Age cohort effects, gender, and Romanian leadership preferences

Abstract

Purpose -This study aims to examine preferences for both transformational and transactional leadership behavior for gender-and age-based cohort differences. The purpose of this research is to enhance leadership and organizational change initiatives in Romania via the identification of age cohort and gender effects with respect to attitudes towards common leadership behaviors. Design/methodology/approach -The research is conducted via a survey through the administration of questionnaires. The sample consists of 324 managers from commercial and service organizations in Romania, a country in which this issue has not previously been investigated. Findings -The findings reveal that there are differences in preferences for leadership behavior based on age cohorts that reached maturity before or after the fall of Ceauşescu during the 1989 revolution. Also, female participants displayed a greater preference for transformational leadership behaviors relative to transactional leadership behaviors. Originality/value -This is the first study to examine the effects of leadership preference based on age cohorts in Romania. The study also is one of the first to empirically examine the effects of age cohorts on leadership after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. As such, these findings offer guidance in the development and implementation of leadership development initiatives and change management interventions for organizations operating in Romania, and present one example of cohort-based and leadership-specific attitude change in a country that is transitioning from communism to a free market system.

Leadership Competencies for Hotel General Managers: The Differences in Age, Education, and Hotel Characteristics

“…This means the age of hotel managers had some influence on their leadership style and competencies. These findings are similar to the study of Fein, Tziner, and Vasiliu (2010), who found that older managers (35 years and above) implement more transformational leadership behaviors, while younger managers preferred autocratic leadership behaviors. Blayney and Blotnicky (2010) Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 05:15 05 January 2015 examined the relationships between the demographic factors of age, gender, education, and tenure of leadership competencies in Canadian hotel GMs.…”

Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation

“…Other investigations also survey CEOs or managers (e.g., Egri and Herman, 2000;Fein et al, 2010;García Morales et al, 2008a;Sarros et al, 2008). Although existing evidence suggests that self-reports of leadership are valid measures (e.g., Yukl and Van Fleet, 1991), interviewing and administering questionnaires to all other organizational members (and not only to subordinates) would have been preferable to verify leaders' selfreport of their behavior (e.g., Egri and Herman, 2000;Sarros et al, 2008).…”

“…These items are duly adapted to the present study. As in other similar studies, the CEOs indicated their perceptions about the behavior of transformational leadership in the organization (e.g., Fein et al, 2010;Sarros et al, 2008). The authors used a confirmatory factor analysis to validate a Likert-type 7-point scale (1 "totally disagree," 7 "totally agree"), which required deletion of Item .…”

Chinese employees’ leadership preferences and the relationship with power distance orientation and core self-evaluation

“…Although there are a few studies comparing followers' preference for either transformational or transactional leadership (Brain and Lewis 2004;Fein et al 2010;Singer and Singer 2001), or between charismatic leadership, or relationship-oriented and task-oriented leadership (Ehrhart and Klein 2001), to our knowledge, there is no study comparing followers' preference for paternalistic and transformational leadership. However, the growing number of western organizations which seek to expand their business horizons globally, and the prevalence of paternalistic leadership in many regions such as Asia Pacific, the Middle East, and Latin America (Aycan 2006;Pelligrini and Scandura 2008) make this a legitimate inquiry.…”