EXECUTIVE MASTER IN CONSULTING AND COACHING FOR CHANGE · EXECUTIVE MASTER IN CONSULTING AND COACHING FOR CHANGE SERVANT LEADERSHIP: ... empowerment, association, mentoring. INSEAD

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



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


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



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.


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



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


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).



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


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



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 &


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.,



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).


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



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


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



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). !


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



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


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



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.


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).



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


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



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


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



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


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).



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


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).



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


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.



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


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



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


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



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


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.



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


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



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


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.



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


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



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


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



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


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



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.


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



51

development, and KPIs that reinforces behaviors that are aligned to the

beliefs and conviction towards people development.


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.



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.


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.



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/).


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.



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.

Documents

EXECUTIVE MASTER IN CONSULTING AND COACHING FOR CHANGE · EXECUTIVE MASTER IN CONSULTING AND COACHING FOR CHANGE SERVANT LEADERSHIP: ... empowerment, association, mentoring. INSEAD