Generational Differences and Implicit Leadership Schemas in the Philippine Workforce
This study examined generational differences in traits and desired schemas of leaders among Filipino workers using the lens of the generational cohort theory.
This study utilized a sequential exploratory mixed-method approach. Phase One of the study utilized a qualitative approach in eliciting perceived characteristics and leadership schemas. Phase Two utilized a quantitative approach utilizing a survey to test generational differences.
Cluster analysis of survey responses of 341 Filipino workers showed two generation cohorts – the political and technological generation. Respondents from the political generation characterized themselves as being work-centered, family-oriented, traditional, seasoned, decisive and multi-tasking. The political generation also believes that an ideal leader is someone who cares about people's welfare, delegates, and is able to control others. On the other hand, the technology generation described themselves as being tech-savvy, carefree, laid-back, proud, individualistic, self-centered, arrogant, energetic and adventurous. The technological generation views an ideal leader as someone who is responsible, provides clear instructions, listens, and recognizes people.
The study focuses on Filipino workers and more studies in other countries are needed to establish generational differences in schemas.
The results have implications on the way that leaders are selected and developed especially in an increasingly diverse workforce.
The results highlight the role of political, sociocultural events and technological trends that shape the traits and schemas of workers.
The study contributes to both generational studies as well as implicit leadership literature. The study highlights the value of examining the intersection of both culture and generation in the context of leadership.
Salvosa, H. C., & Hechanova, M. R. M. (2020). Generational differences and implicit leadership schemas in the Philippine workforce. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2018-0314