Leadership styles and generational effects: examples of US companies in Vietnam

Figures & data

Table 1 Generational cohorts and their work-related characteristics.

Generation	Born	Perceived characteristics	Leadership implications
Veterans (‘traditionalists’ or ‘silent’ generation)	1922–1943	Loyal, dedicated and hardworking	More open to directive leadership styles, where there is high degree of respect for authority, and regimented, military-type command and control relationships between leaders and subordinates
Accustomed to defined hierarchical structures and clear lines of authority
Incapable of adjusting and evolving with cultural changes within organisations
Less innovative and up to date with technology
Baby Boomers	1943–1960	Individualistic, competitive, strong work ethics, high levels of job involvement, often at detriment of personal lives	Prefer collegiality and consensus through open communication and participation
More optimistic and team oriented
Greater concern for work and personal gratification and growth
Less receptive to traditional hierarchical structures
Independent and value mutual respect, autonomy and shared responsibility
Generation X (‘baby bust’ generation)	1960–1980	Greater independence and openness to diversity	Prefer less hierarchical and more participative forms of leadership
Tend to value informality over hierarchy	Do not like to be micromanaged
More self-reliant and risk-taking
Value personal freedom and challenging work over job security and status, and pursue greater balance between work and personal life
Nexters (‘Generation Y’, ‘millennials’, ‘dot com’ generation)	1980–2000	Technologically savvy, fun-seeking and apt at multitasking	Respect leaders who are able to unite people towards a common goal
Optimistic, achievement-oriented, more risk tolerant and susceptible to change
Believers in teamwork and collective action as means of bringing about change
Whilst open to authority, preference for more courteous relationships than veterans

Sources: Arsenault (2004), Bernstein et al. (2008), Conger (1998), Kupperschmidt (2000), Meredith, Schewe and Hiam (2002), Ralston and Egri (2004), Salahuddin (2010), Yu and Miller (2005) and Zemke et al. (2000)

Table 2 Elements in traditional Vietnamese companies.

Features	Leadership	Employees
Respect for authority	Paternalistic	Respectful
Hierarchical order	Compassionate	Loyal
Collectiveness	Honourable	Obedient
Consensus	Protective of subordinates
Cooperation
Long-term commitment

Table 3 Interview details.

(a) One-to-one interviews
	Manager			Employee
	Pre-1975 born	1975–1986 born	Post-1986 born	Pre-1975 born	1975–1986 born	Post-1986 born
Auto Co	1	1	2	2	2	1
FMCG Co1	2	2	1	2	2	2
FMCG Co2	2	3	2	2	3	4
FMCG Co3	1	1	1	2	1	2
EN Co	2	3	1	2	2	3
Subtotal	25			32
Total	57
(b) Focus group interviews
	Pre-1975 born	1975–1986 born	Post-1986 born	Mixed group
Auto Co				1
FMCG Co1				1
FMCG Co2	1	1
FMCG Co3				1
EN Co			1
Total	6

Table 4 Findings.

To what extent are participative and performance-oriented leadership styles accepted by	Key findings
Pre-1975 generation group	Despite being embedded in ‘old’ working environment, they are remarkably adaptive and responsive
Whilst organisations show a preference for younger workers who are unmarred by the imprints and limitations of old system, these workers carry essential knowledge and skills
Proven to be highly resilient to the new environment and new leadership styles, despite these barriers, effectively embodying the mindset revolution identified as necessary to compliment the macro-level adjustments
1975–1986 generation group	Nostalgic and transitional, moving towards a more materialistic and individualistic society
Happy to conform and uphold traditional values, however, not afraid of questioning leaders' decisions
Display consistently high need for autonomy and very comfortable with both leadership styles
Post-1986 generation group	Accustomed to constant changes and economic opportunities, and highly influenced by western ideologies, shifted firmly away from the traditional social order
Value delegation, autonomy and opportunities to contribute to decision-making
Very similar to western counterparts in acceptance of both leadership styles
Highly distinguishable from previous generations due to ‘un-Asian-ness’

Bernstein, L., Alexander, D., and Alexander, B. (2008), ‘Generations: Harnessing the Potential of the Multigenerational Workforce,’ The Catalyst, 37, 3, 17–22.

 Google Scholar

Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000), ‘Multigeneration Employees: Strategies for Effective Management,’ Health Care Manager, 19, 65–76.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Meredith, G., Schewe, C.D., and Hiam, A. (2002), Managing by Defining Moments, New York: Hungry Minds.

 Google Scholar

Salahuddin, M. (2010), ‘Generational Differences Impact on Leadership Style and Organizational Success,’ Journal of Diversity Management, 5, 2, 1–6.

 Google Scholar

Yu, H.C., and Miller, P. (2005), ‘Leadership Style – The X Generation and Baby Boomers Compared in Different Cultural Contexts,’ Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 1, 35–50.

 Google Scholar

Zemke, R., Raines, C., and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace, New York: AMACOM.

 Google Scholar