important that I have strong network and that I stay connected all
the time through social media
• Leaders who promote team-ship and participative management tends to
be more successful than autocratic leadership
• It is important that leaders provide to their team network opportunities
and exposure to senior management
• All successful organizations have strong culture built on shared values
• I am most motivated when the team I work in is collaborative and
inclusive
Mentoring refers to the nurturing support given to its followers to help them
achieve their highest potential.
Statements in the survey related to Mentoring are:
• I am more motivated to work when my manager is genuinely interested
in my development
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
35
• It is important that I get regular feedback and coaching from my
manager/mentor
• A leader's primary role is to coach and mentor their staff to advance to
their full potential than just about delivering their KPIs
• Leaders are important, but a supportive and empowering environment
is more effective in driving performance
• I feel empowered and know I will have the support from my leaders
when I need it
The items measuring the different dimensions were reliable with Cronbach
alpha values of 0.48 (empowerment), 0.57 (association), 0.60 (mentoring),
0.67 (development opportunity), and 0.70 (ethics). However the reliability
score for the domain on boundary was a little low with an alpha value of
0.21.
Of the four dimensions, generation type emerged as a significant predictor of
boundary (b =. 264), t (59) = 2.087, p < .05, and mentoring (b = -.266), t (59)
= -2.105, p < .05.
A one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant mean differences in two
of the four dimensions of the leadership engagement framework. The results
showed that not all groups placed the same value on the dimensions of
“boundary” and “mentoring”. The difference however is not statistically
significant amongst the generational cohorts on the dimensions of
“empowerment” and “association”. (See Table 1 for the results of the survey)
On the dimension of “boundary”, the results suggested that all three groups
rated it important to be given space for creativity and be told only of the
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
36
boundary and the scope in which one can exercise independence in
decision-making. The mean score for Gen X on this dimension is higher
relative to the other two cohorts suggests that Gen X has a relatively higher
bias for clearly defined boundaries.
This result speaks to previous studies on Gen X where they are known to
prefer autonomy and independence. Whilst they are said to have little
regards for organizational hierarchy and policies, they nonetheless
appreciate that some form of structure is important. Gen X managers are
results oriented and prefer to let people manage their own as long as they
produce results (Jeffries & Hunte, 2003). They are likely to be motivated by
strong measurement controls e.g. budgets and clear performance measures
and feedback (Petroulas, et al.,2010). Baby Boomers on the other hand
associate successful performance with time spent on the job. (Jeffries &
Hunte, 2003).
On the dimension of mentoring, Gen Y & Gen X, relative to their older
colleagues, appeared to place a significantly higher value on this dimension,
as they perceived that an important part of the role of a leader is to help
them to be successful. There is an expectation that leaders take an active
interest in their career and give them regular feedback, coaching and be
supportive of their career aspirations.
Whilst Gen Y and Gen X may have expressed a higher bias for mentoring,
their attitudes towards mentoring and the type of mentoring are different.
Gen X looks at mentoring to help them get into leadership positions. The
responsibilities for their own development remain theirs and they are
considered in their demand of their mentor’s time. The millennials however
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
37
have an expectation to be mentored whenever they need advice. Mentoring
to the Baby Boomers is seen as a program with clear expectations and
duration. Their view of mentoring is often a one to one relationship that is for
a long term or for a specified period of time with a clear developmental
objective(s). Baby Boomers may sometimes be looked upon as mentors to
the millennials because of their experience and seniority. It has been
observed that in recent years, there is an increase phenomenon of reverse
mentoring by the millennials to the Baby Boomers as more and more young
people take up positions of leadership and responsibilities. In some
companies such as Intuit, they use reverse mentoring as part of their
endeavor to promote cross company innovation (Nikravan, 2011).
On the dimensions of “association” and “empowerment”, the differences
across generation cohorts on these two values are statistically not
significant. The values placed on the dimensions of “association” and
“empowerment” is consistent across all three generational cohorts although
the mean value on “association” and “empowering” is higher with Gen Y and
with Gen X respectively. All groups ranked being connected and having
strong network as important. Whilst pay and benefits are important, the work
culture and learning opportunities are more important. They expect leaders
to provide a supportive and empowering environment that promotes team-
ship and participative management.
In the publication by Jeffries and Hunt on “Generations and Motivations: A
Connection Worth Making” (2003), Baby Boomers are said to like consensus
building and participative management and Gen Y has a preference to be
part of a team and a need to feel belonged (Petroulas, et al.,2010). The
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
38
Baby Boomers are more likely to spend more time on the job than their Gen
X counterparts who prefer to limit their time spent on the job and to have
more personal time (Jurkiewicz, 2000, Lancaster & Stillman, 2002,
O’Bannon, 2001). Gen X generally has lower levels of need for affiliation
than Gen Y (Wong, et al., 2008) and is said to have a preference for working
independently.
It was also observed from the results of the survey that there is greater
diversity within groups than it is between groups.
Although the focus of the survey was on leadership attributes vis-à-vis their
motivational factors that were co-related to the four dimensions of servant
leadership attributes, some questions asked in the survey relate to values
and ethics to test the significance of these two dimensions on generational
types. The results were neither significant with generational type nor with
gender.
The survey results have validated the known characteristics of the different
generational cohorts. The outcome is also consistent with the research
published by Gentry et al in 2011 on important leadership practices for
organizational success that were endorsed by the participants across all
three generational cohorts.
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
39
Table 1: Survey Results on the Four Dimensions of Servant Leadership on
Workplace Motivation
Dimension Groups N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Boundary
Gen Y 25 12.00 1.3844 0.2769 11.429 12.572 9 15
Gen X 25 13.08 1.2557 0.2511 12.562 13.598 11 15
Baby Boomers 10 12.80 1.8135 0.5735 11.503 14.097 11 15
Total 60 12.58 1.4763 0.1906 12.202 12.965 9 15
Mentoring
Gen Y 25 17.64 1.8682 0.3736 16.869 18.411 14 20
Gen X 25 17.48 1.8511 0.3702 16.716 18.244 13 20
Baby Boomers 10 15.80 2.7406 0.8667 13.840 17.761 12 19
Total 60 17.27 2.0982 0.2709 16.725 17.809 12 20
Empowerment
Gen Y 25 16.72 1.7205 0.3441 16.010 17.430 13 20
Gen X 25 17.04 1.4572 0.2914 16.439 17.642 14 20
Baby Boomers 10 16.70 2.9833 0.9434 14.566 18.834 10 19
Total 60 16.85 1.8579 0.2399 16.370 17.330 10 20
Association
Gen Y 25 24.04 3.3352 0.6670 22.663 25.417 15 29
Gen X 25 23.48 2.7707 0.5541 22.336 24.624 19 29
Baby Boomers 10 23.00 4.0552 1.2824 20.099 25.901 17 27
Total 60 23.63 3.2100 0.4144 22.804 24.463 15 29
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
40
Table 2: Factors of Workplace Motivation across Generational Cohorts
Baby Boomers Gen X Gen Y Good Pay
Steady Employment Opportunity to do interesting work
Respect Chance for promotion
and development Feeling my job is important/Prospect for
advancement Freedom, flexibility and work life balance
Meaningful work/challenges/opportunities to acquire new skills
Opportunity to give back to society Opportunity to give back
to society
High quality colleagues High quality colleagues Job Security Work not central to life Work not central to life
Hierarchical power Need for affiliation Need for affiliation Table 3: Endorsement of Leadership Practices across Generational Cohorts
Baby Boomers Gen X Gen Y
Respect authority Respect capable leadership
Respect capable leadership
Values power within organization Values autonomy Values autonomy
Delegate with clear performance expectations
Participative management
Participative management
Inclusive and engaged leadership
Mentoring - seen as a specific program with
timeline
Mentoring from leaders as and when needed to help them to be successful
Formal Feedback Expect Immediate and continuous feedback
Expect frequent feedback
nurturing environment
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
41
5. Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Summary of findings
According to the various studies done, any differences in workplace
motivation, if at all, is not significant across different generational cohorts. All
three generational cohorts share essentially similar workplace motivations
that fulfill their basic physiological (with steady employment) and esteem
needs (chance for promotion and opportunity for development). However,
work is not central to their lives. They do not expect to be doing work for
work’s sake. They desire to do meaningful work, have the opportunity to
develop new skills, be in pursuit of knowledge relations, and be given
flexibility to have work-life balance. (See Table 2 for a summary of the
factors of workplace motivation across generational cohorts).
On leadership practices, all 3 generational cohorts desire an inclusive style
of leadership, with accessibility to the leadership network. They want to be
empowered with clear performance goals, given responsibilities, to be
involved in decision-making, contribute new ideas and opportunities to build
collaborative relationships. They expect leaders to be actively engaged in
their development. (See Table 3 for a summary of the leadership practices
endorsed by the three generational cohorts)
There is a clear shift in behavioral trends that necessitates a change in
leadership paradigm away from a top-down, leader-led model to a bi-
directional leader-follower relationship. The leader’s focus has to shift to one
of supporting the needs of the followers, developing their potentials and
actively engaging their participation and ownership to resolve issues and
contributing to the growth of the organization. Greater consideration and
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
42
investments need to be accorded to develop individuals and to harness
collective team knowledge to build organizational capability so as to bring
about innovations to products and services.
The impact of globalization and the explosion in technology in the last
decade have also made an inevitable impact on organizations and the
leadership of people. It further underscores the need for leaders to create
nurturing, inclusive environments that promote collaboration and learning
(Gerzema & D’Antonio, 2011).
Servant leadership can be the answer to address the leadership challenge
for the workforce of the 21st century and beyond. The real challenge posed
to implementing the principles of servant leadership in organizations rest in
the willingness and confidence of leaders to let go of position power to lead
from the second seat.
5.2 What is in the way of greater adoption of servant leadership
practice?
Servant leadership is not a new concept and had indeed in the recent years
generated a lot of interest. Yet, what can be in the way of its adoption and
practice?
Firstly, the expectation and pressure placed on leaders to deliver quick short-
term results are pragmatically real and are not going away. The pressures to
achieve bottom-line and deliver on shareholder values intuitively sits better
with leadership associated with centralized power and control.
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
43
Secondly, the conventional organizational model with its hierarchical
structure is not geared for servant leadership as it has the propensity to
produce leaders with traits associated with power and control (Heskett,
2013).
Thirdly, servant leadership is values-driven, requires humility and courage to
let go of power, the willingness to put others before self and the belief that
one’s ultimate success lies in the success of the team. Lao-Tzu wrote about
servant leadership in the fifth-century BC: "The highest type of ruler is one of
whose existence the people are barely aware…. The Sage is self-effacing
and scanty of words. When his task is accomplished and things have been
completed, all the people say, 'We ourselves have achieved it!' ". When
servant leaders work, the focus is on the issue and how they can support the
people. The people are focus on their work without worrying about who gets
the credit as they trust that their leaders will take care of them and do the
right things (Keith, 2008). Personal characteristics such as ego, greed, need
for control are all factors antithetical to the implementation of servant
leadership (Heskett, May 2013).
5.3 Recommendation – a proposed servant leadership engagement framework
To bridge the gap between the theory of servant leadership and the practical
implementation for effective leadership in organizations, this paper proposes,
as a way of working, a leadership engagement framework that can be
integrated into any existing organizational structure. The proposed
leadership engagement framework is based on the attributes of servant
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
44
leadership. The objective is to create a culture of engagement; an open,
nurturing environment to address the varying leadership expectations of a
multi-generational workforce. In so doing, build a learning organization
culture so as to achieve overall organizational growth and effectiveness.
The key pillars of this leadership engagement framework are represented by
the acronym BEAM that is based on the 4 attributes of servant leadership
identified in the survey. BEAM stands for Boundary, Empowerment,
Association and Mentoring.
1. B is for Boundary – followers have clarity on where they can be
autonomous and responsible
2. E is for Empowerment – followers are empowered to the extent that
they exercise discretionary decision-making, creativity and innovation
within the boundaries defined
3. A is for Association – the organization builds a strong brand value and
culture that the people can identify with
4. M for Mentoring – followers have the consistent support of the
organization and their leaders in helping them to achieve their highest
potential
This proposed engagement framework is neither about a reversal of roles of
leaders nor about leaders being servants. It is about creating a platform for
a sustained level of engagement in the organization. There is a symbiotic
relationship between the leaders and the followers. The leaders’ influence
and focus in this framework is to create a supportive, collaborative and
nurturing environment that embraces team-ship, participatory management
and empowerment. The culture of engagement in the organization is
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
45
consequently shaped by leaders embracing and acting on these 4
fundamental principles in all, and at every level of their interactions in the
organization. Followers are given the latitude for creativity and innovation
and to exercise independent discretionary decisions within the boundaries
defined. The organization provides systems and tools to help followers do
their job well and be successful.
The vision and strategy of the organization are clearly defined and
communicated by the leaders to the followers.
Underpinning the relationships is the organization’s shared values. These
values define the culture of the organization, which consequently forms an
identity from which the followers draw their affiliation.
The framework also features the duality of the typical organization pyramid
and the inverted pyramid. The typical organizational pyramid remains a
critical feature of the organization as ultimate decision and responsibility in
setting the organization’s vision and defining the business strategy remain
the responsibility of the leaders at the top of the organizational hierarchy.
The inverted pyramid represents the fluidity of the relationships and culture
of participatory management within the organization
Central to the implementation of this framework are 3 basic premises.
Firstly, leaders have to have the conviction that the way to build a high
performing organization is in embracing servant leadership (Keith, 2008,
Blanchard, 2009). Secondly, leaders have to be willing to transcend selves
and to put the development of their people as a focus priority; as a way to
tap into the human motivation (Keith, 2008). Thirdly, the organization has to
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
46
have a mandated culture of open communication and mutual respect.
For any one in leadership position, this model of engagement is antithetical
to basic human nature - to have the confidence to let go of power and control
and yet remain accountable for delivering to the organization’s bottom-line in
terms of profit and shareholder’s value. The adoption of this framework in
organizations thus requires a paradigm shift, both for the leaders and the
followers.
Figuratively speaking, whilst the framework is the hardware to set any
organization on the journey of change, important is also the software to fuel
the change. Leaders will need to adopt a mindset shift in the way they
engage with the followers and respect that everyone has a role to play.
Leaders need to listen more, find meaningful ways to engage the people and
be focused on catching people do the right things (Johnson, 2011).
Embracing the principles of servant leadership in any organization is a
journey. As with any behavioral change, it is back to basics in that what gets
measured, gets done. To induce a change in organizational behavior,
building people capabilities and network relationships must feature as core in
the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for leaders. In that way, it creates the
impetus for change in culture and organizational behavior at all levels in the
organization.
Some measure of performance indicators can include the following:
1. Existence of clearly defined performance goals, roles, governance of
work and ethics
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
47
2. The extent to which employees have developed to take on increased
responsibilities or move on to developmental roles
3. The development of boundary spanning activities (development of
network relations, building partnerships and collaboration through
influence across boundaries and sections (William, 2002)),
4. The development of cross functional-collaborative initiatives
5. The number of mentoring and coaching relationships developed
6. Staff turnover statistics
7. 360 feedback pulse results
Diagram 1: Servant Leadership Engagement Framework
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
48
5.4. Limitations
A possible limitation of this research lies in the small sample size, more
specifically, from the Baby Boomer generation. Further, the composition of
the participants are predominantly a culturally homogeneous group i.e. local
Singaporeans. As there is no data to establish the hierarchical seniority of
the participants in the survey, it cannot be established if the results may have
been different when samples are stratified by hierarchical seniority. It has
not been established definitively in the literatures if there are indeed
significant differences or genuine differences in workplace motivation
between generational cohorts. It is unclear if the differences identified could
be factors associated with different life stages and priorities than it being
generational factors. The hypothesis that there are no significant differences
in workplace motivation across generational type and the greater than
anticipated overlap on preferences in leadership practices can be further
tested on a bigger, and more culturally and hierarchically diverse group.
5.5. Future research opportunity
Generational cohort theory suggests that the differences in manifested
behaviors and values of each generation are shaped by the economic
development, affluence of society, technological development and political
landscape in the era in which they are born and raised (Gentry, et al., 2011;
Salahuddin, 2010). Researches based on cross-sectional studies have
shown that the differences in motivational factors and its impact on
leadership practices may not be significant or genuine across generational
cohorts. Any difference may well be attributed to age factor, driven by one’s
needs and priorities at different life stages (Wong, et al., 2008). The
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
49
opportunity for future research is to conduct a longitudinal study and to
expand the base of participants to include a wider set of people across
geographies, cultural diversity, gender and generations so as to validate if
there is indeed generational differences in the views of leadership practices
and its impact on workplace motivation.
Going forward, it would be interesting to follow the development of those
organizations that have embraced servant leadership practices. It would be
useful to study the evolution of servant leadership mindset in these
organizations against the backdrop of continued economic, political and
technological evolution. As servant leadership is values-driven and is a
radically different model of leadership, it would be important to establish the
core elements that must be present to support and sustain the culture of
servant leadership practices in organizations.
Although the definition of servant leadership is clear in all the literature that it
is a model of leadership that emphasizes service to others, the attributes of
servant leadership however appears to be inconsistent with different authors.
It would be best served to be clearer on the key attributes of servant
leadership.
5.6. Conclusion
Globalization, technological advancement and rising affluence are all factors
that have contributed to the changing behavioral trends in society and the
workforce. It leaves to be acknowledged that the leadership challenge for the
21st century workforce calls for a different level of engagement with the
people.
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
50
It is imperative that organizations rethink leadership in the context of building
organizational capabilities as a way to future-proof and build high performing,
agile organizations. It requires leaders to understand the factors that drive
workplace motivation of the 21st century workforce.
The traditional model of leadership restricts the spontaneity of engagement
and empowerment demanded by all 3 generational cohorts; and limits
innovation. Despite the idiosyncrasies typifying the different generational
cohorts, central to all 3 cohorts is an expectation to be engaged in
meaningful work, opportunity to pursue knowledge relations, be supported in
their development, opportunity for participatory management and being
valued.
The proposed leadership engagement framework in this study embraces
servant leadership by way of creating a culture of engagement that energizes
the diverse talent of the workforce so as to unleash the full potential of every
individual in the organization.
Advocating servant leadership as the new leadership paradigm for the 21st
century workforce is to shift the focus from building successful organizations
to developing people for success. Servant leadership involves a
fundamental shift in leadership mindset and organizational culture. It has to
stem from the inside of the leader, having a genuine desire to want to
develop others, and the humility to accept that leadership is about bringing
out the best in others and not about themselves (Blanchard, 2009). Servant
leadership can only be successfully practiced in organizations with the
existence of the right conditions by way of the values and culture that the
organization embraces, systems and tools to support the people in their
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
51
development, and KPIs that reinforces behaviors that are aligned to the
beliefs and conviction towards people development.
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
52
References
Andert, D. (2011). Alternating leadership as a proactive organizational
intervention: addressing the needs of the baby boomers, generation xers and millennials. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 8(4), 67-83.
Appelbaum, S.H., Serena, M. and Shapiro, B.T. (2004), “gen x and the boomers:
organizational myths and literary realities”, Management Research News, 27(11), pp. 1-28.
Balda, J., & Mora, F. (2011). Adapting leadership theory and practice for the
networked, millennial generation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 13-24. doi:10.1002/jls.20229
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
Free Press. Blanchard, K. H. (2009). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and
creating high performing organizations. New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd.
Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251-269. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Doraiswamy, I. R. (2012). Servant or leader? who will stand up please?.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(9), 178-182. Dulin, L. (2008). Leadership preferences of a generation y cohort. Journal of
leadership studies, 2(1), 43-59. doi: :10.1002\jls.20045 Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis: The Robert K.
Greenleaf Center. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
53
Gentry, W. A., Deal, J. J., Griggs, T. L., Mondore, S. P., & Cox, B. D. (2011). A
comparison of generational differences in endorsement of leadership practices with actual leadership skill level. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 63(1), 39-49. doi:10.1037/a0023015
Gerzema, J & D’Antonio, M (2011). The athena doctrine: how women (and the
men who think like them) will rule. Jossey-Bass, 2013, P11. ISBN:978-1118452950;
Gittell, J. (n.d.). The southwest airlines way. Retrieved from
www.theclci.com/resources/TheSouthwestAirlinesWay.PDF Graham, J. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: inspirational and moral.
Leadership quarterly, 2(2), 105–119. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(91)90025-W Gratton, L. (2010). The future of work. Business Strategy Review, 21(3), 16-23.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8616.2010.00678.x Heskett, J. (2013, May 1). Why isn’t ‘servant leadership’ more prevalent? HBS,
Working Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/05/01/why-isnt-servant-leadership-more-prevalent/
Hewlett, S. A., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009, July–August). How gen y &
boomers will reshape your agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87, 71–76. Jeffries, F. L., & Hunte, T. L. (2003). Generations and motivation: a connection
worth making. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 6(1), 37-70. Johnson, J. A., & Lopes, J. (2008). The intergenerational workforce, revisited.
Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 31-36. Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2000), “Gen X and the public employee”, Public Personnel
Management, 29 (1), 55.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Genxers vs. boomers vs. matures.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4), 18.
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
54
Kaifi, B. A., Nafei, W. A., Khanfar, N. M., & Kaifi, M. M. (2012). A multi-
generational workforce: managing and understanding millennials. International Journal of Business & Management, 7(24), 88-93. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n24p88
Keith, K. M. (2008). The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN, United States
of America: Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership, 35 Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter?. Executive
(19389779), 5(2), 48-60. doi:10.5465/AME.1991.4274679 Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective
management. The Health Care Manager, 19, 65–76. Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: who they are.
why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., Wu, J. (2013, July 12). Servant Leadership
In Singapore (powerpoint slides). Retrieved July 17, 2013 from Greenleaf Centre (Asia) For Servant Leadership. http://www.greenleafasia.org/singapore-2013-research-initiative.html
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:
development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177.doi:10.1016 /j.leaqua. 2008.01.006
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity. what managers
need to know about generation y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1), 39-44.
McGee-Cooper, A., Trammell, D. & Looper, G. (n.d.). The power of luv: an inside
peek at the innovative culture committee of southwest airlines. Reflections, 9(1), 49-54. http://mgmtsouthwest.wikispaces.com/file/view/Leadership_SW.pdf
Melchar, D. E., Bosco, S. M., & Cantrell, C. (2008). Leadership for the next
generation. Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute, 498-503.
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
55
Mhatre, K. H., & Conger, J. A. (2011). Bridging the gap between Gen X and Gen
Y. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 72-76. doi:10.1002/jls.20235 Montana, P. J.,& Lenaghan, J. A.,(1999). What motivates and matters most to
generations x and y. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 59(4), 27–30.
Montana, P. J., & Petit, F. (2008). Motivating generation x and y on the job and
preparing z. Global Journal of Business Research, 2(2), 139-148. Ng, E., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. (2010). New generation, great expectations: a
field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(2), 281-292. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4
Nikravan, L. (2011, October). The gen y workplace. Chief Learning Officer, 36-41. O’Bannon, G. (2001). Managing our future: the generation X factor. Public
Personnel Management, 30(1), 95-109.
Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2012). A systematic literature review of servant
leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: a review of
theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79-96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x
Penney, S. H. (2011). Voices of the future: leadership for the 21st century. Journal
of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 56-59. doi:10.1002/jls.20232 Petroulas, E., Brown, D., & Sundin, H. (2010). Generational characteristics and
their impact on preference for management control systems. Australian Accounting Review, 20(3), 221-240. Doi:10.1111/J.1835-2561.2010.00099.X
Reingold, J. (2013, January 14). Southwest's Herb Kelleher: still crazy after all
these years. CNN Money, Retrieved from http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/14/kelleher-southwest-airlines/).
Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change !
ANNA ANG
!
56
Salahuddin, M. M. (2010). Generational differences impact on leadership style
and organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), 1-6. Schuh, S., Zhang, X., & Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad? Interactive
effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 629-640. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. (2002). Servant leadership: its origin, development, and
application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57–64.
Shamir B, House RJ, Arthur MB (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 44(4): 577–594.
Shekari, H., & Nikooparvar, M. (2012). Promoting leadership effectiveness in
organizations: a case study on the involved factors of servant leadership. International Journal of Business Administration, 3(1), 54-65. doi:10.5430/ijba.v3n1p54
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and
servant leadership: content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies (Baker College), 10(4), 80-91.
Somola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: revisiting
generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363-382. doi:10.1002/job.147
Spears, L. (1998). Insights on leadership: service, stewardship, spirit, and servant
leadership. New York: Wiley. Tomlinson, J. (2012). Exploration of transformational and distributed leadership.
Nursing Management - UK, 19(4), 30-34. Trompenaars, F., Voerman, E. (2010). Servant-leadership across cultures:
harnessing the strengths of the world's most powerful management philosophy. United States of America: McGraw-Hill companies.
INSEAD Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change
SERVANT LEADERSHIP !
57
Twenge, J. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences
in work attitudes. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25(2), 201-210. Doi:10.1007/S10869-010-9165-6
Wang, P., & Rode, J. C. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower
creativity: The moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Human Relations, 63(8), 1105-1128.
William, P. (2002). Promoting health across boundaries. Retrieved from
http://www.phab.us/about/what-is-boundary-spanning/ Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences
in personality and motivation do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace?. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878-890. doi:10.1108/02683940810904376
Yang, Sung-Bum, & Guy, M. E. (2006). Genxers versus boomers: work motivators
and management implications. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(3), 267-284.
Recommended