A STUDY ON HOW GENERATIONAL COHORT AFFECTS LEADERSHIP STYLE

By Emily Barlean

December 17, 2014

ABSTRACTIn todays workplace all four generations exist togetherfrom Millennials to Traditionalists. This provides the unique opportunity for Millennials, Gen Xers, Boomers, and Traditionalists to interact. In fact, these generations are doing much more than just interactingthey are leading each other. Most often Baby Boomers and Traditionalists are leading teams of Gen Xers and Millennials, but there are also instances of Gen Xers and Millennials leading the older generations. It can be challenging to have generations collide, especially when they do not understand each others communication and leadership styles. For that reason, there is a greater need for different age groups to understand one another in order to promote civility. This paper seeks to prove that the generation one is born into affects their leadership style; this would provide members of all generations with more realistic expectations and a greater understanding of why their managers and colleagues act the way they do.By thoroughly investigating the areas of generations, communications, and leadership and then synthesizing them as a body of work, research proved that both personality and communication style are highly impacting of leadership style, and because different generations have very different backgrounds and communication styles, generation does have an impact on leadership. It was discovered the Traditionalists lead with more of a top-down approach, Baby Boomers lead with motivation and through building relationships, Generation Xers lead by demonstration, and Millennials prefer to lead as a team, working together to accomplish a task. The implications of this study will prove extremely valuable to anyone who enters the working world planning to lead someone or be led by someone who was born outside of their own generation.

TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction6-8Operational Definitions8-11Limitations11Literature Review11-18Methodology18-19Chapter 1: LeadershipDefining Leadership Style by Generation19-25 Leadership Development19 Trait Theory vs. Behavioral Theory19-21 Relationship Theories22 Situational Theory22-25Five Leadership Styles25-31 Traditional Commander25-26 Democratic Developer26-27 Relationship Oriented Motivator27-28 Hands On Coach28-29 Avoider29-30 Summary30-31Chapter 2: CommunicationCommunication in the Workplace31-45Communication Style Inventory31-42 Expressiveness34-35 Preciseness35-37 Verbal Aggressiveness37-38 Questioningness38-39 Emotionality40-41 Impression Manipulativeness41-43Communication Methods43-44Motives for Communication44-45Chapter 3: Generations Generations in the Workplace45-69Millennials46-54 Personality46-50 Leadership Style50-53 Communication Preferences53-54Generation X54-59 Personality54-56 Leadership Style57-58 Communication Preferences58-59Baby Boomers59-64 Personality59-61 Leadership Style61-62 Communication Preferences62-64Traditionalists64-69 Personality64-66 Leadership Style66-67 Communication Preferences68-69Results70Implications71-75Conclusions76-77Bibliography78-83Appendix84

INTRODUCTIONAs Traditionalists and Baby Boomers continue to push back their retirement dates and Millennials advance further into their careers, American businesses are facing the reality that multiple generations are currently serving together in the workplace. This combined workforce tends to range from the ages of 20- to 70-years-of-age; and, not only are multiple generations working together, but they are also serving in management positions concurrently. In many organizations, the range of managers and leaders spans multiple decades; in fact, there are Traditionalists, as well as Millennials, working together in top-level positions. This generational diversity in the workplace often means that workforces are exposed to the management styles of multiple different generations at once with executive teams ages spanning decades. This can cause trepidation for those in management and non-management positions alike; Millennials in middle management wonder how to get through to their Boomer bosses and Boomers wonder how to handle reporting to young adults sitting in leadership roles. Plus, just as different generations lead in different ways, they also expect to be led in different ways as well (Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal and Brown). It is no surprise that disruptive issues can stem from these generations not knowing how to handle their differences. For example, Boomers may feel that the younger generations do not work hard enough and are too chatty with one another, not realizing that studies have shown that Millennials simply work better when collaborating with others (Kalman). In addition, research claims that generation gaps are farther and wider apart than ever before, largely because of how much the world has developed and changed over the last 100 years (Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal and Brown). The truth of the matter is that Traditionalists learned their leadership skills in a much different time than Millennials did, and so it is comprehensible that they would approach situations differently than the Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials. Nonetheless, in a recessed economy, these very different generations are being forced to work side-by-side in a way that has not been experienced before. As Nancy Hatch Woodward states in The Secured Lender, boundaries around life have dissolved. To Baby Boomers, this has meant taking your laptop home with you and working during the weekend. For Gen Xers, it means that they bring more of their personal concerns into the workplace (44). This raises many questions about how the multigenerational American workforce will handle being exposed to leadership practices of generations dissimilar to their own.There is much research that discusses the differences between the generations; however, it is imperative to look more specifically at the differences between these generations and the effects those differences may have on management and work styles. Furthermore, by researching the generations themselves, one can begin to understand where each generation finds value in terms of leadership, which will provide a clearer picture about the leadership skills and practices among these four generations of managers. Therefore, the premise of this paper is to prove that the generation one is born into directly affects leadership style. Furthermore, it hopes to identify specific styles of leadership that are most often used by each different generationto the point of being able to predict leadership style based on age. In order to prove this hypothesis, research will first be done to define the different leadership styles; this research will be especially focused on communication styles that relate to each leadership style and will allow the author to match preferred styles of communication in leadership with the preferred communications styles of each generation. By matching up evidence that different generations have different communication styles and evidence that different leaders have different communication styles, it will become clear that generation impacts the way a person leads. Any executive knows that promoting collegiality and understanding in the workplace can go a long way, which is why the implications for this research could be exorbitant for future managers and employees. Not only will understanding the differences and similarities in each generation allow people to work better together and adapt to each others communication styles, but also it will provide a guide or sorts that will help prepare workers expectations long before stepping into the office. Imagine a Baby Boomer starting a new career path and entering a new industry in which he is supervised by a Millennial; instead of butting heads about whether flexible hours or scheduled hours is better, both parties can be prepared to understand the others viewpoints ahead of time. Imagine a Millennial who doesnt understand why their Generation X boss never seems to delegate projects to them; this research could assist that Millennial in understanding why their boss acts in this way and provide input as to how the two can work better together. All in all, this research aims to prove that working with members of different generations can and should be beneficial to the workforce as a whole, not stress-inducing. By holding a better understanding of one another, future workforces can leverage differences, instead of fighting them. ---OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS The following terminology will be used frequently within the body of this paper. By understanding their definitions, readers will be equipped to better understand the findings of this research from the perspective of the author. The definitions are not verity, but developed through cumulative research.

Millennial The Millennial generation, also referred to as Generation Y, consists of people born between the years of 1981 and 2000. Although there is some disparity among scholars as to the ages that make up Millennials, for the purpose of this paper, the previously stated dates will be accepted. Like any generation, the Millennials are defined by life events that took place during their childhood; for Gen Y, these events include things such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Virginia tech shooting (and other school shootings), and the rapid growth of technology, particularly, the Internet. Millennials are the first generation to grow up with technology and, as one scholar stated, they treat their multi-tasking hand-held gadgets almost like a body part (Malikhao and Servaes 68). Generation Y is most often described to be confident, upbeat, and self-expressive. They are also often more liberal, more educated, more ethically and culturally diverse, and less religious (Hartman and McCambridge 26). Also, because helicopter parents[footnoteRef:-1] raised many of the Millennials, they often crave feedback and praise and prefer to work in teams (Hartman and McCambridge 23). [-1: Helicopter Parent: noun,informal 1. Astyleofchildrearinginwhichanoverprotective mother or father discouragesachild's independence by being tooinvolvedinthechild's life: In typical helicopter parenting, a mother or fatherswoopsinatanysignofchallengeor discomfort (Helicopter Parent). ]

Generation XGeneration X is made up of those who were born between 1965 and 1980. According to an article by Valerie I. Sessa, Robert I. Kabacoff, Jennifer Deal, and Heather Brown in The Psychologist-Manager Journal, they came of age during the time of MTV, AIDS, the Challenger incident, the oil crisis, and the fall of Communism (Sessa, et al. 51). This has led the generation to have a greater sense of economic uncertainty and skepticism, which has led them to be individualistic, risk-tolerant, self-reliant, and entrepreneurial (Gentry, et al. 41). They are often called latchkey kids, because not only did they grow up during a time when it was becoming more common for both parents to be in the workforce, but they also grew up during a time when divorce was becoming more and more prevalent. For that reason, Generation Xers spent a lot of time without their parents and became more independent because of it. The final defining feature of Generation X is the fact that they grew up during a time of epic political, economic, and social change, which made them wary of authority and willing to question leadership (Beekman 15).

Baby BoomerBaby Boomers are currently the largest generation, consisting of more than 78 million people who were born between 1945 and 1964. The Boomer generation was profoundly affected by events such as the Vietnam War, civil rights movement, Watergate, and the first walk on the moon (Sessa et al., 50). They also grew up during the advent of television and a time of economic prosperity, which lead them to be optimistic, ambitious, and sometimes labeled as workaholics who place higher value on work than family (Gentry et al. 40; Martin & Gentry 180).

Traditionalist The final generation is the Traditionalist generation, commonly referred to as the Veteran Generation, the Silent Generation, and the Greatest Generation. These people were born before 1945 and grew up during the terrible economic climate of the Great Depression, which made them savers who spent money only when necessary (Beekman 15). They experienced World Wars and military influences, which made them very respectful of authority and understanding of hierarchy and defined structure. ---LIMITATIONSThis study has several limitations that could affect the validity of the findings. First, there is an unavoidable bias of the author, who is a member of the millennial generation. All research was reviewed and reported with as much objectivity as possible; however, there is always the possibility that a subconscious bias presented itself in article selection, etc. Another limitation is in the fact that this research focused primarily on the communication styles of the different generations and how that impacts leadership. It does not take into account other possible reasons for leadership differences among these age groups. It is almost certainly definite that there are multiple influences on a persons leadership style; this research only aims to prove one of those influences, but could easily be limited by that focus. ---LITERATURE REVIEWThe premise of this paper is to prove that the generation that one is born into has a significant influence on a persons leadership style. Although there is no research specifically proving this hypothesis, there is an abundance of scholarly research that focuses on the topics of leadership and generational differences, separately. By thoroughly researching these areas of study and synthesizing them as a whole body of work, the literature proves to hold fascinating insight into the supposition that leadership is affected by generation; specifically toward the fact that communication style is highly impacting of leadership style and different generations communicate very differently. The body of work that was studied included research from reputable business magazines, generation-focused books and communications, business, sociological and psychological journals. In a study published in Human Performance, Angelique Bakker-Pieper and Reinout E. DeVries researched The Incremental Validity of Communication Styles Over Personality Traits for Leader Outcomes. This research is essential for proving the premise that leadership is affected by generation because it supports the concept that a persons communication style is a stronger determinant of leadership type than personality is. This is important because personality types can vary greatly within age groups, but communication styles are often distinctive of each generation. As the article states, in general, personality measures may be hard to assess in a leader-subordinate situation or are conceptually not linked with leader criteria. However, leader behavior generally includes many communicative acts, therefore this subset of behavior may be specifically relevant for leadership (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 2). The study started by relating personality and communication styles, which are interlinked. The article referenced the HEXACO Personality InventoryRevised, which is an instrument that measures personality dimensions that have been found to be cross-culturally replicable (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 3). HEXACO is an acronym that stands for honest-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. The authors also noted the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI), which recognizes six communication styles: expressiveness, preciseness, verbal aggressiveness, questioningness, emotionality, and impression manipulativeness (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 3). The identification of these two sets of traits is meant to show that communication styles are closely related to personality traits, however the communication styles are more specific, where as the HEXACO dimensions are broader. For this reason, the authors made the assumption that communication style is conceptually more closely linked with leader criteria and will consequently have incremental validity (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 5). To prove this point, the authors decided to propose two hypotheses; first, that a leaders expressive communication style has incremental validity over leader extraversion for leader outcomes, and second that a leaders precise communication style has incremental validity over leader conscientiousness for leader outcomes (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 5). In order to prove these hypotheses, the authors obtained two community samples by personally contacting friends, tapping social networks, posting flyers, and snowballing. In study one, a single survey was completed by 165 participants who were older than 16 and who worked for any organization; the survey asked them questions about their leaders communication style, personality, and leader criteria. For the second survey, 122 participants participated in the same survey; however, it was split into two sections that they answered at two different times. The average ages of the participants were 37. The surveys asked 96 questions that related to the HEXACO and 96 questions that related to the CSI. After collecting the surveys and analyzing the results, the authors tested their hypotheses that expressiveness had incremental predictive validity over extraversion and preciseness over conscientiousness by completing several regression analyses (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 10). Their analyses provided support for both of their hypotheses after finding significant evidence that communication styles are more relevant for leader criteria than personality traits (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 11). Essentially, the study found that employees were more satisfied with their leaders when the leader had strong communication style indicators (expressiveness and preciseness) than when they had the related personality traits of extraversion and conscientiousness. Although these traits are somewhat related, the study shows that the communication style was more relevant to the leaders style than that leaders broad personality traits. This could be interpreted more easily, but realizing that being extroverted could lead to being expressive, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; therefore, one cannot assume than an extrovert will be a good leader, but one can assume that someone who is expressive will be a good leader. The study went on to discuss the implications of these findings, which help to explain in more detail the true definitions of these communication styles. First, the authors discussed the area of expressiveness and conferred that expressiveness refers to a tendency to talk and to steer conversations easily, to demonstrate a sense of humor, and to interact with others in an informal way (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 12). The skill of expressiveness is therefore positively related to leader behaviors. In the same way, preciseness refers to a tendency to communicate in an organized, well-structured, and well-worded way (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 13). This is important because it means that a leaders employees will know what to expect from them, which is important to leadership style. This will be valuable to proving this papers premise because it helps to demonstrate that communication styles are significantly associated with leadership style; therefore, proving that generations communicate differently, can partially prove that generation affects leadership style. There are many articles that discuss different generations communication preferences, in particular, Generation Y or the Millennial generation. The Journal of Business Psychology published a very helpful literature review on millennials in the workplace from a communication perspective in 2010 and discussed the things that Millennials value and expect in the workplace. The authors, Karen K. Myers and Kamyab Sadaghiani, began the article by defining the millennial generation and noted popular perception is that Millennials are impatient, self-important, and disloyal, among other unattractive qualities from an organizational standpoint (Myers and Sadaghiani 226). They also noted that others believe Millennials have many positive attributes, such as diversity acceptance, technology aptitude, and more. The authors then looked at the intersection of millennials characteristics and communication-related dynamics that are especially relevant for performance and member relationships in contemporary organizations (Myers and Sadaghiani 226). The article reviews literature on many different topics about millennials, communication, and technology, and while not all parts are completely relevant to proving this premise, many points directly discussed communication styleswhich in turn draws parallels for this papers premise. The authors found research that supported Millennials need for close relationships and frequent feedback, their expectation of open communication, and their desire to work in teams (Myers and Sadaghiani 229). The overall conclusion of this article was that Millennials do indeed have distinctive characteristics that may make interacting with them different from with previous cohorts (Myers and Sadaghiani 234). These differences are likely to directly impact a Millennials communication style, which (as previous stated) directly impacts leadership style.The Australian Library Journal released an article in February 2011 that discussed the topics of technology, Millennials, and the cross-generational workforce. The paper, which was double-blind peer reviewed, was written by a Millennial who aimed to find out which generational traits manifest themselves as leadership styles for Millennials and what areas of tension may arise as Millennials step into leadership positions (Murray 55). Murrays research is important to proving the basis of this paper because it helps to define the leadership style of one of the four prevailing generations. The questions posed in this piece of work were explored on a behavioral basis and often based off of the personal experiences of the author, who was aged 29 and served as the Dean of University Libraries when this article was written. The paper started by defining the four generations and then moved into a literature review that investigated previous research into the implications of Millennial behavior on leadership style. Murrays literature review included findings that pointed out that Millennials have developed a lifelong culture of behaviors they will exhibit at all ages across their lifespan (Murray 56). Those behaviors included things like a desire for instant gratification, high expectations for their careers, and openness to collaboration and teamwork. Because Murray worked as the Dean of University Libraries at the time of this article, he often related findings back to the world of library service, noting that the behaviors of Millennials can be accommodated for at libraries by shifting hours of operation, to developing new programming designed for Millennials, to implementing new library systems that operate collaboratively and visually (Murray 56). Murray also found that Millennials had four tendencies that were especially prevalent, including being highly social, ambitious, literal, and desiring of regimentation (58). The author noted that these preferences could lead to an understanding of how Millennials lead. For example, having grown up with constant communication, Millennials are more interested in collaboration and are likely to be understanding of socialization in the workplace. In fact, the author went on to discuss how highly motivated the Millennial generation seemed to be by collaboration and theorized that this could be a strong implication for their leadership style. Not only will the Millennial generation be likely to toss out the traditional hierarchy, but also, they may be more likely to introduce informal hierarchies that will encourage creativity and buy-in from members of the organization who may not have typically taken part in library policy and decision making (Murray 61). The author also found many other behavioral tendencies that he believed would greatly impact the way that Millennials lead. For example, Murray made note of the constant sharing that members of the Millennial generation participate in online and via social media; in his opinion, this sharing will lead to a more open leadership style that includes more company-wide meetings and emails as well as the possibility of internal corporate blogs that keep the entire workforce in the loop (61). Another behavioral tendency was noted as multitasking, which the author mentioned could be both positive and negative for Millennial leaders. For example, multitasking may lead Millennial leaders to complete more organization-spanning projects than leaders from the previous generations (Murray 62); however, it may also cause Millennials employees to feel overworked or like they are being pulled in too many directions. Murray suggested successful Millennial leaders should maintain observations of the number of projects underway in order to remain within the capacity of the individuals completing those projects as well as him or herself (62). Other tendencies of Millennials included being nomadic, constantly connected to technology, and interested in having work/life balance. These behaviors may lead Millennials to communicating more often by Smartphone or while on the move and away from the office. For Millennials, working at all hours of the day seems natural; however, Murray mentioned that this concept might be difficult for other generations to grasp. He suggested, outlining the types of situations that warrant communication after work hours (Murray 63). All in all, the article did a respectable job of reviewing the literature out there that described Millennials behavioral styles and interpreting their applications for leadership positions. That being said, the lack of actual quantitative research in this article and the focus on one mans personal experiences create strong limitations for this piece. As stated in the article, as more Millennials move into positions of leadership or authority, more in-depth research and analysis will need to be conducted on the impact of Millennial leadership on a multigenerational workforce (Murray 64). Each of the articles reviewed will have a lasting impact on this papers purpose. Whether defining one particular generations communication style, proving that communication style impacts leadership, or discussing how a generation leads, each paper (and further additional research) provides strong proof that the generation one is born into has a direct affect on leadership style. ---METHODOLOGY To complete this analysis and prove that the generation one is born into has a direct affect on leadership style, this author researched the areas of generations, communications, and leadership in order to find correlations between the values and preferences of each generation and their leadership outcomes. By thoroughly researching these areas of study and synthesizing them as a whole body of work, this author hopes to prove that communication style is highly impacting of leadership style, and because different generations communicate very differently, generation impacts leadership. The body of work that was studied included research from scholarly journals in the fields of communications, business, sociology and psychology as well as reputable business magazines. Research was primarily conducted on Academic Search Premierspecifically Communications and Mass Media Complete. Other information was drawn from books written by a contact of the author named David Stillman, who founded Bridgeworks, a company whose mission is to study generational differences and their implications in the workplace. By comparing and contrasting previously conducted research findings, this author strives to piece together ostensibly unrelated topics in order to prove that the generation one grows up in directly affects leadership style. ---DEFINING LEADERHSIP STYLE BY GENERATIONLeadership Development In order to begin matching up generational preferences with leadership styles, those styles must first be identified. However, before defining the general styles of leadership, it is important to take a step back and discuss leadership development. Answering the question of how are leaders developed? could provide significant insight into whether or not there is validity in the hypothesis that generation affects leadership style. There are many theories out there that attempt to explain the question of how when discussing leadership development. From trait theory to behavioral theory, there are dozens of opinions about whether leaders are born or made. The following theories are the ones that are most regularly discussed among academic researchers.

Trait Theory vs. Behavioral Theory Perhaps the most commonly referenced theories are those of Trait Theory and Behavioral Theory. As Kathleen Brown describes in the book The Handbook of Educational Theories, Trait Theory often identifies and describes key personality or behavioral characteristics shared by successful leaders. [It is] developed from the belief that ability arises from innate, internal traits that some have and some do not (897). Essentially, this suggests that a leader is determined by the personality traits with which they are born. In fact, many researchers have tried to identify these innate skills by looking into many very diverse traits in order to be able to predict leadership ability. For example: Early scholars taking the trait approach attempted to identify physiological (appearance, height, and weight), demographic (age, birth order, education, and socioeconomic status), personality (self-confidence and aggressiveness), intellectual (intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, and knowledge), task-related (achievement drive, initiative, and persistence), and social characteristics (child-rearing practices, sociability, and cooperativeness) with leader emergence and leader effectiveness. They focused on what an effective leader is, not necessarily on how to lead effectively. (Brown 897)

All in all, Trait Theory hangs its hat on the idea that there is a single set of traits that almost every leader has and people born with those traits are more likely to become leaders; unfortunately for researchers who cling to this truth, there has been a lot of research done that somewhat discredits Trait Theory. In the early 1900s theorists compiled lists of traits but these were often contradictory and no single trait was consistently identified with good leadership (Brown 898). This means that the researchers were not finding any real correlation between certain traits and good leadershipperhaps one person with a specific trait was a good leader, while another person with the same trait was not. For years, the theory was studied and nearly debunked; however, in recent years Trait Theory has made a slight comeback, not in determining leadership style, but in determining effective leadership. In fact, researchers revealed that significant relationships do in fact exist between leadership and such individual traits as intelligence, adjustment, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and general self-efficacy (Brown 899). So, although trait theory is not supported in terms of being able to predict leadership style based on innate characteristics like height or lineage, there are some traits that are strong predictors. Ironically, the traits which researchers ended up finding to be stronger predictors lean more toward behaviors; this is ironic because the most common alternatives to Trait Theory have always been behavior theories in which researchers believe that leaders share behaviors. As described by Raul Malos in his article The Most Important Leadership Theories: Behavioral theories of leadership are based upon the belief that great leaders are made, not born. Rooted in behaviorism, this leadership theory focuses on the actions of leaders, not on mental qualities or internal states. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through teaching and observation. (417)

The difference between these two styles truly lies in the long-standing argument of whether leaders can be made or if they are born containing instinctive skills needed to lead. There are researchers out there who have conducted research that concludes that true leadership is defined by a combination of both traits and behaviors. In an article in Personnel Psychology, Scott Derue and his team conducted tests where they studied leader traits and leader behavior. They found that most leader traits can be organized into three categories: (a) demographics, (b) traits related to task competence, and (c) interpersonal attributes. Similarly, leader behaviors are often discussed in terms of whether the behavior is oriented toward (a) task processes, (b) relational dynamics, or (c) change (11). The researchers then matched traits such as task competence up with behaviors such as task processes and hypothesized that the traits and behaviors would match up. Essentially, Derue and his team set out to prove that the main traits that have been linked to leadership, can also be identified as teachable behaviors. Derues research did find support for this hypothesis.

Relationship Theories Another type of theory that academics use to determine leadership style is relationship theory, which focuses on how a person interacts with others. This theory is sometimes called Transformational Leadership Theory. Unlike Trait Theory or Behavioral Theory, Transformational Leadership Theory does not specifically identify different styles of leadership, but instead discusses the one thing that each leader has in commonthe ability to transform another person. Transformational Leadership Theory was introduced by leadership expert and presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns and later expanded on by Bernard M. Bass (Malos 419). Bass suggested that there were four mechanisms of transformational leadership: intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (Malos 419). These four mechanisms essentially state that leaders are people who encourage creativity, support and encourage others, are passionate about their goals and share that passion with their employees, and serve as strong role models. Comparatively, relationship theories tend to lend support to behavioral theories (to some degree), because they envision leaders as people who have four behavioral skill sets that set them apart. The difference is that instead of saying X type of behavior creates X type of leader, it assumes that all good leaders carry all four of the previously listed behaviors.

Situational TheoriesThe final leadership theory that this paper will touch on is that of Situational Leadership Theory (SLT). This theory was developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in 1969 and has four dimensions: task behavior, relationship behavior, follower (or subordinate) maturity, and effectiveness. The theory asserts a curvilinear relationship between the variables and prescribes a path through the quadrants that indicates the most effective leadership style (Johansen 74). More simply put, leaders select their course of action by evaluating all of the elements of a situation. Researchers of this theory have developed a bell curve graph (two examples pictured below) that demonstrates the ways in which SLT theory predicts leaders to react based on relationship and task behavior. Table 1: SLT Graph #1 (Johansen 76)Table 2: SLT Graph #2 (Vecchio 445) Two graphs are shown in order to demonstrate how two different researchers interpreted Heshey and Blanchards theory. In Human Resource Development Quarterly, Barry-Craig P. Johansen described the curve as follows: When a subordinate (or group of subordinates) is immature, little concern is given to relationship behaviors. Instead, there is a strong need for task behaviorthe SI style is indicated. As the follower gains maturity, less task behavior is required and more relationship behavior is appropriateS2. The S3 style is prescribed as the follower developers further. Very little task behavior is required, and the need for relationship behavior starts to decline. When the follower rates high in maturity, it is appropriate for the leader to exhibit an S4 style because the follower now requires neither task nor relationship behaviors from the leader. (75).

A simpler way to explain each of these quadrants comes after studying multiple presentations of the bell curve. Quadrant 1 (bottom right) demonstrates the telling style of leadership that presents itself when the need for guidance is high and the support factor is low; in this quadrant the leader is in high contact with their employee, supervising them closely. Quadrant 2 (top right) demonstrates the selling style of leadership that is presented when the need for guidance is high and the support factor is also high; in this quadrant the leader explains their decisions to their employees and is very open to answering questions. Quadrant 3 (top left) demonstrates the participating style of leadership that comes about when the need for guidance is low and the support factor is high; in this quadrant the leader and the employee make decisions together. Finally, Quadrant 4 (bottom left) demonstrates the delegating style of leadership that comes about when the need for guidance is low and the support factor is low; in this quadrant the leader often completely turns over projects to their employee. Obviously, there are many different opinions on how leaders are developed; but one thing that many seem to agree on is the fact that leadership style depends on multiple factors. Thorough research of the different theories and the different styles has found enough overlap to appropriately argue that there is not one theory, trait, or behavior that defines a leader; instead, the integration of these traits and behaviors create different styles of leaders. In fact, almost all of the research read had different names for very similar leadership styles. Upon noticing this trend, Scott Derue and his team at Personnel Psychology integrated the literature on leader traits and behaviors, and took a first step toward an integrative theory of how leader traits and behaviors influence leadership effectiveness (9). Derues hypotheses were supported.After doing thorough research of each theory and the numerous styles of leadership that researchers offer, this author has developed an all-encompassing list of leadership styles that integrates similar traits, behaviors, and styles into five general styles that cover the majority of leadership traits and behaviors that have been identified in the business world. For the purpose of this paper, these five styles will be named Traditional Commander, Democratic Developer, Relationship-Oriented Motivator, Hands-On Coach, and Avoider; these five styles are defined based on an analysis of research conducted by multiple academics over the last 100 years.

Defining Leadership StylesTraditional CommanderThe Traditional Commander Leadership style revolves around a leaders focus on control; this type of style encompasses other researchers types such as Transactional, Autocrat, Bureaucrat, and Command and Control (Murray and Chua 193; Limbare 173; Boykin, et al., 2). In Differences in Leadership Styles and Motives in Men and Women: How Generational Theory Informs Gender Role Congruity, Duncan Murray and Sarah Chua define Transactional Leaders as focused on the exchange relationship between the leader (or organization) and the follower, attempting to motivate their followers by targeting their desire for personal gain and the benefits they receive from the exchange (193). This is a traditional leadership style in which the leader leads and the workers work. The leader does not give sappy, motivational speeches or ask for advicethey hand down orders and expect their employees to fulfill their requests in order to receive pay, health benefits, etc. This is very similar to both the autocrat and bureaucrat leadership styles described by Sameer Limbare in the Indian Journal Of Industrial Relations. Limbare describes these leaders as having no confidence in others [ . . . ] and directing orders to their associates and usually keeping decisions and controls to themselves because they have assumed full responsibility for decision-making (173). The only difference between autocrat and bureaucrat is that the bureaucrat is primarily interested in rules and procedures for their own sake (173). Just like the transactional style, this essentially means that the leader gives directions and takes complete responsibility for leading their team. The final leadership style feeding into the Traditional Commander style is defined by Cameron Boykins, Scott Campbell, Michelle Moore, and Shikha Nayyar as the Command and Control style. In An Empirical Study of Leadership Styles Boykin and team define a Command and Control Leader as follows: Useful in situations in which one is more familiar with what is needed to execute an objective and the person/persons that one is working with are unfamiliar. The Command and Control style is utilized mainly when there is a crisis or when working with individuals who are not knowledgeable about a particular task. (2)

All of these styles have a common themea top-down approach where the leader truly takes a management role and makes decisions for the team. As previously stated, for the sake of this paper, this style of leadership will be referred to as Traditional Commander.

Democratic DeveloperThe Democratic Developer Leadership Style revolves around teamwork and consensus. This leadership style encompasses other researchers types such as Inclusive, Democratic and Developer (Bilimoria 1; Boykin, et al. 8; Limbare 173). In Leadership Excellence, Diana Bilimoria refers to this leadership style as someone who effectively leads diverse teams by creating workplaces where all employees feel valued for who they are, and know their ideas count (1). This is a very democratic approach where the leadership asks for input from the team in order to ensure that everyones voice is heard. This helps build team consensus. Similarly, Boykin and team say that, democratic leaders encourage creativity amongst the team, and members of the team are also very engaged in the projects (8). Another take on this style is the Developer, as described by Sameer Limbare. This style focuses on trusting people and developing them as individuals. They assume that individual members of a group who take part personally in the decision-making process will have greater commitment to the objectives and goals (173). Essentially, these researchers can see that a Democratic Developer is the type of leader that thrives on social equality and implements voting to ensure that the decisions made are what is best for everyone involved. This does not necessarily mean that the Democratic Developer will stand back and let chaos ensue, but they will take the opportunity to survey the affected parties and lead them toward a solution that has the best outcome for everyone. As previously stated, for the sake of this paper, this style of leadership will be referred to as Democratic Developer.

Relationship-Oriented Motivator The Relationship-Oriented Motivator Style revolves around inspiration; this style encompasses other researchers definitions such as Transformational, Relations-Oriented and Executive (Murray and Chua 193; Boykins, et al. 4; Limbare 173). By definition, Transformational Leadership involves seeking to inspire and motivate their followers. Transformational leaders are seen to be charismatic, behaving in what are generally seen as admirable ways (idealized influence) (Murray and Chua 193). Similarly, Boykin and team define Relations-Oriented Leadership as focusing on motivating other team members. These leaders are focused on organizing, supporting and developing the people on their teams by encouraging participation and working as a team to execute goals (4). Finally, Limbare defined the Executive Leadership style as someone who is a good motivator, sets high standards, treats everyone differently and prefers team management(173). Together, these styles combined amount to leaders who are very relationship oriented and always are looking to help develop their employees and teammates. Unlike the Traditional Commander, these people are not primarily focused on giving orders, but instead on inspiring people to engage with their strategic plan. Somewhat similar to the Democratic Developer, this style of leader will likely use teams to help make decisions; however, unlike Democratic Developers, this type of leader will spend more time developing their employees (personally and professionally), while Democratic Developers will stay focused on objectives and goals. The Relationship-Oriented Motivator is a very enthusiastic influencer in the office and is likely to stand out as a mentor for many. As previously stated, for the sake of this paper, this style of leadership will be referred to as Relationship-Oriented Motivator.

Hands-On CoachThe Hands-On Coaching Style revolves around training by way of example. This is a combination of Hands-On and Coaching styles as defined by Cameron Boykins, Scott Campbell, Michelle Moore, and Shikha Nayyar in The Journal Of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance &Marketing. Both of the styles involve a very hands-on approach of coaching. The Hands-On style is described as being able to fully assume the role of leadership, steering from the front, and having the ability to work together with employees to achieve the objectives that the company has in mind (Boykins, et al. 5). This basically means that hands-on leaders are able to coach and give lots of educational feedback and they are also able to do the actual work that their employees do on a daily basis (which is what allows them to be so hands-on). Coaching is essentially the same thing, though Boykins and her team add that coaches generally look at things from a long-term standpoint. They also provide advice and follow up with them to see how progress has been made (Boykins, et al. 6). Hands-On Coaching sounds relatively similar to the Relationship-Oriented Motivator; however, the difference is in the level of hands-on training that a Coaching Leader provides. For example, where a Relationship-Oriented Motivator may primarily give encouragement and mentoring, a Hands-On Coach will actually demonstrate action and the allow everyone to work alone on the project. As previously stated, for the sake of this paper, this style of leadership will be referred to as Hands-On Coaching.

Avoider The Avoider is a non-leadership leadership style. This style is essentially a hands-off approach, which Murray and Chua define as passive indifference to both their role and their followers (194). In fewer words, this leader avoids the hard decisions. This is not a leadership style that is recommended or likely ever strived for by a leader; however, it could be one that is fallen into by inexperienced or shy individuals placed into leadership positions. As previously stated, for the sake of this paper, this style of leadership will be referred to as the Avoider Style.

For a quick reference of these leadership styles, the following chart provides a brief description of each in one place. Table 3: Defining Leadership Styles Leadership Styles Defined

StyleFocusAttributes

Traditional CommanderControlTop-down approach, hand down direct orders to employees

Democratic DeveloperTeamwork and Consensus Get everyone involved in decision making, thrives on social equality

Relationship-Oriented MotivatorMotivational Spend the majority of time developing their people, encouraging participation

Hands-On CoachCoachingCoach employees by demonstration, educate, feedback

AvoiderHands-OffPassive indifference, avoids hard decisions

Each of the leadership styles described in Table 3 encompass traits and behaviors that leaders lean on to determine the way they will manage and lead their employees; but none of these leaders would be able to lead without communication. As stated by Angelique Bakker-Pieper and Reinout E. DeVries in The Incremental Validity of Communication Styles Over Personality Traits for Leader Outcomes, Leadership is a highly social phenomenon, and communication is an essential activity for a leader (2). Think of it this way, whether a Hands-On Coach is demonstrating a more efficient way to work or an Avoider is dodging confrontation, every style of leader must communicateeven if that communication is completely passive, it still sends a message and influences the type of leader someone is. In fact, Bakker-Pieper and DeVries have published multiple academic papers that studied the importance of communication in leadership. Communication is so important, they say, that it is more relevant to leadership style than personality traits (11). The next section of this paper will discuss the importance of communication and the different styles of communication that have presented themselves. ---Communication in the WorkplaceIn addition to Bakker-Pieper and DeVries, there are dozens of scholars who believe that a good leader spends the majority of their day communicating with their employees (Eccles and Nohria; Kotter; Marrone; Mintzberg). Of course, communication is an extremely broad term. As defined by DeVries et al, in the Journal of Communication Styles, a communication style is the characteristic way a person sends verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal signals in social interactions denoting (a) who he or she is or wants to (appear to) be, (b) how he or she tends to relate to people with whom he or she interacts, and (c) in what way his or her messages should usually be interpreted (179). Like leadership, there are dozens of different researchers who have identified a list of communication stylesand interestingly enough, many of those communication styles carry similar parallels to the leadership styles previously identified.

Communication Style InventoryThe most common categorization of Communication Styles that has been identified by researchers is called the Communication Style Inventory (CSI). This inventory operationalizes six communication style dimensions: expressiveness, preciseness, verbal aggressiveness, questioningness, emotionality, and impression manipulativeness (Bakker-Pieper and DeVries 3). To break down each of these styles into more descriptive terms, expressiveness can be explained as the leaders ability to verbally articulate their ideas; preciseness is how someone structures their communication; verbal aggressiveness encompasses whether or not a person is supportive or threatening in the way they communicate; questioningness is the amount of curiosity a person has and how often they inquire deeper into a topic; emotionality can be described as a persons emotional stability and ability to control their emotions when they communicate; and finally, impression manipulativeness could be better described as the level at which someone uses deception in their line of communication (DeVries 510). The graph in Appendix A shows researchers defining attributes of each communication style and will be referenced throughout the next section. As one can see, these communication styles tend to mimic behavior types that were previously discussed. For example, the Traditional Commander leadership style was defined as someone who did not give sappy motivational speeches, but instead handed down specific orders to their employees; this type of leader would likely have a precise and verbally aggressive communication style. The chart on the following page demonstrates this authors theoretical construal of a Communication Style Inventory for each of the five leadership styles previously described. This pairing of communication style and leadership style will ultimately facilitate the pairing of generations with leadership styles. In simpler terms, if generation affects communication style and communication style affects leadership style, then, generation affects leadership style. If this logic was a math problem it might look like this: Generation = Communication style & Communication style = Leadership style Generation = Leadership style

Table 5: Communication Style Inventory for Five Leadership Styles ExpressivenessPrecisenessVerbal AggressivenessQuestioningnessEmotionalityImpression Manipulativeness

Traditional CommanderLowHighHighLowLowLow

Democratic DeveloperMidMid LowHighMidHigh

Relationship-Oriented MotivatorHigh MidLowHighHighHigh

Hands-On CoachHighMidLowHighHighMid

AvoiderMidLowMidLowHighMid

Of course, this is not a math problem and so one cannot use finite terms, such as equal to, because in the worlds of human interaction, personality type, and communication, there are multiple facets that affect results. Therefore, it is important to remember that even if this paper proves generation to be influential of leadership style, it cannot be assumed that generational cohort is the solitary influencer of leadership style. Nonetheless, the following pages will dig into six communication styles from the CSI and explain how each leader ranks in those attitudes.

ExpressivenessAs you saw in Appendix A, the communication quality of expressiveness is defined as talkativeness, informality, humor, and conversational dominance (DeVries et al 513). Let us discuss the reasoning behind ranking each of the leadership styles with High, Mid, or Low in Table 5. First, this author will discuss Traditional Commanders. As youll remember, in the Indian Journal Of Industrial Relations Sameer Limbare described Traditional Commander leaders as directing orders to their associates and usually keeping decisions and controls to themselves because they have assumed full responsibility for decision-making (173). For that reason, expressiveness is an area that Traditional Commanders are likely unskilled in. As previously mentioned, the Traditional Commander leadership style is one with a top-down approach where the leader truly takes a management role and makes the majority of the decisions for the team. They make decisions and hand those decisions down to their employees. This style would increase their conversational dominance, but they remain low in all other areas of expressiveness as they would stray away from treating their employees with informality or approaching communication with talkative humor. Democratic Developers were ranked as mid for expressiveness, mainly because of the talkativeness descriptor. As one will remember, Democratic Developers highly value consensus and therefore are more likely to engage their employees regularly to ensure agreement. That being said, Democratic Developers are still very interested in developing their employees and leading the team successfully (Limbare 173). Relationship-Oriented Motivators and Hands-On Coaches both ranked high on the scale of expressiveness; as one may assume, this is because of the informality that these team-oriented leaders share with their employees. Relationship-Oriented Motivators seek to inspire and motivate their followers [. . .] and are seen to be charismatic (Murray and Chua 193). Hands-On Coaches give lots of educational feedback and generally stay closely in touch with their employees (Boykins, et al. 5).Finally, the Avoider ranked mid in the department of expressiveness. The Avoider tends to be passive and uninterested in leading, which makes them unlikely to exert dominance in their conversations; however, they are likely to talk and joke with their employees on a regular basis. That said, unlike the Relationship-Oriented Motivator or Hands-On Coach, the Avoider would chat with their employees for the purpose of building friendships, not for the purpose of developing them as employees.

PrecisenessAs one can see in Table 4, Preciseness is described as structuredness, thoughtfulness, substantiveness, and conciseness (DeVries et al 513). In terms of Traditional Commanders, preciseness is something that they have a high aptitude in; this is especially true in terms of structuredness and conciseness, or the ability to clearly and quickly express themselves. One example would be this description of Peg Witte, former CEO of Royal Oak Mines, clearly a Traditional Commander: [Witte] examines every purchase order. In fact, she demands daily minutiae in the form of reports and forms from managers in the mines. She insists on a barrage of top-down sign-offs and reviews for expenditures. She abruptly finishes the sentences of managers who are presenting reports. And she engenders a culture where, during a meeting with institutional investors, her management team kept looking nervously at her to see if the few things they did say met with her approval. (42)

Democratic Developers have a mid-level ranking in terms of Preciseness. While they are obviously thoughtful and structured, the democratic style is very open to consensus, which does not always lend itself to substantiveness and conciseness, which would have leaders keeping communication short and focused. Democratic Developers need to be strong communicators in terms of thoughtfulness (a portion of the preciseness CSI factor). As stated in the Journal of Individual Psychology, for shared decision making and problem solving with mutual respect to be enacted, members of the group need to communicate effectively. Sharing of information requires judgment of what is important and when and how to share it (Ferguson 435). This emphasizes the Democratic Developers need for structure and thoughtfulness. Relationship-Oriented Motivators also rank mid on the scale of preciseness, however, for different reasons. Where Democratic Developers are strong in conciseness and structure, Relationship-Oriented Motivators are really only strong in thoughtfulness. The other three defining areas of Preciseness (substantiveness, conciseness, and structuredness) are less important to these leaders. As described in Communication Research, those with high structuredness scores always think out their stories and are logical; high scorers in substantiveness rarely talk about superficial matters; and high scores in conciseness only use a few words to explain things (DeVries et al 524). Compare that to a Relationship Oriented Motivator, who strives to elevate the needs of their followers which are congruent with their own goals and objectives through charisma, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration (Murphy 131). Someone focused on leading each one of his or her employees individually and building relationships with them is not likely to cut conversations short or limit relationship-building conversations.Hands-On Coaches also have a mid-level ranking on the preciseness scale for similar reasons. As stated in the International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, to acquire and reveal necessary and important information, communication is fundamental; the conversation is therefore at the heart of the coaching process (Moen and Federici 3). Like the Relationship-Oriented Motivator, Coaches are thoughtful, but not very concise or substantive. In the area of preciseness, the main difference between Hands-On Coaches and Relationship-Oriented Motivators is in their structuredness. While Relationship-Oriented Motivators stay away from over-structuring their communication, Hands-On Coaches lead with the help of demonstrations; therefore, they sometimes need to structure their communication in order to properly teach their employees. Finally, the Avoider has a low score in terms of preciseness. As a leader who prefers to hide from most management responsibilities and limit authoritative communication, preciseness is not something at which they excel.

Verbal AggressivenessThe third communication style is Verbal Aggressiveness, and according to DeVries and his team, this style is characterized by angriness, authoritarianism, derogatoriness, and nonsupportiveness (513). This is perceptibly a very high-ranking communication tactic for Traditional Commanders looking to maintain control with their employees. Bill Quirke explains in Communication World, a directive focused communicator such as this provides a clear sense of direction, and his or her key message is just do it (48). This is extremely authoritarian and could be perceived as derogatory, angry, and nonsupportive, as well. Democratic Developers, Relationship Oriented Motivators, and Hands On Coaches all scored in the low range for verbal aggressiveness. These three leaders focus on communication and teamwork, and therefore stray away from communication that is overly authoritarian, especially to the point of aggression. As Nadine Page and Erik de Hann state in The Psychologist: Coaches are much less interested in making dogmatic statements about one view or another. They want to use whatever works, borrowing ideas from different approaches, like sports coaching for example. They ask themselves what will work for this particular person, at this particular moment, with this particular question. (582)

Essentially, leaders who focus on building and developing other people try not to become demanding and irritable with their employees, because they feel that each person deserves a say (Democratic Developer), a positive relationship (Relationship-Oriented Motivator), or a personal instructor (Hands-On Coach). The Avoider received a mid-level score on the point of Verbal Aggressiveness, not because they would ever actually speak harshly to their employees, but because their lack of leadership may come across as nonsupportiveness, which is a facet of Verbal Aggressiveness. For example, if an Avoiders employee is trying to get meeting time with them to discuss an issue, it is highly likely that the Avoider would steer clear of this meeting; this could easily come across as nonsupportiveness, which is defined by DeVries as someone who doesnt listen well, shows lack of understanding for peoples problems, avoids communication, and treats people with disrespect (525).

QuestioningnessThe fourth type of communication is a tactic called Questioningness and is characterized by unconventionality, philosophicalness, inquisitiveness, and argumentativeness (DeVries et al 513). The Traditional Commander has a low score when it comes to Questioningness. As previously mentioned, the Traditional Commander has no confidence in others (Limbare 173); therefore, it is improbable that they would enter into philosophical conversations, ask about someones background, or get into debates with their employees. Instead, they opt to stick to convention and give directions, without asking for input. As previously mentioned, the Democratic Developer leader will not stand back and let chaos ensue, but they will take the opportunity to survey the affected parties and lead them toward a solution that has the best outcome for everyone. This makes them naturally inquisitive and philosophical; plus, with an exciting, but undefined, vision of the future they are more inclined to take an unconventional approach (Limbare 173). For those reasons, Democratic Developers are ranked high in the area of Questioningness. The Relationship-Oriented Motivator is also ranked highly on the Questioningness scale. This leadership style focuses on developing their people both personally and professionally, which means that Questioningness is likely one of their strongest communication tactics. They are more than willing to take unconventional approaches and are driven by their desire to build relationships (which caters directly to the facet of inquisitiveness). The Hands-On Coach shows similarities to the Relationship-Oriented Motivator and ranks high in Questioningness. As a refresher, the Hands-On Coach is able to advise and give lots of educational feedback and they are also able to do the actual work that their employees do on a daily basis. This could make them less unconventional, because they have a prior bias toward the way that they prefer to complete tasks; however, they are still focused on communicating and developing their employees, which makes them inquisitive and philosophical. Finally, the Avoider is low on Questioningness. They make it a point not to shake things up or ask too many questions; for fear that they will be asked to do or answer something they are not comfortable with (Murray and Chua 194).

EmotionalityThe second to last communication tactic is Emotionality, which is encompassed and characterized by sentimentality, worrisomeness, tension, and defensiveness (DeVries et al 513). This is another area that Traditional Commanders struggle with and rank low in. Examples of Emotionality that DeVries and his team give include people being able to tell that their leader is Emotionally touched by some topics of conversation; when worried about something, the leader finds it hard to talk about anything else; the leader tends to talk about his or her concerns a lot; people can tell when the leader feels anxious; etc (DeVries et al 527). Traditional Commanders are focused on directing and not at all on building relationships. They are often unpleasant and interested only in the immediate job at hand. These leaders direct orders to their associates and usually keep decisions and controls to themselves (Limbare 173). With this type of top-down approach and desire for complete control, Traditional Commanders are the least likely to show emotion to their employees. Democratic Developers fall into the middle range when it comes to Emotionality. This is because they are open to emotionality in the sense of building trust so that their employees feel comfortable offering their opinions (sentimentality); however, they are not as open to showing their vulnerabilities or as focused on creating strong relationships like the Relationship-Oriented Manager and Hands-On Coach are. Both of those leaders rank high in terms of Emotionality. These relationship-oriented leaders motivate and energize staff to pursue mutual goals, share visions and ensconce an empowering culture, where personal values and reciprocated respect are fundamental principles (Murphy 131). This enhances their Emotionality facet because it encompasses their openness with their employees. Both of these leaders develop relationships and work closely, sometimes one-on-one, with their employeesthis makes them more susceptible to showing their worry, tension, and other emotions. The Avoider is also high ranking in terms of Emotionality, for reasons different than the previous two leaders. The Avoider shows tension and worry due to an inability to lead. This likely is represented largely through nonverbal communication. Michael Barrier gives an example of such nonverbal emotionality in Nations Business, to avoid interaction, the boss would overtly withhold his attention from the group by tearing up a Styrofoam coffee cup and placing the pieces on the table in front of the group (41). This avoidance could easily demonstrate qualities like worry, tension, and defensiveness, which is why the Avoider ranks high on the Emotionality scale.

Impression Manipulativeness Finally, Impression Manipulativeness is a communication style encompassed by ingratiation, charm, inscrutableness, and concealingness (DeVries 513). As the Communication Style Inventory describes, Impression Manipulativeness is often identified as false flattery, skill at hiding true feelings, hiding or withholding information, etc (DeVries 528). This is a skill that Traditional Commanders likely do not find imperative to their work. This may be surprising to some, especially because Traditional Commanders are skilled at withholding information, however in terms of communication style, Impression Manipulativeness is more about encouraging another person to like you, despite your true feelings. Traditional Commanders tend not to care about what their employees think of them and therefore do not need to manipulate the their appearance to be accepted. Instead, they simply say what they are thinking, give directions, and if it hurts another persons feelings, that is a consequence with which they are willing to accept.Democratic Developers and Relationship-Oriented Motivators ranked high in Impression Manipulativeness; this is because they both are highly focused on positively influencing and developing their employees. Democratic Developers thrive on social equality and work hard to ensure that decisions made are best for everyone involved. In order to make their team feel that their voices are heard, it is sometimes necessary for Democratic Developers to be skilled at hiding their opinions (especially when those opinions do not match those of their employees). This is similar to the Relationship-Oriented Motivators who also take extra time to listen to and nurture their employees ideas, and stimulate their creativity (Murray and Chua 193). These manipulations are often regarded as important for smooth and polite conversation (DeVries et al 522). Hands-On Coaches ranked mid on this scale because while they do take time to coach their employees, they are also not as inclined to hand holdmainly because they are also completing the work that their employees are doing. Plus, sometimes for a coach to be effective they must be honest and open about where a person went wrong; therefore, they are ranked in the middle range of this area. Finally, the Avoider also falls into the middle range when it comes to Impression Manipulation. Although they are often desperately trying to conceal their worries and unease, they are not particularly skilled at charming their employees or influencing the way people think.

Communication Methods Not only are there many verbal communication styles, but there are also many methods of communication in todays technologically driven societyfrom email to Facebook to text messaging. As communication philosopher and theorist Marshall McLuhan once said, The medium is the message (McLuhan). McLuhan simply meant that the method of communication used is just as impactful as the message itself. The following section will delve into the types of communication that leaders use to communicate with their employees; this is especially important because of the amount of time that workers spend communicating. According to Helj Franssila in Knowledge and Process Management, Workers spend the biggest share of their working time in communication, on average, five and a half hours per day (185). These hours of communication are executed in multiple different methods; email being the most frequent (as of 2013). In fact, according to Franssila email was accessed, on average, 17 times per day (185). Although email is prolific, there are a dozen other ways that workers communicate each dayand those ways are constantly changing, as well. As Garima Bardia said in the article Smart Communication: In earlier days, businesses were all about sending memos, letters, drafts and so on. Today the same is being performed through videoconferencing, e-mailing and Voice over IP, etc. In the Internet era, there are various social networking and media websites available that are becoming extremely popular in the corporate circles nowadays. (31)

Of course, one cannot forget traditional methods either, such as face-to-face conversations, phone calls, and so on. Essentially, leaders have an abundance of options when it comes to deciding their method of communication. It starts with a decision of whether or not to communicate verbally or nonverbally. If verbal communication is chosen, then one must decide whether to communicate in person, via video chat, or over the phone. If nonverbal is chosen, the options deepen, as the worker must choose between physical letters, emails, social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, online chat systems, and so on.

Motivation for Communication There are many facets that influence a persons decision about which method of communication should be used; many people argue that a persons motivation is highly influential on the selection process. According to Narissara Maria Punyanunt-Carter, there are six distinct factors of communication motives: control, relaxation, escape, inclusion, affection, and pleasure (42). These are deep, interpersonal motives for communication and the first layer of motivation each person must go through before choosing their line of communication. Further explanation of these six motives is as follows: Control motives are means to gain conformity. Relaxation motives are ways to rest or relax. Escape motives are reasons for diversion or avoidance of other activities. Inclusion motives are ways to express emotion and to feel a link to the other person. Affection motives are ways to express ones love and caring for another person. Pleasure motives are ways to communicate for enjoyment and excitement. (Punyanunt-Carter 42)

Thinking back to the Communication Style Inventoryverbal aggressiveness often includes derogatoriness, which can include making employees look like fools or embarrassing someone in front of a crowd (DeVries et al 525). The motive behind derogatoriness is likely for control. Another example would be the communication style of emotionality, which can include sentimentality. When someone with a strong level of sentimentality is worried about something, they often find it difficult to talk about anything else (DeVries et al 526). The motive behind sentimentality could be relaxation, escape, or inclusion. These are a just a few examples of how the motives of communication affect the styles in the Communication Style Inventory. Although motivation can certainly influence selected communication style, this author believes that the generation one is born into can have just as large of an influence on communication preferences, which is why the following section will focus on the differences between each generation, both their communication preferences and their personality types. Having already demonstrated how communication style can be related to leadership style, it is necessary to demonstrate how generations are related to communication styles and method preferences; by doing so, leadership style can be transitively linked to generation. ---Generations in the Workplace As one may remember from the introduction to this paper, American businesses are facing the reality that multiple generations are currently serving together in the workplace. Millennials, Generation Xers, Baby Boomers, and Traditionalists are all working together; unfortunately, this can create issues, because age-diverse workplaces are saturated with conflicting values, ambitions, mindsets, demographics, and views. In fact, according to the authors of Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Boomers, GenXers, and GenYers in the Workplace, At no time in our history have so many and such different generations with such diversity been asked to work together shoulder to shoulder, side by side, cubicle to cubicle (Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak 11). Of course, the workplace has always had multiple generations working together; however, as Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak state, by and large, those generations were sequestered from each other by organizational stratification and the structural topography of a manufacturing-oriented economy (11). This is no longer the case. American workplaces today are more fluid and horizontal, with mixed generations working together and age being less determinant of rank. For that reason, members of all generations need to understand how their generation and the generations they work with operate, communication, and lead. The following section of this paper will discuss each of the four main generations work styles and communication preferences; by identifying their communication preferences and overarching personality traits, one will easily be able to identify each generations leadership styles, therefore proving that generation does have a strong impact on leadership style. The first generation discussed will be the Millennial generation, which was defined in the operational definitions section of this paper as those born between the years 1981 and 2000.

Millennials (1981-2000)In the operational definitions, Millennials were briefly described to be confident, upbeat, and self-expressive. They also are often more liberal, more educated, more ethically and culturally diverse, and less religious (Hartman and McCambridge 26). Before discussing their communication styles and leadership tendencies, it is important to dig into their personalities a bit deeper, in order to gain better understanding on where these traits come from. According to Ron Zemke in his book Generations at Work: Managing the Class of Boomers, GenXers, and GenYers in the Workplace, Millennials core values are optimism, civic duty, confidence, achievement, sociability, and diversity (122). Zemke also agreed with Hartman and McCambridge that Millennials are more racially and ethically diverse, which could be in part due to the fact that their generation is the largest since that of the Boomers. In fact, Millennials now comprise a third of the population in the United States and nearly a quarter of the world population (Zemke 122). This generations optimism often raises the question of why with older generations. However, by looking deeper into Gen Ys past, it becomes more clear why these young adults act the way they do. According to Zemke, they were shaped by their times. The 1990s and 2000s presented a strong focus on children, which meant that kids were raised knowing they were wanted, sought-after, needed and indispensable (130). As readers will see in the section on Generation X, this is quite the divergence from the previous generation who were the first generation with parents that took pills to prevent or at least delay children (Zemke 123). In fact, Gen Xers are often called latchkey kids because their parents both worked, leaving children at home to fend for themselves more often than ever before. With the Millennial generation, Kids become all the rage (Zemke 124) and even the busiest parents focused much of their time on managing their childrens lives. It is likely that part of this focus on children also stemmed from the increase in terrorism in the United States, which is something that most previous generations did not have to experience. Two and three decades before, kids had hung out and played with buddies on the vacant lot on the corner, or they had taken off for parts unknown on their bicycles. When Millennials were kids, there was no vacant lot, and if there had been, it wouldnt have been deemed safe by their parents. Riding your bike to parts unknown simply wasnt a good idea anymore. (Zemke 125)

Because of this change in risk, parents tried diligently to protect their children from the worlds troubles and their protectiveness trickled into every aspect of childrens lives. Protective parents paced alongside the soccer field, stood in the wings at dance recitals, and stayed up to the wee hours quizzing their children on possible spelling bee words (Zemke 128). This increase in time spent together developed stronger, friendlier relationships between children and parents, which developed into a positive interpretation of the world and their future. In addition to optimism, Millennials were also strongly influenced by technology; in fact, they are the first generation to be raised in a digital world. According to a 2009 study in the Journal of Communication, Ninety percent of college students own a computer, 65% have broadband connection, 77% own a cell phone, and 41% can use their cell phone to access the Internet. Students so routinely use technology in their day-to-day lives, it has become indispensable (Pearson 45). Not only are these numbers likely even higher five years later, but also they show just how integrated technology is into Millennials lives. This integration has an enormous effect on Generation Ys personality style for two main reasons. First, Millennials have always had the ability to communicate globally. As Zemke pointed out, It was not uncommon for Millennials to have pen pals in Singapore and Senegal as children. They learned to see the world as global, connected, and round the clock (129). Also, as Lynn Lancaster and David Stillman state in When Generations Collide, constant technology use blurred the lines between fantasy and reality (28). For this reason, Millennials are both well informed and idealistic because they have the ability to tap the wisdom and knowledge of, essentially, the entire world (both alive and deceased) at the click of a button. The digital age has obviously had an enormous impact on Millennials personalities; it has also had a huge impact on their communication style, both personally and professionally. In a previous section, many different methods of communication were discussed, from face-to-face talking to text messaging; although every generation uses a broad range of communication methods, there are certainly methods that each generation favors. In the chart below, published in 2012, one can see how university students rank each method of communication preferred when communicating at work and socially. Table 6: Preferred Communication Method in Students

Source: Academy of Educational Leadership Journal

As one can see, there are some similarities and differences. Interestingly enough, students claimed to prefer face-to-face communication in all situations; however, where they said that they preferred to email or call about work, they opted to call and text for social situations. Millennials also ranked Facebook as their fourth preferred way to communicate socially, but ranked it very last when used for work and school communications (Robinson 109). Robinson felt that her study identified some of the following implications:Email might be viewed more positively for work/school communication because of its practical use in sharing files necessary for completing assignments. Another possibility is that students prefer email because it allows students and instructors to communicate without infringing on communication methods more preferred for social purposes. This would be consistent with the Pew findings that [young adults] like to use email for communication with institutions and adults. Also, for work/school, sixth placed paper was viewed as preferable to Facebook, suggesting students have a strong aversion to using Facebook for work/school. (110)

These findings essentially imply that Millennials will likely choose texting and Facebooking as a method of communication when reaching out to their friends, but will opt to email or talk in person when at work. These findings match well with those of Pearson, Carmon, Tobola, and Fowler who found that, Millennials tended to rely on cell phones for interpersonal communication (46). In fact, they also found that Millennials with text-capable cellular phones sent an average of 1,742 text messages per month, compared to making only 231 voice calls (45).Many news outlets and older generations have claimed that constant texting and Facebooking has caused Millennials to lose productivity; however, Millennials themselves do not agree. According to an article titled Does Mobile Technology Help or Hinder Meeting Productivity, authors Kristen Dietel, Scott McMann, Susan Bosco, and Diane Harvey surveyed Gen Yers and found that they find texting, emailing, and web surfing to increase their productivity and efficiency (1279). One respondent to their survey stated, The Blackberry is a great tool for getting information, setting schedules, making appointments and getting more done. Its increased the pace to get more done; its doubled the pace. It gives me more opportunities to get business (1279). In fact, some Millennials felt that it would be risky not to respond to emails and texts promptly (1278). This is a very different vantage point than that of older generations and leads one to wonder what other areas of business Millennials differ on and how those differences ultimately affect a GenYers leadership style. As previously mentioned, Millennials are optimistic, tech savvy, and good at multitasking. On the job, these things can be assets. Zemke also noted that their collective action, tenacity, heroic spirit, and ability to change (132) were strong advantages as well. In addition to these assets, Edward Murphy noted that Generation Y managers more highly valued a sense of accomplishment, a world at peace, equality, national security, self-respect and true friendship and the instrumental values of being broadminded, independent, loving, and self-controlled (39). These traits will ultimately help identify the defining factors of the millennial generation and place them into a leadership category, especially by breaking down the causes of the traits and comparing them to the leadership styles identified previously. The first leadership trait that Millennials demonstrate is that of collaboration. Millennials were taught to work collaboratively and solve problems as a group (Zemke 132). This is likely because participation-oriented parents raised them. In Lynn Lancaster and David Stillmans book When Generations Collide the following example was given: Millennials have been included in major family decisions since they were old enough to point. From deciding where to go on vacation to which computer to buy, Millennials have always been part of the day-to-day negotiation of their home lives. Theyll bring this quality with them in spades when they show up to work, which means theyll be tough to bully because theyre used to sticking up for themselves, but also means theyll be able to contribute and collaborate right from the get-go. (31)

In addition to collaboration, Millennials have been trained to multitasknot only because of their technological mindset, but also because of how busy they have been since birth. As Zemke points out in his book, Millennials were the busiest generation of children weve ever seen. Parents and teachers micromanaged their lives, leaving them with little free time. They were shuttled from football practice to violin lessons to math tutoring to ballet classes (125). In fact, they fully expect to work more than 40 hours a week in order to achieve the lifestyle they want (138). This makes them adept at juggling multiple work responsibilities. Of course, there are also traits that could be liabilities for Millennials and their employers. Zemke lists those liabilities as need for supervision and structure, demand for constant feedback, helicopter parents, and family events trump work (137). Additionally he noted that Millennials often feel pressure to get it right the first time and do not allot time for trial and error (141). This need for perfection likely comes from the amount of competition that the seventy six million Millennials grew up around. Another interesting trait of Millennials that is often listed as both a liability and an asset is their desire to work in a transparent organization. Millennials have grown up with a world of information at their fingertips, and so working for a company that keeps information under wraps is frustrating for them. According to Jan Ferri-Reed in her article Millennializing the Workplace, Members of Generation Y prefer to work in a transparent organization in which the corporations mission, values, operations, problems, and conflicts are shared with all employees (13). More than just wanting to know their companys mission and values, they also want to have an impact on that vision and be employed by a business that provides them with meaningful work (Lancaster and Stillman 86). For that and other reasons, futurists predict that Millennials will experience as many as ten career changes in their lifetimes (Lancaster and Stillman 66). As previously mentioned, Millennials have been told for their entire lives that they can be whatever they want, that they are wanted, and that they are needed; for that reason, they are more than willing to leave a job that doesnt feel fulfilling or fit their wants and needs. Last but not least, a Gallup poll found that Millennials desire a work-life balance that will allow them to balance play with work, and they prioritize close, personal relationships over career (Myers and Sadaghiani 228). It is not surprising that Millennials demand balance since they grew up juggling multiple activities, school, and social lives. Looking at all of this information, one can begin to see qualities and preferences emerging that are parallel to that of previously detailed leadership and communication styles; particularly that of the Democratic Developer