1. GENERATION-Y LEADERSHIP:
A QUALITATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF
VIRTUAL SOCIALIZATION RELATIONSHIPS
by
Camille Ramirez
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership
University of Phoenix
Phoenix, Arizona
July 2012
5. Abstract
This qualitative phenomenological study examines and compares general ideas, perceptions,
themes, and understandings related to the development of generation-Y leadership relationships
based on virtual socialization. Ten participants holding management roles or seeking leadership
advancement in technological, health care, and self-owned businesses were interviewed to assess
their perspectives regarding the roles of generation-Y future leaders. Five major themes
emerged: (a) clashes between older generation and generation-Y leaders, (b) issues of
entitlement, (c) factors related to personality versus those that are generational, (d) variations in
decision-making styles, and (e) styles of collaboration at lower levels of organizational
hierarchies. Other common themes that emerged from the study, and which are potential topics
for future research, include (a) opportunities for generation-Y future leaders to adopt and
embrace changes afforded by technological advancements, (b) the need for Generation-Y leaders
to establish relationships based on face-to-face interactions, and (c) obstacles to work-place
socialization caused by a rapidly evolving teleworking environment, which inhibits development
of social interactions and bonds between team members. Results of the present study may prove
useful to future generation-Y individuals aspiring to hold leadership roles involving management
of a multiple-generation workforce. Organizations may find the outcomes of the study beneficial
in their continuing efforts to cultivate and develop generation-Y leaders who will lead and be
responsible for high levels of organizational performance and success.
6. i
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my spiritual and natural family, who supported me during
my doctoral journey. I am grateful for the support that I have received from my spiritual families
in the General Assembly Churches of: Union City, California; Vallejo, California; Moreno
Valley, California; Tyler, Texas; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I dedicate my dissertation to my
sister Sherrie Hayden, with whom I have developed a wonderful bond, and love for, during the
past 15 years. Sherrie has been there for me during my most difficult times and she has never left
my side; I thank you, little sister, for becoming my friend. I dedicate this to my guardian parents,
Alfred and Debra Roberts, who took me into their home as a complete stranger when I was 14
years old, when I was in need of protection and love. It was my guardian parents who first
introduced me to the Lord, and who encouraged me to continue my schooling and earn my
G.E.D. I love you mom and dad – look where I am today.
Most of all, I dedicate this dissertation to Lacy Hawkins, a man who helped establish me
as a young person, and who showed unconditional love and care toward me, when all seemed to
be hopeless. I cannot count the numerous times that Mr. Hawkins stepped in and fulfilled many
roles in my life. He has been a father, counselor, mentor, role model, care giver, and, at one point
in my development, a life saver. I have the utmost respect for this man, and I am forever
indebted to him for the love, generosity, patience, and commitment that he has shown to me for
the last 30 years of my life. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins for loving and believing in me.
It is because of these individuals that I have been able to embark on and complete my
dissertation; I thus dedicate this work to these individuals, who are the foundational pillars that
supported me through my doctoral journey.
7. ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to give special acknowledgment to my God, in whom “I
can do all things through Christ which strengthen me” (King James Version, Philippians 4:13). I
am thankful for the support and guidance that I received from my mentor, Dr. Julio DeCarvalho,
who was a strong driving force, propelled me forward, as well as guided me through my journey
of completing my dissertation. Dr. DeCarvalho was always there for me, whenever I called upon
him.
I am also grateful to my committee members, Dr. Anita Cassard and Dr. Janice Novello,
whose insightfulness and directness steered me in the directions that provided me opportunities
to develop a meaningful and sound dissertation thesis. I am also grateful to my academic
counselor, Chineme Moneke, who supported me and provided me with updates about
expectations and upcoming programs.
Words cannot express how grateful I am to Adrienne Schell, my manager, who has been
a strong inspiration and encouragement in the achievement of my doctoral degree; she supported
me through some very difficult times in my personal life, and she showed great kindness and
understanding when I needed it the most. To Ann Daily, I give thanks for being my “behind the
scenes cheerleader in the corner”, and someone who encouraged me to go the next step. I also
give thanks to all my instructors and classmates, who were part of my doctoral journey.
8. iii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 2
Problem Statement...................................................................................................................... 5
Purpose Statement....................................................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study............................................................................................................ 7
Nature of the Study................................................................................................................... 10
Overview of the research method ......................................................................................... 10
Overview of the design appropriateness............................................................................... 10
Research Questions................................................................................................................... 11
Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................. 13
Definitions................................................................................................................................. 14
Assumptions.............................................................................................................................. 15
Scope......................................................................................................................................... 15
Limitations................................................................................................................................ 16
Delimitations............................................................................................................................. 16
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review........................................................................................................ 19
Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, Journals Researched ...................................... 20
Historical Overview of Multiple Generations........................................................................... 20
Traditionalists ....................................................................................................................... 21
9. iv
Baby Boomers....................................................................................................................... 22
Generation-X......................................................................................................................... 22
Generation-Y......................................................................................................................... 23
Historical Overview of the Characteristic Traits of a Multi-Generational Workplace ............ 23
Traditionalists ....................................................................................................................... 23
Baby Boomers....................................................................................................................... 24
Generation-X......................................................................................................................... 25
Generation-Y......................................................................................................................... 25
Virtual Socialization Relationships........................................................................................... 27
Social isolation...................................................................................................................... 27
Virtual teams......................................................................................................................... 28
Teleworkers........................................................................................................................... 29
Virtual Communication and Its Effect on Trust ....................................................................... 31
Virtual communication ......................................................................................................... 31
Face-to-face communication and trust.................................................................................. 33
Hierarchical Structures in the Present and Future Organizations ............................................. 34
Traditional hierarchical structures ........................................................................................ 34
Future hierarchical structures................................................................................................ 36
Generation-Y Leadership.......................................................................................................... 38
Values ................................................................................................................................... 39
Ethics..................................................................................................................................... 41
Strategic leadership............................................................................................................... 43
Organizational culture conflict ............................................................................................. 44
10. v
Gaps in the Literature................................................................................................................ 45
Current Findings ....................................................................................................................... 46
Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 47
Summary................................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 3: Method ........................................................................................................................ 50
Study Method and Design Appropriateness ............................................................................. 51
Study Questions ........................................................................................................................ 52
Population ................................................................................................................................. 53
Sampling Frame........................................................................................................................ 55
Informed Consent...................................................................................................................... 56
Confidentiality .......................................................................................................................... 56
Geographic Location................................................................................................................. 58
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 59
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 60
Validity and Reliability............................................................................................................. 61
Internal validity..................................................................................................................... 61
External validity.................................................................................................................... 62
Reliability.............................................................................................................................. 62
Data Analysis............................................................................................................................ 63
Summary................................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 4: Results......................................................................................................................... 65
Review of the Problem Statement............................................................................................. 65
Review of Method..................................................................................................................... 66
11. vi
Data Collection Process ............................................................................................................ 67
Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................................... 69
The Interview Process............................................................................................................... 70
Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 71
Type of industry.................................................................................................................... 71
Gender................................................................................................................................... 72
Race....................................................................................................................................... 72
Age........................................................................................................................................ 72
Education .............................................................................................................................. 73
Study Findings and Data Analysis............................................................................................ 73
Interview Questions .................................................................................................................. 74
Interpretation of Findings ......................................................................................................... 76
Major Findings.......................................................................................................................... 76
Leadership Communication Style and Diverse Perspectives of a Multi-generational Workforce
................................................................................................................................................... 77
Perceptions on the Use of Technology and the Possible Affect of Isolation............................ 82
Personal Experiences Communicating Virtually and Face-to-Face and the Possible Impacts on
Building Trust ........................................................................................................................... 86
The Role of technology in an Organization’s Hierarchical Structure....................................... 91
Emerging Themes ..................................................................................................................... 95
Emerging Theme 1: Clash between older generations and generation-Y............................. 96
Emerging Theme 2: Entitlement........................................................................................... 97
Emerging Theme 3: Personality versus generation .............................................................. 97
12. vii
Emerging Theme 4: Decision-making.................................................................................. 99
Emerging Theme 5: Collaboration at lower level hierarchical levels................................. 100
Common Themes.................................................................................................................... 101
Common Theme 1: Change ................................................................................................ 101
Common Theme 2: Establishing relationships ................................................................... 102
Common Theme 3: Teleworking socialization................................................................... 104
Summary................................................................................................................................. 105
Chapter 5: Conclusions And Recommendations ........................................................................ 107
Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................... 109
Overview of Study Findings ................................................................................................... 110
Thematic Findings .................................................................................................................. 116
Theme 1: Clash between older generations and generation-Y individuals......................... 117
Theme 2: Entitlement.......................................................................................................... 118
Theme 3: Personality versus generation ............................................................................. 119
Theme 4: Decision-making................................................................................................. 120
Theme 5: Collaboration in lower hierarchical levels.......................................................... 121
Common Theme 1: Change ................................................................................................ 122
Common Theme 2: Establishing relationships ................................................................... 123
Common Theme 3: Teleworking socialization................................................................... 125
Implications of Study Findings............................................................................................... 126
Significance of the Results to Generation-Y Leadership........................................................ 135
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 137
Recommendations for Future Generation-Y Leaders............................................................. 138
13. viii
Generational diversity training ........................................................................................... 138
Hosting regular meetings .................................................................................................... 140
Mentorship.......................................................................................................................... 141
Knowledge transfer strategies............................................................................................. 142
Hiring and retention of multi-generational workforce........................................................ 143
Recommendations for Future Research.................................................................................. 144
Summary................................................................................................................................. 146
References............................................................................................................................... 150
APPENDIX A: Catalyst Copyright Permission.......................................................................... 169
APPENDIX B: Research Interview Guide ................................................................................. 173
APPENDIX C: University Of Phoenix Informed Consent: Participants 18 Years of Age and
Older ........................................................................................................................................... 176
APPENDIX D: Permission to Use Premises .............................................................................. 178
APPENDIX E: Confidentiality Statement.................................................................................. 181
14. ix
List of Tables
Table 1. Generation-Y Leadership and Traditionalism ............................................................... 78
Table 2. Traditionalism: Total Frequency Distribution ............................................................... 78
Table 3. Generation-Y Leadership and Openness to New Ideas .................................................. 79
Table 4. Openness to New Ideas: Total Frequency Distribution ................................................. 80
Table 5. Generation-Y Leadership and Issues of Respect and Authority .................................... 81
Table 6. Respect and Authority: Total Frequency Distribution ................................................... 81
Table 7. Generation-Y Leadership and Hesitance among Older Generations to Use Technology
....................................................................................................................................................... 83
Table 8. Hesitance among Older Generations to Use Technology: Total Frequency Distribution
....................................................................................................................................................... 83
Table 9. Generation-Y Leadership and Loss of Personal Connections ....................................... 85
Table 10. Loss of Personal Connection: Total Frequency Distribution ....................................... 85
Table 11. Generation-Y Leadership and Communication Preferences ....................................... 87
Table 12. Communication Preference: Total Frequency Distribution ......................................... 87
Table 13. Generation-Y Leadership and the Establishment of Trust ........................................... 89
Table 14. Establishment of Trust: Total Frequency Distribution ................................................ 89
Table 15. Generation-Y Leadership and Structure of Organizational Hierarchies ...................... 92
Table 16. Structure of Organizational Hierarchies: Total Frequency Distribution ..................... 92
Table 17. Generation-Y Leadership and Type of Relationship Structure ................................... 94
Table 18. Collaborative Structure: Total Frequency Distribution ............................................... 94
Table 19. Generation-Y Leadership and Change ....................................................................... 101
Table 20. Generation-Y Leadership and Establishing Relationships ........................................ 103
15. x
Table 21. Generation-Y Leadership and Teleworking Socialization ......................................... 104
16. xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Percentage of different generations in the workforce .................................................. 21
Figure 2. Demographics by participants’ industries .................................................................... 71
Figure 3. Demographics by participants’ genders ....................................................................... 72
Figure 4. Demographics by participants’ races ........................................................................... 72
Figure 5. Age demographics of participants ................................................................................ 73
Figure 6. Levels of participants’ educational backgrounds ......................................................... 73
17. 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Technological advancements pose complex challenges for organizations attempting to
address multi-generational skill levels and expertise within the workforce, as well as promote the
development of future generation-Y leaders who will shape the goals and objectives of
organizations in the 21st century (Dwyer, 2009). Because of retirement patterns, organizations
are emerging from a traditionalist/early Baby Boomer era (Murphy, 2007); however, many Baby
Boomers will remain employed past traditional retirement ages on account of economic
pressures. At the same time, older members of generation-X continue to enter chief executive
officer (CEO) and senior leadership positions (Erickson, 2009). This study will examine future
generation-Y organizational leaders who hold perspectives, values, and motivations that differ
from those of traditionalists, Baby Boomers, and generation-X leaders; in particular, the study
will examine differences in leadership and management styles that are related to the development
of workplace relationships, especially those developed through virtual media.
Organizations must be cognizant of the ways in which the younger members of a multi-
generational workforce are rapidly transitioning from traditional face-to-face social relationships
to more virtual social relationships (e.g., teleconferencing, webinars, phone conferencing,
texting). Organizational awareness of this shift is critical, because generation-Y leaders will be
managing traditionalists who believe in strong work ethics (Kupperschmidt, 2006), Baby
Boomers who traditionally believe in long-term employment relationships (Tulgan, 2004), and
generation-X members who desire autonomy in planning their careers (McDonald, 2008). Hence,
analyzing and understanding the differences related to the ‘social generation gap’ will prepare
generation-Y leaders to be better equipped to handle the social implications of interactions
18. 2
within a diverse multi-generational workforce, and to thus strengthen and maintain the
competitive edge of organizations in an environment of rapid technological change.
The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study is to inquire how
advanced technologies have created a marked shift from traditional face-to-face social
interactions to more virtual social relationships, at a time when generation-Y leaders are
emerging as prominent leaders in organizations. The text introduces background issues related to
the shift from traditional to virtual patterns of socialization, presents the significance of the
problem of an increasingly virtual social working environment, and addresses the nature of the
problem in terms of the social implications posed by the development of virtual social
relationships among generation-Y leaders, who are called upon to manage a workforce spanning
up to four generations of workers.
Background of the Problem
The evolution of the workforce is characterized by the retirement of large numbers of
traditionalists and Baby Boomers, which will result in an estimated loss of 14 million skilled
workers by 2020 (Dychtwald et al., 2004; Lancaster, 2004). Hence, analyzing the factors
influencing the development of future generation-Y leadership is critical for 21st century
organizations (Dwyer, 2009, p. 102). Of particular importance is an understanding of the
implications of changing styles of social engagement, which vary across the age spectrum in a
generationally diversified working environment. Future generation-Y leaders will need to
develop positive job performance strategies in a competitive marketplace.
The generation of Baby Boomer leaders achieved significant changes in the social
landscape of America, through the work of visionary leaders (e.g., Marin Luther King),
restructured the global economy, and influenced the workplace by ensuring that they had a voice
19. 3
in directing organizations and shaping their successes (Murphy, 2007). Just as Baby Boomers
changed the social landscape of America, it is predicted that generation-Y individuals will
change the landscape of America through their involvement in technological advancements,
virtual socialization behaviors, and the development of new paradigms. In addition, generation-Y
will be the most consumption-oriented and ethnically diverse generation in history (Pelton &
True, 2004). Therefore, organizations must analyze and prepare for the emergence of generation-
Y leaders in the 21st century, especially by addressing styles of social engagement and behavior
(Levit, 2009) that are emerging in the context of a multi-generational workforce. Organizations
will be called upon to develop future leaders who can maintain the success of the organization,
and who can address the needs of both the organization and its employees.
With the current multi-generational workforce, generation-Y leaders must be cognizant
of each generation’s perspectives with regards to the work environment. For example,
traditionalists seek meaningful work, are willing to labor under harsh demands, and seek
consensus on how to perform their jobs (Notter, 2005). Baby Boomers are attentive to their
work, have strong work ethics, and seek recognition for their labor (Notter, 2005). Generation-X
workers prefer to perform tasks alone (Murphy, 2007), whereas generation-Y workers are not
concerned about how the work is done, as long as it is completed (Kupperschmidt, 2006). Hence,
understanding the differing views of each generation will assist future generation-Y leaders in
managing their organizations’ goals and objectives. Considering the social implications of
generational gaps, organizations need to be cognizant that isolation and miscommunication can
create distrust; thus, they must reexamine traditional hierarchical structures to remain
competitive in the context of newly emerging technologies.
20. 4
Technological advancement is progressing at a rapid pace and has caused organizations
to be on the alert for problems related to social isolation, which is caused by an increasing
absence of face-to-face socialization. The problem is compounded in a multi-generational
workforce, as the younger generation is adopting new technologies at a pace which is difficult
for older generations to match. Future generation-Y leaders were raised in an environment of
strong technology influences, which included the Internet, computer games, cell phones, iPods,
and instant messaging. In addition, generation-Y members were raised with computers and have
developed hypertext minds, which allow their thought processes to move quickly from one topic
to another (Prensky, 2001).
According to Lower (2008), because of the technological world into which generation-Y
members were born and raised, their members may be deficient in certain interpersonal skills.
Social deficiencies may manifest as social isolation, which is further exasperated by the
development of global virtual teams that are created to maintain and garner businesses abroad.
These scenarios may have significant social implications, consisting of barriers to
communication resulting from cultural differences and limited social interactions amongst both
leaders and coworkers (Cascio, 2000).
Social isolation tends to result in miscommunication and misunderstandings (cultural and
generational) that lead, in many cases, to lack of trust. Even if an individual possesses excellent
communication skills, people interpret both written and verbal communication through their own
cultural backgrounds and experiences. Face-to-face interactions, which involve body queues and
gestures, affect people’s interpretations of particular statements (Snyder, 2003). According to
Clark, Clark, and Crossley (2010), virtual interactions unlike face-to-face interactions, can
21. 5
strongly affect social relationships and can impede the fostering of trust, because of the paucity
of information that individuals have about one another.
Because of technology, organizational hierarchies are shifting from more vertical to more
horizontal structures, in which team-based approaches are more widely practiced in an
environment and global market competition (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008). Effective leadership
is cultivated in the context of shared leadership models, and promoted by the acquisition and
retention of knowledge, skills, and expertise; in addition, leaders are drawn from an increasingly
multi-generational employee resource pool. Technical skills and expertise have become critical
organization’s success, contributing to a further flattening of the hierarchical leadership structure
within businesses, and requiring employees at all levels to take on more administrative and
supervisory roles (Levit, 2009).
Problem Statement
Decision makers and policy makers agree that generation-Y leadership management of a
multi-generational workforce is a concern for the future, and that improper management may
negatively impact organizations success (Baggot, 2009). According to Vincent and Velkoff
(2010), the United States has experienced an estimated growth of 40.2 million Americans aged
65 and older in 2010, and, by 2050, the projected population of individuals aged 65 or older will
be 88.5 million. The report by Vincent indicates that the increase in the size of this age group is
the result of post-World War II-era population increase.
The proposed study addresses specific problems related to the impending retirement of a
large number of Baby Boomers. Organizations are confronted with how to replenish the
knowledge, skills, and expertise of the anticipated retirement of this generation, and how to
develop future leaders who possess completely different traits and perspectives concerning social
22. 6
relationships. Future generation-Y leaders who will manage an older multi-generational
workforce that includes traditionalists, Baby Boomers, generation-X individuals, and generation-
Y individuals will need to manage diverse social relationship styles; these styles can widen the
generation gap if differing generational perspectives, values, and beliefs are not taken into
account (Zetlin, 1992).
To better understand and analyze generation-Y leadership management of multi-
generational employees from a virtual social perspective, a qualitative approach using a
phenomenological research design was conducted. The phenomenological design included
recorded interviews with 10 generation-Y mid-level managers, conducted in their working
environments. The interview questions provided insights into their experiences, perspectives, and
concepts relating to virtual dimensions of their social relationships. The goal of the research was
to create awareness within organizations of the need to develop future generation-Y leaders who
will maintain, develop, and incorporate virtual social relationships, while not excluding or
alienating the multi-generational workforce which retains and contributes its knowledge, skills,
and expertise (Stevens, 2010).
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research study was to inquire how
advanced technologies transform social relationships from more traditional face-to-face
relationship styles to more virtual social relationship styles, and to investigate how these changes
impact the roles of generation-Y leaders who are emerging in organizational management
structures. Three 30-minute recorded interviews were conducted with 10 generation-Y managers,
representing target organizations in technological, health-care, and self-owned businesses in
Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Los Angeles counties, California.
23. 7
The criteria for the selection of the generation-Y leaders were (a) aged 20–30 years, (b)
holding a management role, (c) managing a multi-generational workforce, and (d) seeking
leadership advancement. For the purposes of this research, Lancaster’s (2004) and Dwyer’s
(2009) definitions of generation-Y individuals were used: individuals born between the years of
1982 and 2000 and raised within a technologically based society in which social networks were
more prominent than face-to-face social interactions. Demographic data about each leader and
business were also collected and analyzed, including gender, race, age, education, and type of
business.
The research study provided insights into the lived experiences of generation-Y leaders,
and the ways that technology influences their virtual social relationships, as well as the problems
created by virtual relationships, such as isolation of generation-Y leaders from employees (Vega
& Brennan, 2000). In addition, the proposed research investigated how virtual communication
through various forms of technology affects trust and team performance (DeRosa et al., 2004).
Furthermore, the research study reexamined current vertical hierarchical structures within
organizations, to determine whether these structures will remain vertical or will flatten over time;
flattening is expected to result in a more horizontal hierarchical structure, resulting from more
efficient applications of technology (White et al., 2010).
Significance of the Study
The qualitative phenomenological research examined future generation-Y leaders’
perceptions of virtual social relationships (developed through various forms of technological
communication; e.g., phone conferences, webinars, and emails) involving multi-generational
employees in business and corporation settings. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the
older population, which includes Traditionalists and Baby Boomers was projected to reach 5.8
24. 8
million by 2010 and 8.7 million by 2030. In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau report (2010)
indicated that Baby Boomers will continue to be a major constituent of the population until 2050.
Although large numbers of Baby Boomers are currently retiring, a sizable fraction is also opting
to remain in the workforce, even past retirement age, because of economic circumstances; thus,
understanding the social implications of the shifting composition of the workforce is important
for generation-Y leaders who are taking over management positions in businesses. Generation-Y
leaders must be cognizant of acquiring and retaining the knowledge, skills, and expertise of the
Baby Boomer generation, in order to maintain a competitive edge for their organizations.
Three significant elements related to the social implications of virtual socialization
relationships were examined in this study. The first element is the understanding of cause and
effect relationships related to social isolation of employees caused by emerging technologies
(Vega & Brennan, 2000). The second element is an investigation of the role of face-to-face
communication versus virtual communication in the development of trust between individuals;
this involves an analysis of how trust is formed, the influence of different kinds of information in
the formation of trust, and the influence of different styles of technological communication
(Robert, Dennis, & Hung, 2009). The third element relates to an analysis of the current vertical
hierarchical structure of organizations; by understanding how technology and social interactions
at various generational levels are used to achieve work goals (e.g., teleworking), organizations
may facilitate a paradigm shift from a vertical hierarchical structure to a horizontal structure
(Ziv, 2000).
The goals of the study were: (a) to help future generation-Y leaders understand, manage,
develop, and address the multi-generational workforce from a social perspective, to minimize
social isolation of employees, to ensure inclusiveness, and to maintain connectedness among
25. 9
leaders and employees (Diekema, 1992); (b) to develop a platform of communication by
presenting quality information and providing the data necessary to foster employee trust and
involvement, ultimately to meet organizational goals (Thomas et al., 2009); and (c) to reexamine
the current hierarchical communication structure within organizations, to determine if the new
paradigm shift in the coming millennium requires a different structure to achieve organizational
goals and visions (Farmer et al., 1998). To achieve these aims, interviews were conducted with
generation-Y managers to gain insights into how the social implications of virtual relationships
were perceived and experienced. Furthermore, recommendations were provided for future
generation-Y leaders to incorporate successful social relationships to aid in retaining and
managing the organizational knowledge base, expertise, and skills of various generations of
employees.
The recommendations will enable business corporations to achieve strong leadership and
human capital that reflect ongoing cultural transitions, and will provide organizations with a
stronger global advantage and competitive edge. Such recommendations should foster an
atmosphere that facilitates inclusiveness, trust, and an organizational structure that promotes a
viable organization through a strong understanding of the social implications of a multi-
generational workforce. Furthermore, the recommendations could guide leadership development
for generation-Y members, promoting effective strategies for assisting an organization in coping
with the complexities and disturbances that occur in a fast-paced global technological
environment (Huey & Sookedo, 1994). These contributions could create a stronger return on
financial investments and retention of human capital.
26. 10
Nature of the Study
Overview of the research method. A qualitative phenomenological research approach
was selected to describe lived experiences, perspectives, and concepts of future generation-Y
managers groomed for leadership roles, as related to their social interactions within their
respective organizations. Three 30-minute interviews were conducted with 10 generation-Y
managers, chosen as a representative sample of the leaders of the target population of businesses,
from various industries in Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Los Angeles counties, California.
Each participant signed a consent form that ensures confidentiality of interview
responses. Interviews were conducted at a location selected by the participant, using informal
open-ended questions to obtain in-depth responses. Open-ended questions encouraged
participants to discuss their experiences freely, while affording the researcher flexibility and
subjectivity (Rubin, 2008). Each session was tape recorded to ensure accurate data transcription;
data were collected for six months. Use of a qualitative phenomenological research method
resulted in a holistic picture of characteristic traits and relationships between variables.
Overview of the design appropriateness. A qualitative research method was selected as
the appropriate research method for this study. Using qualitative research methods, the
researcher largely relies on the subjective perspectives and views of the participants, using
general questions and collecting participants’ responses, and analyzing the themes that emerge
using an unbiased subjective approach. Quantitative research, on the other hand, is based on
specific questions, collection of numerical data, and statistical analyses, using a more objective
approach (Creswell, 2005).
27. 11
The research identified patterns or themes present in the collected data. Three aspects of
the research subject were explored: (a) an understanding of the influence of social relationships
based on virtual communication and the potential emergence of isolation that can occur in the
workforce as a result of virtual communication practices (Kirkman et al., 2002); (b) an
investigation of the effects of virtual communication as related to the development of trust
(Piccoli & Ives, 2003); and (c) a reexamination of the current hierarchical structure within
organizations, and an analysis of how organizational structures might evolve as technology
continues to advance (Levit, 2009).
Research Questions
Organizations in the 21st century must rethink the ways in which they conduct current
business operations, and design methodologies that are technologically appropriate and that keep
pace with technological advances. This foresight supports the diverse multi-generational
workforce by leveraging the knowledge base, skills, and expertise of each generation (Stevens,
2010). Hence, attention to technological developments is critical to an organization’s vitality,
especially in the development and mentoring of generation-Y leaders as they increasingly take
on leadership roles in the 21st century (Meister & Willyerd, 2010).
The purpose of the present phenomenological research was to describe lived experiences,
perspectives, and concepts of future generation-Y leaders’ social relationships from a virtual
perspective. In addition, the research study analyzed the effects of isolation (Cascio, 2000), the
influence of virtual communication on trust (Clark et al., 2010), as well as future organizational
structures. The research was conducted by analyzing patterns or themes within social
relationships developed and maintained by technology-savvy leaders. The following informal
questions guided the interview process:
28. 12
1. Can you make a general comment about your generation’s leadership style when it comes
to social relationship aspects with the multiple generations (Traditionalist, Baby
Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y) you manage?
2. Do you believe there are diverse perspectives from each generation? If so, how do these
perspectives hinder or support the organization in being successful?
3. Do you think there is a possibility for isolation to occur due to technological
communication (i.e. e-mail, webinars, and telephone conferencing) or do you feel these
forms of technological communication isolates staff members or brings staff members
closer together?
4. How would you think staff members from each generation respond to his or her
perspective of the various forms of communication and the possible effects of isolation?
5. What is your preference of communication, face-to-face or electronic communication and
why?
6. What role do you feel trust plays when it comes to communicating face-to-face and/or
virtually?
7. What is your perspective on teleworking versus working onsite, and the impact on
employee socialization on the job?
8. With advanced technology, how do you see the hierarchical structure within your
organization? Do believe the structure will remain top-down or more of a collaborative
structure?
9. Where do you see your organizational hierarchical structure 10 years from now?
10. If you had any recommendations to assist your generation’s future leaders, what would
you recommend?
29. 13
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for the qualitative phenomenological research study permitted
the researcher to use the collected data to identify possible correlations or patterns based on the
researcher’s initial assumptions. The researcher was not constrained by a standardized format or
theory that stifled creativity or flexibility, and was thus able to meet the needs of participants
(Rubin, 2008). The purposes of the qualitative phenomenological research were to understand
the lived experiences, perspectives, and concepts of future generation-Y leaders’ social
relationships from a virtual perspective. The inquiry was based on the research questions.
The study examined the social relationships of future generation-Y leaders and multi-
generational employees, how relationships are influenced by technology as a form of
socialization, and the social implications that can occur when face-to-face interactions are
minimized. The research analyzed isolation from the perspective of technological advancements
that influence employees to be separated from the physical social network of the traditional
office environment (Kurland & Bailey, 1999). The research also examined virtually based
communications involving little to no face-to-face interaction and the level of trust that occurs in
such contexts (Chidambaram, 1996). In addition, the research investigated the role of
information technologies and their effects in flattening hierarchical structures and minimizing the
roles of middle management (Rajan & Wulf, 2006).
The literature review described in Chapter 2 did not reveal any studies on generation-Y
leadership with a focus on virtual socialization relationships. However, studies have addressed
the concept of mentoring upcoming generation-Y leaders. The topic of this research study–
virtual socialization relationships–is inherently connected to other important disciplines, such as
leadership, management of virtual teams, teleworking, and social information processing. The
30. 14
conceptual framework gave this study a different perspective of the social implications of
technology and created boundaries for a comprehensive exploration of the analysis of virtual
socialization relationships among future generation-Y leadership.
Definitions
The following definitions were used to guide this research.
Isolation. Isolation was used to describe an individual’s feeling of being cut off from
other individuals, in an individual who desires support, acknowledgement, and social and
emotional interactions, conditions which are not met (Diekema, 1992; Golden et al., 2008).
Virtual communication. This term refers to a type of communication used by individuals
who are geographically dispersed, either locally or globally, and who use various forms of
telecommunication and technology to fulfill organizational goals (Townsend et al., 1998).
Hierarchy. Hierarchy refers to the “classification of a group of people according to
ability or to economic, social, or professional standing” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d.).
Leadership. Leadership occurs when “intentional influence is exerted over other people
to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and relationships in a group or organization” (Yukl,
2010, p. 3).
Multi-generational workforce. The current multi-generational workforce includes
traditionalists born between 1900 and 1945 (Kyles, 2005), Baby Boomers born between 1946
and 1964 (Reisenwitz & Lyer, 2007), generation-X members born between 1965 and 1979, and
generation-Y members born between 1980 and 1999 (Klyes, 2005).
31. 15
Assumptions
The study assumes that the qualitative phenomenological research protocol garnered
information from participants through an interview process that elicited lived experiences,
concepts, perspectives, and beliefs relating to future generation-Y leadership and social
implications of advanced technologies. In addition, the research assumes that the interviews
provided an understanding of the barriers and risks that generation-Y leaders may experience as
they deal with a multi-generational workforce. Another assumption is that participants provided
real life experiences without reservation, as the interview process was informal and was
conducted in their environment (Rubin, 2008).
The researcher complied with ethical standards to ensure that participants were not
harmed and that their privacy was not breached. To this end, a consent form was given to each
participant, allowing the researcher permission to begin the interview (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).
Another assumption is that the researcher provided accurate and unbiased data in analyzing
virtual socialization relationships among generation-Y leaders (Orb, Eisenhauer, & Wynaden,
2001).
Scope
The study consists of lived experiences, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs concerning
virtual socialization relationships of 10 generation-Y managers. These generation-Y managers
were a representative sample of the target population of businesses, which included
technological, health-care, and self-owned businesses in Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Los
Angeles counties, California (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). The data was collected to analyze three
issues: (a) an understanding of the influence of social relationships built on virtual
communication and the emergence of isolation that can occur in the workforce (Kirkman et al.,
32. 16
2002); (b) an investigation of the effects of virtual communication in terms of trust (Piccoli &
Ives, 2003); and (c) a reexamination of the current hierarchical structure of organizations and an
analysis of how organizational structures may change in the future as a consequence of
technological advancements (Levit, 2009).
Limitations
One limitation of the study was that the highly structured interviewing techniques
minimized the researcher’s flexibility to discover new concepts. In addition, only 10 participants
were included in the study. It is possible that formal interviewing techniques cause a decline in
participants’ responsiveness. Thus, an unstructured interview was conducted to put participants
at ease during the interview process (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). Another limitation of the study
was that the research targeted only future generation-Y leaders, and not leaders of all
generations. Another limitation in the phenomenological research was the possibility of biases
regarding the researcher’s lived experiences, which could have affected data collection and
analysis (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). Further limitations may have included, availability of
participants’ time, and ethical issues that could have limited the study (Neuman, 2006).
Delimitations
This study was based on data collected during a six-month qualitative research study. The
qualitative phenomenological study included three 30-minute one-on-one semi-structured
telephone and open-ended interviews. Face-to-face and phone interviews with 10 generation-Y
managers, comprised of both males and females from technological, health-care, and self-owned
industries, were audio recorded to capture data accurately. The interviews enabled extensive
exploration of participants’ lived experiences, perspectives, and understandings (Leedy &
Ormrod, 2010). The study was conducted on 10 participants, with participants meeting the
33. 17
following criteria: (a) aged 20–30 years, (b) being in a management role, (c) managing a multi-
generational workforce, and (d) seeking leadership advancement. The study was conducted in
Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Los Angeles counties, California.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of the qualitative phenomenological study was to understand the causes and
effects of social isolation of employees relating to use of technology in social interactions (Vega
& Brennan, 2000) involving a multi-generational workforce. Through building an understanding
of such social isolation, the researcher investigated the role of face-to-face communications
versus virtual communications and investigated the role of trust in each of these settings by
analyzing how trust is formed, the influence of different kinds of information, and the influence
of technological communication styles (Robert et al., 2009). In addition, the researcher analyzed
the current vertical hierarchical structure of organizations and investigated how technology
requires social interactions at various generational levels to achieve work goals, possibly causing
a paradigm shift to a more horizontal organizational structure (Ziv, 2000).
The results of the qualitative phenomenological research study could assist organizations
in understanding, managing, and developing generation-Y leaders who must address a multi-
generational workforce from a social perspective, to minimize social isolation of employees to
ensure inclusiveness, and to build unity among leaders and employees (Diekema, 1992). In
addition, the research developed a platform of communication by providing information on the
factors required to foster employee trust and involvement necessary to meet organizational goals
(Thomas et al., 2009). Finally, the research reexamined the current hierarchical structure of
organizations to determine if the new paradigm shift among leaders of the new millennium
34. 18
requires a different organizational structure to achieve organizational goals and visions (Farmer
et al., 1998).
In Chapter 2, the literature review includes support for the qualitative phenomenological
research study, evidence that gaps in the literature exist, and current findings that address the
proposed research from a range of perspectives, from broad to specific. The literature review
includes various alternative viewpoints, evaluates pros and cons, and addresses comparisons and
contrasts of various research studies.
35. 19
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Given the large amounts of information available via a multitude of sources,
organizations must find ways to determine what information is relevant for making sound
strategic decisions (Hansen, 2008). As organizations become more complex, because of
technological advancements and the challenges of managing a multi-generational workforce,
emerging leaders must have the skills and expertise to both control and exploit virtual
technologies. More importantly, future leaders must be able to manage what McDonald called
the “generational melting pots” (McDonald, 2008, p. 61).
Organizations are tasked with the development of future generation-Y leaders (born
between 1980 and 1999; Klyes, 2005) who will take the helm of a generationally diverse 21st
century workforce. Concerns have arisen that retiring Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and
1964; Cary, 2008; Harris, 2005) will affect the labor market by leaving a gap in the workforce,
both physically and in terms of expertise (Dohm, 2000). Many individuals are delaying
retirement, starting second careers, and living longer, all of which have broadened the age range
of employees (McDonald, 2008). Thus, understanding the future social implications of a diverse
generational workforce is critical to an organization’s ability to strengthen job performance and
competitiveness in today’s markets.
The literature review in this chapter focuses on issues related to virtual socialization
relationships among future generation-Y leaders. The three major issues that were investigated
are (a) virtual communication and its effects on isolation, (b) communication and lack of trust
because of little to no face-to-face socialization, and (c) the possibility of a vertical hierarchical
structure going through a paradigm shift to a horizontal hierarchical structure because of
36. 20
technological advancements. The literature review was used to triangulate any themes found in
the 10 participants’ interview responses in the presentation of findings.
Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, Journals Researched
The search for pertinent information entailed using a number of sources, including peer-
reviewed journals from the University of Phoenix’s EBSCOhost database, ProQuest database,
Gale Power Search database, and ERIC database. Multiple Google Scholar searches and searches
of the Harvard Business Review, InformaWorld, and MyJSTOR were also conducted.
Information was accessed from 25 books and more than 155 peer-reviewed publications,
newspapers, dissertations, and government reports to gather relevant information.
Historical Overview of Multiple Generations
Demographic experts have identified four generations within the workforce: traditionalist
(born prior to 1946), Baby Boomer (born between 1946 and 1964), generation-X (born between
1965 and 1979) (Catalyst, 2010; McDonald, 2008), and generation-Y (born between 1980 and
1999). What makes each generation distinctive are the social, historical, and cultural experiences
that occurred in each era. Because of these experiences, each generation has developed diverse
working styles and professional aspirations (McDonald, 2008).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2011), as of February 2011, the U.S. workforce
consisted of approximately 311 million individuals. Catalyst (2010) calculated that in 2009, the
multi-generational workforce was composed of 38,869,716 traditionalists, 78,058,246 Baby
Boomers, 62,098,952 generation-X individuals, and 83,961,709 generation-Y individuals (see
Figure 1). The onus is on future generation-Y leaders to ensure that the social dimensions of each
generation are addressed in such a way that the organization remains competitive and successful,
by integrating the knowledge, skills, and expertise of each generation.
37. 21
Figure 1. Percentage of different generations in the data for 2009. Adapted from “Generations in
the Workplace in the United States & Canada,” Catalyst, August 2010. Copyright 2010 by the
Catalyst. Adapted with permission (see Appendix A).
If generation-Y leaders can leverage the resources of a multi-generational workforce, the
benefits gained will enhance the success rates of their organizations. According to Murphy
(2007) six benefits can be gained when a multi-generational workforce is properly managed.
First, organizations can preserve and acquire expertise and skills from all generations. Second,
multi-generational workforce teams are more adaptable than those consisting of a single
generation. Third, organizations can garner more of the market sector because employees
represent and reflect the multi-generational marketplace. Fourth, diverse viewpoints create a
more robust decision-making process. Fifth, employees in multi-generational organizations are,
as a group, more innovative than those in single-generation workplaces. Sixth, employees can
meet the demands of a diverse clientele and understand their needs more effectively.
Traditionalists. Traditionalists, also known as the mature generation, the World War II
generation, and, according to Harris (2005), the forgotten generation, were born prior to 1946
(Cary, 2008; Dwyer, 2009). The characteristic traits of traditionalists are loyalty, respect of
38. 22
authority, extreme discipline, and possession of a traditional perspective toward work.
Traditionalists believe in working their way up through the ranks and they support seniority; they
prefer a commanding and controlling leadership (McDonald, 2008).
Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964 (Cary, 2008; Harris,
2005; Reisenwitz & Iyer, 2007).Baby Boomers are normally characterized as being ambitious,
career-minded, and competitive. Baby Boomers are often found in senior leadership roles and are
considered to be attentive to work, have strong ethics, and seek recognition for their labor
(Notter, 2005). In addition, Baby Boomers are well linked to the labor force; they are a major
source of an organization’s knowledge base, an important consideration as they prepare to retire
(McDonald, 2008).
Generation-X. Generation-X members were born between 1965 and 1979 (Catalyst,
2010; McDonald, 2008). Their characteristic traits are a prioritization of a work–life equilibrium,
the seeking of opportunities for growth within an organization, and development of good rapport
with peers and management. In addition, generation-X members are inclined to distrust
organizations, after witnessing their parents’ as well as their own generation being downsized
from jobs and left with little or no job security. Furthermore, generation-X members have more
of an entrepreneurial desire and are often compelled to change careers to start a business
(McDonald, 2008).
The older generation-X members are entering CEO and senior leadership roles in which
their focus is on developing a practical and efficient leadership style that reflects 21st century
perspectives, as opposed to the ideological viewpoints which characterize Baby Boomers’
leadership styles (Erickson, 2009). Generation-X members grew up in an era of ethnic and racial
diversity, technological advancement, and a spirit of entrepreneurship (Casey & Denton, 2006).
39. 23
Generation-Y. Generation-Y members, born between 1980 and 1999 (Klyes, 2005), are
also known as millennials (Hansen, 2008; Murphy, 2007), nexters (Crumpacker & Crumpacker,
2007; Marshall, 2004), and echo boomers (Harris, 2005; Paul, 2001). Their characteristic trait is
being technically savvy, as they were raised in an era of cell phones, computers, and electronic
gadgets. In addition, generation-Y members prefer informal work settings and mutually
respectful relationships (McDonald, 2008).
The older generation-Y members have already entered the workforce, whereas the
younger members are still completing their schooling. Generation-Y is viewed as being
optimistic, extremely goal-oriented, collaborating on multiple levels, welcoming new and
emerging technologies, and desiring meaningful work (Deloitte, 2009). In addition, generation-Y
is defined as the generation that grew up in an era of racial, ethnic, and linguistic variety; many
were raised in nontraditional families (Goldsmith et al., 2010; Paul, 2001).
Historical Overview of the Characteristic Traits of a Multi-Generational Workplace
Traditionalists. The assets that traditionalists bring to organizations are experience, a
knowledge base, loyalty, stability, maturity, and perseverance. However, the liabilities of
traditionalists include resistance to change, difficulty adjusting to conflict, and a tendency to
uncommunicativeness in the face of disagreement. Traditionalists are motivated when leaders
acknowledge the ways in which their actions are of benefit to the organization. In addition,
traditionalists value awards that are tangible, such as plaques acknowledging their loyalty and
commitment. Furthermore, traditionalists tend to prefer written correspondence as their primary
means of communication (Murphy, 2007).
40. 24
To recruit and retain traditionalists, generation-Y leaders will need to incorporate a more
personal touch to reach out to the older generations, using direct face-to-face contact more
frequently than they are accustomed to. Technological communications, such as webinars and
telephone conferences, can isolate generation-X employees. In addition, generation-Y leaders
must recognize and acknowledge the value of past experience that traditionalists bring to the
workplace, and ensure that mentorship systems are in place to facilitate the transfer of this
knowledge base to the younger generation of employees (Murphy, 2007).
Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers bring to the workforce highly desirable labor skills and
solid work ethics (Leopold, 2005). The work ethic of Baby Boomers is based on a loyalty to their
organizations, which often takes precedence over the attention they provide to their families.
Baby Boomers value the act of ‘hard work’, and they expect that their hard work will result in
promotions, raises, and bonuses based on tenure (Marston, 1998). In short, Baby Boomers value
financial incentives that are based on a strong work ethic (Anderson, 1988).
The assets that Baby Boomers bring to organizations are experience, a knowledge base
borne of experience, strong work ethics, dedication, and a perspective that values teamwork.
However, the liabilities of Baby Boomers include: they are often not very budget-minded; they
are uneasy with conflict; they are hesitant to challenge or oppose colleagues; and, they tend to
emphasize processes ahead of results. Leaders who permit Baby Boomers to participate in the
development of organizational goals and who instill in them the conviction that they add value to
the company are able to motivate this generation of workers (Murphy, 2007).
The types of rewards that Baby Boomers value are gratitude, career advancement, and
acknowledgement. Their preferred methods of communication are phone calls and face-to-face
interactions. To recruit and retain Baby Boomers, generation-Y leaders will need to provide
41. 25
flexible working conditions that are of mutual benefit to both employees and the organization, a
workplace atmosphere that contributes to physiological and mental well-being, services that
support family care (Dychtwald et. al, 2004; Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008), challenging
career opportunities, good health care benefits, and strong retirement plans (Murphy, 2007).
Generation-X. Generation-X employees are adaptable, technologically savvy,
independent, innovative, and willing to take risks; they are not afraid to oppose traditional
systems. The main liability of generation-X employees is a skepticism and distrust of leadership
and those in authority. This generation is motivated by being given the ability to do things their
way, even though their ways may be unorthodox, and conducted according to their own
timetables. The rewards that generation-X employees desire are free time, the most current
resources, developmental growth, visible demonstration of results, and educational or work
certifications to build their resume portfolios. The preferred communication for generation-X
works is voicemail and email (Murphy, 2007).
To recruit and retain generation-X employees, generation-Y leaders will need to be
flexible in providing a variety of alternative work schedules. Alternative work schedules are
critical, especially for completing tasks in a timely manner. In addition, generation-X employees
perform best when working independently, permitting them to adapt and be flexible. Generation-
X employees will ensure that the job gets done. What is most important for generation-X
employees is what Murphy (2007) called FAST feedback, which involves Frequent, Accurate,
Specific, and Timely (FAST) responses that allow individuals to hone their skills.
Generation-Y. Generation-Y assets include their abilities to work collectively to address
issues, to multi-task, and to quickly adjust and adapt to rapidly emerging technologies–they are
technologically savvy. However, generation-Y employees require supervision and structure to
42. 26
perform optimally. Generation-Y is less experienced than traditionalists, Baby Boomers, and
generation-X individuals, particularly in dealing with difficult social issues. Generation-Y’s
challenges involving complex social issues are a principal concern of this research regarding the
future leadership of this generation and the social implications of a multi-generational workforce.
This generation is motivated by leaders who associate their actions with their individual and
career goals. The rewards that generation-Y employees desire are tangible items, such as
plaques, certificates, and awards that show their creditability and worthiness (Murphy, 2007).
The preferred method of communication for generation-Y employees is text messaging,
emailing, and instant messaging (Murphy, 2007). However, according to jobweb.com (n.d.), a
career development and employment scout firm for college graduates, effective communication
proficiency has been identified as the number one criterion for management success. Therefore,
generation-Y leaders must bear in mind what they can do to support their generation not only in
terms of communication skills but also in terms of problem solving, working in team cohorts,
and enhancing their flexibility and ability to adapt to various generational audiences. Developing
these skill sets for generation-Y employees is essential for success in the 21st century business
environment (Levy & Murnane, 2004).
To recruit and retain generation-Y employees, generation-Y leaders will need to
accommodate these employees’ schedules and provide opportunities for pursuit of outside
personal activities. Because of the community-oriented environment of generation-Y individuals,
comprised largely of university graduates, involving generation-Y individuals in community
service activities would help their development of social skills. In addition, generation-Y’s
astuteness regarding technology and globalization, and their willingness to share and gather
information rapidly, should be leveraged by organizations to retain competitiveness. The key to
43. 27
generation-Y leadership is to match generation-Y employees with older mentors who can
disseminate interpersonal and social skills, as well as impart critical knowledge (Murphy, 2007).
Virtual Socialization Relationships
Social isolation. The concept of virtual socialization relationships addresses multiple
aspects of technological development and its affect on interpersonal relationships. In this section,
isolation is discussed in terms of the effects of technologies that widen the gap of physical
socialization (i.e., face-to-face interactions), thus creating the possibility of isolation occurring
among team members. Social isolation is inevitable if generation-Y leaders do not appropriately
manage the social aspects of a multi-generational workforce. The work of Diekema (1992) lays
the foundation for the causes and consequences of social isolation investigated in this research.
The primary area of focus is Diekema’s theory on other-imposed aloneness, also referred to as
isolation. Aloneness is defined as the “inability to meaningfully communicate with others in
immediate encounters” (p. 483). In addition, relational aloneness is associated with imposed
aloneness, which is the lack of social and personal interaction during the development of social
relationships.
Aloneness includes emotions such as abandonment and restlessness, which can be
experienced when individuals are interacting with one another. These feelings are created when,
from a social relational perspective, individuals are cut off from one another physically, even
though they may interact by other forms of communication (e.g., virtual communication;
Diekema, 1992,). Virtual socialization isolation takes Diekema’s theory to another level in that
technology can create patterns of social isolation that keep organizations from being successful.
More importantly, the generational gaps that exist within the workforce can create an urgency for
44. 28
future generation-Y leaders, who must be proactive in mitigating the negative consequences of
social isolation, that can keep organizations from being competitive and successful.
Virtual teams and teleworking are discussed to understand how isolation can occur
through technological advancements (Vega & Brennan, 2000). Furthermore, the concept of self
is examined in terms of how individuals connect themselves to others through social bonds to
create some form of identity, and how technology impacts the creation of these bonds. Given the
extent of the media hype regarding advanced technologies, human disconnection is occurring at
an increasing rate, because of over-stimulation related to technological advancements. The goal
for many organizations should be for future generation-Y leaders to develop an adaptive
structure that supports rapid technological changes that positively affect social interactions and
aid in decision-making processes and the development of collaboration and consensus (Boiney,
1998).
Virtual teams. Technology enhancements and globalization allow for the formation of
virtual teams composed of worldwide networks (Kirkman, et al., 2002). Virtual teams are groups
of individuals who work autonomously towards a common goal; team members often represent
diverse organizations, connected via advanced communication systems (Lipnack & Stamps,
1999). Such teams seldom meet face to face, and often include employees from diverse cultural
backgrounds (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). Some of the earmarks of virtual teams are their
cross-functional operations and emphases on addressing customer service issues or the creation
of new job processes (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Chase, 1999). The strength of virtual teams lies
in organizations’ abilities to integrate exceptional expertise and skills of globally dispersed
individuals.
45. 29
Although numerous advantages exist for organizations that incorporate virtual teams into
their business strategies, generation-Y leaders will face challenges that require proactive
attention. According to Kirkman et al. (2002), five common challenges exist for virtual teams.
The first is the building of trust among team members, as face-to-face interactions are limited
(Järvenpää et al., 1998). Second, because of the lack of face-to-face interactions, synergy among
team members can be difficult to achieve (Cascio, 2000). Third, team members can experience
isolation and detachment from peers because of the lack of physical interactions with other group
members (Cascio, 2000) and the lack of physical social networks (Kurland & Bailey, 1999).
Fourth, creating an equilibrium between technical and interpersonal skills to develop well-
rounded team members can be difficult (Kirkman et al., 2002). Fifth, assessing and
acknowledging the work that team members perform virtually poses a challenge for leaders who
are not able to observe employees’ job performance directly (Kurland & Bailey, 1999). Just as
technology allows virtual teams to perform tasks globally, teleworking has become another
avenue in which employees can work at home, outside of the confines of an organizational office
environment.
Teleworkers. Teleworkers are defined in several ways. For the purposes of this research,
teleworkers are defined according to Kamerade and Burchell (2004), who identify three
components: (a) individuals are working in remote locations outside an employer’s or
contractor’s business site, (b) various forms of technology are used to complete tasks, and (c)
communication technologies (e.g., computers, phones, etc.) are used for correspondence between
employees and managers and between employees and peers.
46. 30
Teleworkers can experience both professional and social isolation (Cooper & Kurland,
2002). From a professional standpoint, teleworkers may express concerns of not being visible
on-site, and may find that this disadvantage diminishes their opportunities for upward mobility
within the organization, as well as for achieving recognition. Socially, teleworkers miss the
physical interactions involving peers and friends. The factor that most influences the degree of
isolation is the frequency and/or extent of teleworking engaged in by an individual (Kurland &
Egan, 1999).
Some researchers have indicated that teleworking is a community-friendly work
atmosphere for individuals inspired by social isolation and reduced communication, and that
teleworking leads to increased social interactions in non-work civic activities. On the other hand,
teleworking has been considered unfriendly in that it decreases face-to-face communications,
thus isolating individuals. In any case, whether the results are viewed as negative or positive,
technology is the impetus for an increase in teleworking (Kamerade & Burchell, 2004). The
primary argument against teleworking is the absence of a workplace environment in which
individuals can socialize, thereby resulting in socially isolation (Bailey & Kurland, 2002).
With regard to the impact of teleworking on job performance, and the effects of isolation,
research has revealed that teleworkers cannot easily gauge social interactions in comparison with
colleagues who work on site; this suggests that it is difficult for teleworkers to successfully
engage in social work functions (Mann et al., 2000). Because of feelings of inadequacy caused
by isolation, teleworkers are not as confident in their knowledge and skill sets as on-site workers,
which places them at a disadvantage in performing their tasks. Social relationships afford critical
knowledge about relevant events, pertinent information for addressing complex issues, and a
better understanding of the idiosyncrasies of colleagues and clients (Duffy et al., 2002).
47. 31
Golden, Veiga, and Dino (2008) identified the isolation of teleworkers as teleworker
professional isolation. Teleworker professional isolation occurs in individuals who tend to be
socially deficient as compared with their counterparts, in terms of behaviors, actions, or
performance in the work environment. Teleworker professionals lose the opportunity to develop
working relationships with peers that afford them vital knowledge and the ability to acquire
information about job tasks and information essential for comprehending complex tasks. More
importantly, teleworkers lack the social dimensions of understanding staff, management, and
customer personalities and nuances, which are critical to job performance.
Forecasters predict an increase in teleworking in the coming years because of the
continuing development of advanced telecommunication and multimedia technologies. These
forms of technology make it possible for those who work remotely and those who are staffing
corporate offices to communicate with ease and efficiency (Kurland & Bailey, 1999). However,
the repercussions of this type of relationship are that teleworkers may feel overwhelmed by the
isolation that they experience, as they are separated from the social networking that occurs in
traditional office settings. The lack of interaction with coworkers can create social frustrations,
and in some cases, an individual’s loyalty to his or her organization can diminish.
Virtual Communication and Its Effect on Trust
Virtual communication. Virtual communication is normally performed through
databases, emails, conference calls, video conferencing, and so on. However, the most
commonly used method of communication is by accessing information in shared databases
(Altinöz, 2008). Studies have been conducted on virtual communication and its effects through
the use of technological communication and decision-making processes, as related to group
48. 32
effectiveness (e.g., Kahai et al., 1997). These studies reveal that asynchronous communication is
most effective for less complex tasks (Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Gallupe et al., 1991).
Because of newly emerging technologies, social interactions and collaborations will be
increasingly conducted virtually (Hansen, 2008), both in local and global environments, and will
involve less and less face-to-face socialization. Research indicates that when individuals
participate in more face-to-face communication, interpersonal barriers connected to physical
absences from office locations can be mitigated. Even though it is common for virtual employees
to rarely see managers and colleagues (Kirkman et al., 2004; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000),
face-to-face interactions afford employees the opportunity to socialize and build strong
collaboration that support organizational success. Communication within virtual teams has posed
challenges for organizations and will continue to do so for generation-Y leaders, if socialization
issues are not addressed proactively so as to foster a healthy social environment. Leaders are
realizing that new communication skills and expertise are required to prevent employees from
feeling isolated and disconnected from their teams (Cascio, 2000).
Another aspect of virtual communication is related to social identity/deindividuation
(SIDE) theory; SIDE is based on depersonalization caused by ambiguities within groups that
have virtual interactions affecting social behavior (Postmes et al., 2002). There are two major
effects of depersonalization. First, individuals become deficient in identifying themselves with
other group members, which can encourage pressure and influence from both internal and
external forces. Second, depersonalization can foster cognitive consequences relating to how
individuals perceive themselves when information is limited (Postmes et al., 2005).
49. 33
Because the physical dynamics of virtual teams are limited, individuals are not in tune
with the various idiosyncrasies and characteristic traits needed to interact socially in face-to-face
group settings, thus causing such individuals to self-categorize themselves in social groups (e.g.,
by gender or race) as opposed to being a part of the social community of the work environment.
Hence, analyzing face-to-face communication is important to determine if trust can be achieved
between individuals.
Face-to-face communication and trust. Various studies (e.g., Clark et al., 2010; Robert
et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2009) indicate that even when significant amounts of communication
are achieved through the use of virtual technologies (e.g., email, webinars, etc.), face-to-face
communication is still very effective for developing and establishing a social reference frame for
communication (Sarbaugh-Thompson & Feldman, 1988; Zack, 1993). In addition, face-to-face
interaction provides a vast amount of visible information, such as body movements and facial
expressions, which individuals use to comprehend information more readily and to reduce the
likelihood of miscommunication (Cramton, 2001; Daft & Lengel, 1986; Zack, 1993).
Face-to-face communication is closely linked to social presence (Short et al., 1976),
which characterizes the level to which a given method of communication permits individuals to
experience psychological closeness or presence (Fulk & Boyd, 1991). In other words, face-to-
face communication provides a higher degree of social presence than virtual communication, as
the latter is devoid of a physical social experience that enhances the socio-emotional contentment
of an individual. Therefore, participating more frequently in face-to-face interactions reduces the
negative effects of isolation in professional settings, and enhances job performance by mitigating
communication obstacles arising from misinterpretations of information (Daft & Lengel, 1986).
In addition, face-to-face interactions augment collaboration through shared communication,
50. 34
relationship building between employees and managers, and the creation of avenues for the
building of trust (Golden et al., 2008).
One of the most critical aspects of communication is trust. Generation-Y leaders will
need to create an environment of trust that will facilitate commitment and synergy for the
development of innovative and creative thinking; they will need to consider a variety of factors
involving a multi-generational workforce, such as generational diversity, a wide range of
personal and generational perspectives, and ways to maintain healthy levels of conflict (Stoner &
Hartman, 1993). Developing trusting relationships between team members and leaders will allow
teams to contribute to and maximize an organization’s goals, and will allow organizations to
successfully compete in the marketplace.
Trust in virtual environments has been noted as an effective method for forming social
similarities, shared goals, dedication, forms of discourse, and even care for employees (Holton,
2001). In virtual settings, trust is normally developed while building the virtual team (Järvenpää
et al., 1998); first impressions of how employees view each other online dictate how the team
will interact (Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005; Kimble et al., 2000). In more traditional face-to-
face settings, social communication is important for developing trust among team members.
However, in virtual teams, because of time constraints and deadlines for projects, team members
often do not have sufficient information about other team members to develop solid and trusting
relationships, resulting in possible stereotyping of coworkers (Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005).
Hierarchical Structures in Present and Future Organizations
Traditional hierarchical structures. Traditional hierarchical structures, also known as
vertical structures, are generally traced to Weber’s theory of bureaucracy (Scott & Davis, 2007),
in which he identified three levels of authority: (a) traditional, (b) rational-legal, and (c)
51. 35
charismatic. Traditional authority is patrimonial. Traditional structures or systems are passed
down from the forefathers of an organization, and involve a social organization in which an elite
group of males dominates and controls. Rational-legal authority is an impersonal and highly
formalized bureaucracy in which a leader has followers. Charismatic authority normally emerges
when a crisis occurs; individuals look to an individual who has extraordinary gifts, skills, or
expertise that can inspire devotion and conformity to the extraordinary qualities of the particular
leader (Scott & Davis, 2007). However, the two authorities that are most strongly present in
today’s traditional hierarchies are traditional and rational-legal, which are structured through
divisions of labor, hierarchical divisions, and rules.
An organizational chart is a good example of a traditional hierarchical structure.
Organizational charts display the amount of authority and the rank or classification of roles
within a company. Roles at the top of the hierarchical chart have more authority and
responsibility than those lower in the hierarchical structure. Those further down in a hierarchical
structure are under the authority and management of those who are higher (Jones, 2007). The
organizational chart was designed to reflect the need for organizational order. It also serves as a
framework for enhancing various functions within an organization, and thus encompasses the
management and separation of tasks, resource allocation from top to bottom, the levels at which
the ownership of knowledge rests, patterns of information dissemination, and the management of
job performance (Oxman & Smith, 2003).
Electronic communication can flatten traditional organizational hierarchies and
simultaneously generate internal communications to employees at different levels of the
organization. However, even with the prevalent use of electronic communication, hierarchical
information dissemination still remains (White, Vanc, & Stafford, 2010). For example, emails
52. 36
are still sent from the vice president at the top to the senior management, who cascade the
information down to the remainder of the organization. Basically, organizations are still going
through bureaucratic layers using virtual communication protocols.
On the other hand, virtual organizational hierarchical structures are likely to become
more unstructured and constantly changing as a response to the demands of technology.
Therefore, generation-Y leaders must create a nimble hierarchical structure which can rapidly
adapt to change (Ahuja & Carley, 1999); this may cause a future hierarchical paradigm shift.
Future hierarchical structures. Horizontal hierarchical structures along with virtual
team-based approaches have become more common as a result of technological advancements
(Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Generation-Y leaders are inclined to favor a more flattened
hierarchical structure because they are able and eager to learn about diverse aspects of their
organizations. More importantly, generation-Y leaders generally possess a strong capacity for
technology-based networking, as well as strong problem-solving skills (Hansen, 2008). Another
critical element in the flattening of organizations’ hierarchical structures is the presence of
relatively young leaders who are involved in the creation of forums that support and promote
“leadership circles, leadership teams, co-directors, staff collectives, and significantly flattened
hierarchies” (Kunreuther, 2003, p. 454). In other words, leaders are developing a platform upon
which team members are granted more autonomy and power to make decisions about how
organizations are run.
One of the main impetuses that caused a flattening of many organizations’ hierarchical
structures was the wave of downsizing that occurred within the last decade. Downsizing forced
many businesses to change their operational structures, and to use resources more efficiently to
perform the same amount of work. During these turbulent times, the roles and expectations of
53. 37
both employers and employees were redefined to meet the demands of the economic downturn
(O’Reilly, 1994). This meant that more traditional hierarchies, with several layers in the chain of
command, no longer met organizations’ needs. Instead, “Focused, self-directed work teams,
made up of empowered individuals with diverse backgrounds, are replacing traditional
specialized workers” (Burack & Singh, 1995, p. 13). In addition, technological developments
have resulted in the worker, rather than upper management, being the main resource that allows
organizations to maintain their competitive edge in today’s markets (Pfeffer, 1994).
In organizations with horizontal hierarchical structures, bureaucracies develop naturally
as organizations expand and segregate work according to the specialized expertise required to
perform tasks. This form of hierarchical structure strongly supports organizations’ abilities to
successfully address complex and shifting markets. However, traditional hierarchical structures
are also vulnerable to rapid changes that occur within markets, at both local and global scales.
Such changes may have even more profound effects on organizations when complex structures
within upper levels of organizational hierarchies destabilize, resulting in the collapse of the entire
organizational structure (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999).
The emergence of horizontal organizational structures is associated with (a) a response to
markets that have become globally competitive, (b) advancements in technology, and (c) the
ready availability of vast amounts of information (Bettis & Hitt, 1995). A flattened structure
enables organizations to propagate decision-making processes to lower-level team members and
thus reduce the number of layers of management, saving both time and money. With a flattened
structure, organizations can disperse human resources both locally and globally (Townsend et al.,
1998).
54. 38
Modern organizations are flattening their organizational structures by eliminating
multiple layers of middle management, by enhancing communication, and by creating an
atmosphere in which employees can more directly contribute to organizational success (Hilmer
& Donaldson, 1996). By flattening the organizational hierarchy, organizations can develop a
corporate model that represents a more familial environment, as oppose to one based on
rankings. Furthermore, a corporate culture can be developed that instigates and promotes
innovations that fall ‘outside the box’, and that cultivates the best qualities of staff members, as
opposed to stifling those qualities in favor of hierarchical authority (Hilmer & Donaldson, 1996).
Generation-Y Leadership
The main focus of this research is the future of generation-Y leadership, with an
emphasis on virtual socialization relationships. Because of the multi-generational workforce in
today’s organizations, generation-Y leaders will be called upon to manage social relationships
within organizations; such management is critical because these relationships typically
encompass a variety of ethnicities, races, religions, and cultural norms (DeLellis, 2000), which,
for the purposes of this research, are collectively referred to as aspects of ‘generational
diversity’. The challenges that face generation-Y leaders include the responsibility of garnering
and retaining knowledge, skills, and expertise from a multi-generational workforce, and
maintaining a social equilibrium that results in successful outcomes in the context of virtual
environments.
Theoretically, the leadership style that is most fitting for generation-Y leaders can be
referred to as transformational. According to Avolio and Yammarino (2008), transformational
leadership is defined as “leadership that is individually considerate, intellectually stimulating,
inspirationally motivational visionary, and of high ethical standards” (p. xvii). Transformational
55. 39
leadership has also been defined as an approach in which leaders persuade team members to
perform at higher levels by expanding their roles and responsibilities, which supports
developmental growth through contractual agreements, both implicit and explicit (Gong et al.,
2009).
The older traditional leadership model focused on employees’ completion of tasks,
according to goals and objectives established by leadership. However, contemporary markets call
for a leadership approach that is based on the significance of relationships established between
leaders and employees; these relationships are based on trust, mutual decision-making,
collaboration, and social care (Rowold, 2008). Global competition is another focus area for
generation-Y leaders; the global leadership skills they possess will affect the strategic goals and
objectives of their organizations.
Transformational leadership will aid in developing employees to their fullest capacities
by meeting their natural needs (e.g., Maslow’s theory), creating shared values, fostering positive
morale, and motivating employees to perform at optimal levels. Transformational leaders look
beyond personal interests and work toward the betterment of their organizations and their
employees (Ismail et al., 2011). Values, ethics, strategic leadership, and organizational culture
conflict are discussed in terms of how these assist in mitigating isolation, developing
communication that fosters trust, and supporting future hierarchical structures involving
generation-Y leaders.
Values. Because of the multi-generational workforce, generation-Y leaders must be
cognizant of the likelihood of misunderstandings and ensuing conflicts arising from differing
generational values and work ethics. By understanding the potential issues that can emerge in a
multi-generational workforce, generation-Y leaders can mitigate conflicts, forecast the direction
