Managing Multi-Generational Teams/Challenges for the Modern Manager: Systematic Literature Review

A leadership problem exists in twenty-first-century healthcare. For the first time in history, there are four distinct generations working side by side (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Balda & Mora, 2011; Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Cox, Hannif, & Rowley, 2014; Crisan, 2016; Ferri-Reed, 2014; Flippin, 2015; Graham, Daniel, & Doore, 2015; Phillips, 2016; Wiedmer, 2015). While this seems like an exciting opportunity, healthcare leaders are having difficulty managing the complexities of a multigenerational workforce (Carpenter & Charon, 2014; Flippin, 2015; Hillman, 2014; Wiedmer, 2015). Multigenerational teams are having an equally difficult time developing relationships with and trust in their managers and, as a result, are struggling with outcomes and goals (Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015; Guinalíu & Jordán, 2016; Hendricks & Cope, 2013; Wiedmer, 2015).

Disagreement exists regarding the types of leadership needed to manage multigenerational issues (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Asencio & Mujkic, 2016; Balda & Mora, 2011; Ferri-Reed, 2014; Flippin, 2015; Graham et al., 2015; Phillips, 2016; Thompson & Gregory, 2012) and if this problem should be solved by Human Resources Management (HRM) or managerial leadership (Balda & Mora, 2011; Carpenter & Charon, 2014; Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012; Hendricks & Cope, 2013). Disagreement also exists regarding how to define generations (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014) or that, in spite of generational theory, generational influence even exists (Hillman, 2014). However, researchers agree that management/team relationships are primary to meeting corporate goals and sustaining a competitive business edge, both in the American and International healthcare business markets (Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Cox et al., 2014; Crisan, 2016; Guinalíu & Jordán, 2016; Yoon & Ringquist, 2011). The success of twenty-first-century business is predicated on the ability of healthcare management/HRM teams to solve multigenerational issues (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Blattner & Walter, 2015; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Carpenter & Charon, 2014; Cox et al., 2014; Crisan, 2016; Flippin, 2015; Hillman, 2014; Schullery, 2013).

Managing multigenerational teams is not new. Multigenerational theory in the workplace is a seminal work of Manheim conducted in 1952 (Balda & Mora, 2011). This theory has been the basis for other workplace studies, including leadership styles in multigenerational teams (Wiedmer, 2015). However, the change in the workforce landscape creates a new management problem. For the first time in history, the Baby Boomer (BB) generation is not the majority of the workforce (Fry, 2016). It was the BB generation upon which contemporary leadership theory and practices were developed and empirically tested (Graham et al., 2015). Generational preferences and motivators are different, and as a result, traditional leadership theory may not be useful for the multigenerational team (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Ferri-Reed, 2014; Graham et al., 2015; Silva, Dutra, Veloso, Fischer, & Trevisan, 2015; Thompson & Gregory, 2012).

Leaders in the U.S. and globally have expressed frustration with a lack of understanding of multigenerational problems, as well as a lack of leadership support and training to deal with this diversity issue (Balda & Mora, 2011; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Carpenter & Charon, 2014; Cox et al., 2014; Hills, Ryan, Warren-Forward, & Smith, 2013; Wiedmer, 2015). Given the projected workplace trend, the two most polarized generations, BB and Millennials or Generation Y (Gen Y), will remain in the workforce through 2050 (Fry, 2016). The challenge of multigenerational team leadership will continue for at least the next 30 years (Fry, 2016).

The purpose of this literature review is to demonstrate the problem multigenerational teams pose for leaders in the twenty-first century. The generations of focus will be the Baby Boomer (BB), Generation X (Gen X), and Millennial or Generation Y (Gen Y). This review will be organized to discuss these generations in the labor force, their associated preferences, and work-style behaviors, and, as a result, the diversity challenges contemporary leaders face. 

Generations in the U.S. and Globally

Never before in American history have such generational differences existed (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014). In fact, according to the Pew Research Center (Fry, 2016), a non-politically associated research think-tank that analyzes and reports on vital statistics in the U.S., four distinct generations are working side by side. These generations are the Silent Generation or Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials or Generation Y (Fry, 2016). April 2016 workforce statistics show the Silent generation numbered 28 million (M), Generation X (Gen X) 66M, Baby Boomers (BB) 74M, and Generation Y (Gen Y) 75M (Fry, 2016). While this current mix may not seem significant, the generation gap trend is estimated to begin a rapid widening by 2028 (Fry, 2016). By 2050, Gen Y will outnumber BB by a 4:1 ratio and outnumber Gen X by a 1.5:1 ratio (Fry, 2016). The need for leaders with the skills to manage multigenerational teams will increase as a result (Flippin, 2015; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014).

These statistics are echoed in the global workforce and demonstrate the potential for broad sweeping generational-driven culture change (Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Carpenter & Charon, 2014). It is estimated by the year 2020, Gen Y will make up more than half of the global workforce (Catalyst, 2015). As U.S. companies seek to increase multi-national business, the need for leaders to manage not only cultural differences but also generational diversity will be increasingly necessary. This paradigm adds complexity to the leadership skill sets required for business success at home in the U.S. and abroad (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Cox et al., 2014; Crisan, 2016; Hillman, 2014; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014).

Authors agree that Gen Y is the most different of all of the generations, and therefore, an entirely different management style may be required from leadership (Balda & Mora, 2011; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Carpenter & Charon, 2014; Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012; Cox et al., 2014; Crisan, 2016; Ferri-Reed, 2014; Hillman, 2014; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014; Schullery, 2013; Silva et al., 2015; Thompson & Gregory, 2012). For example, in the article by Graham et al., (2015), the authors find that traditional leadership styles, such as transformational leadership, actually have an adverse effect on the outcomes of Gen Y team projects. Studies conducted in Romania (Crisan, 2016), South Africa (Bussin & Rooy, 2014), Vietnam (Cox et al., 2014), Australia (Hills et al., 2013), and Malaysia (Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014) also demonstrate that Gen Y is the most different of all generations globally, and traditional leadership styles are not as useful in managing Gen Y team members.

Generational Theory

Generational theory is a seminal work of Manheim and was conducted in 1952 (Balda & Mora, 2011; Bussin & Rooy, 2014). Generational theory defines the characteristics and preferences of individuals born during defined periods in history by the socioeconomic, political, and psychological influences of society during the formative years of the individual (Bussin & Rooy, 2014). Populations making up a generational cohort develop these characteristics and preferences based on this commonality of experience (Crisan, 2016). Internationally, authors agree with the definition of generational theory, and despite the country of origin, document similar characteristics and preferences amongst cohort members.

Disagreement arises in the way generational groups are defined. A generational cohort clusters individuals by birth year and labels the generation using nomenclature reflective of societal influences. For example, Baby Boomers are titled as such due to the increase in birth rates after World War II (Fry, 2016). The area of greatest disagreement is in the defining of Gen X and Gen Y birth years. Some sources define Gen X as born between 1966 to 1980 (Catalyst, 2015), while other sources define Gen X as being born between 1960 and early 1980s (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Cox et al., 2014; Hillman, 2014). While this may seem benign, the blurring of the birth cohorts creates complexity when generational theory is applied. Birth year confusion can cloud the classification of generational cohorts and create an overlap in societal experiential application. For example, a Gen X born in 1960 is much more likely to have the characteristics and preferences associated with the BB generation due to the political unrest of the early 1960s. A Gen X born in 1985 is more likely to identify with and have the preferences of Gen Y, as this time in history saw the invention of the internet and the personal computer.

From a leadership perspective, defining the correct generational cohorts of employees is important in understanding the generational characteristics and preferences of direct reports (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Blattner & Walter, 2015; Lucas, DEnbeau, & Heiden, 2016). To simplify, the remains of this literature review will focus on three generations and their associated characteristics and preferences. These generations are BB, defined as being born between 1946 and 1964, Gen X defined as being born between 1965 and 1980; and Gen Y, defined as being born between 1981 and 2000 (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Ferri-Reed, 2014; Flippin, 2015; Hillman, 2014).

Generational Characteristics

Studies on generational characteristics reveal BB are motivated by promotions and financial rewards, invested in the altruism of work, and remain loyal to companies that engage them in this way (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Cox et al., 2014; Hillman, 2014). The BB employee is aged 50 to 70 years (Fry, 2016), and is likely to be very competitive, even seeking public recognition for the work he or she accomplished (Bussin & Rooy, 2014). The BB employee tends to maintain long-term employment with companies and occupies supervisory positions for the tenure of their employment. Raised by parents who experienced War and economic hardship, BB focuses on a level of success that surpasses their parents and grandparents. Baby Boomers are resistant to change and, instead, stress consistency and hard work in their careers. BB may be difficult to engage in new workplace cultures or innovation (Hendricks & Cope, 2013; Phillips, 2016; Wiedmer, 2015).

Gen X employees are motivated by work-life balance, autonomy, and individualism and tend to be much less formal or respectful of a hierarchical organizational structure (Lucas et al., 2016). The Gen X employee wants to work independently and have fun doing the job. Raised by double-income parents focused on financial success, many Gen X children were latch-key and saw a rise in divorce rates (Wiedmer, 2015). This early experience may be responsible for the strong sense of individualism and independence valued by the Gen X employee. In addition, the Gen X member tends to be informal, aloof, skeptical, and technology savvy (Flippin, 2015; Lucas et al., 2016). Gen X team members respect leaders who refrain from micromanagement and share decision-making responsibility with the direct reports (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Phillips, 2016).

The Gen Y employee is motivated by recognition for work in the form of pay, benefits, and quick advancement. Gen Y was raised by "helicopter parents" (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Wiedmer, 2015), who created safe, controlled environments, where Gen Y children were taught to believe they deserved only the very best of everything. Reflective of their parental relationships, Gen Y team members expect leaders to keep them engaged through mentoring or coaching and are loyal to people and relationships, not organizations (Carpenter & Charon, 2014; Flippin, 2015; Hills et al., 2013; Lucas et al., 2016). The fact that Gen Y employees are loyal to their teammates and respected leaders can be problematic in times of staffing change. The Gen Y employee embodies the cliché of "people leave managers, not companies" (Flippin, 2015). It is likely that a Gen Y employee may resign in response to a change in leadership, or even follow a valued leader to his or her new position. The lack of organizational commitment of Gen Y has the potential to impact on business outcomes and fiscal stability (Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015; Yoon & Ringquist, 2011).

Generational Workplace Preferences

Generational workplace preferences are as vastly different as generational characteristics. However, the synthesis of the literature reveals some themes. These are style and mode of communication with leaders (Asencio & Mujkic, 2016; Flippin, 2015; Hendricks & Cope, 2013), types of recognition for work (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Ferri-Reed, 2014; Thompson & Gregory, 2012), opportunities for growth (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Wiedmer, 2015) and relationships with leadership teams (Asencio & Mujkic, 2016; Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015; Blattner & Walter, 2015; Flippin, 2015; Lucas et al., 2016; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014). Leaders who do not understand these preferences may view them to be behavioral issues, especially those preferences of the Gen Y employee (Flippin, 2015). For example, a Gen Y employee who seeks continuous feedback could be viewed as needy or immature and thus less competent. The ability to recognize and manage these preferences is key to preventing generational-based team conflict, which in turn, may result in team outcomes failure (Flippin, 2015; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014; Yoon & Ringquist, 2011).

Communication style and mode are most different between BB and their Gen X and Gen Y counterparts. BB prefer communication that is verbal or face-to-face, detail-oriented, and devoid of hierarchical tone (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012; Hendricks & Cope, 2013). While BB will engage with technology, this is not a preferred method of communication and may not allow a leader to fully develop relationships with his or her BB direct reports (Hendricks & Cope, 2013). Conversely, Gen X and Gen Y prefer electronic communication to verbal, to the extent to which electronic means are preferred over telephonic interactions (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Hillman, 2014). Gen X and Gen Y use electronic communication to build relationships; as a result, management that does not allow for, or does not engage in electronic communication as a primary source may experience conflict with these employees (Hillman, 2014). Instantaneous communications modes, such as texting or Instant Message (IM) platforms, appeal to Gen X and Gen Y.

Both Gen X and Gen Y formative educational experiences were inclusive of group-based learning and utilized gaming as a source to make learning more fun (Hills et al., 2013). This childhood experience gives rise to the need for Gen X and Gen Y workers to have a good time at work and love what they do (Hills et al., 2013; Schullery, 2013). Increasing social time interactions with these employees is paramount in trust development and may include expectations of participation in social media, such as facebook® or Twitter® (Asencio & Mujkic, 2016; Wiedmer, 2015).

Recognizing employees for the work they complete is an essential part of employee engagement and retention (Carpenter & Charon, 2014). Recognition can be in the form of performance reviews, merit awards, bonuses, flexible work schedules, alternate work sites, promotions, and even public praise for a job well done. Of interest are the differences that exist in generational preference for recognition. Financial compensation, promotions, and alternate work sites (such as work from home) are most relevant to Gen X.  These employees are in the middle of their careers, seeking or actively employed in management positions, and may have financial family responsibilities (Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Cox et al., 2014). Gen X also seeks public praise and credit for work completed as a means to build employment portfolios (Bussin & Rooy, 2014). BB prefer tenure service recognition in the forms of longevity bonuses or service award programs, whereas Gen Y prefers time off from work as payment for a job well done (Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Ferri-Reed, 2014).

Opportunities for growth are valued by all generational cohorts; however, the preference for how to grow and advance differs vastly amongst the generations. BB prefer growth opportunities that provide for their need for face-to-face communication. On-site training classes and on-the-job training or apprenticeship opportunities appeal most to BB (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Wiedmer, 2015). Gen X employees seek training courses and structured development opportunities through both classroom and technology-based programs, with internet-based training being the most preferred mode (Bussin & Rooy, 2014). Gen Y team members prefer coaching and mentoring programs that allow for frequent, technology-based, instantaneous contact with management team members to ensure growth and success (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Cox et al., 2014).

Relationship development with the leadership team also differs significantly by generational cohort. BB place high value on mutual respect and tend to lose trust in leaders who are hierarchical in nature (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014). Instead, BB expects leadership to be a mutually shared experience and develop trust with management that recognizes their skills and contribution to team outcomes (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Wiedmer, 2015). Gen X employees expect egalitarian relationships and have little respect for authority or organizational structure. Instead, a Gen X employee expects to be involved in decision-making, consulted as a peer, and be allowed the freedom to complete projects as they see fit (Cox et al., 2014; Wiedmer, 2015). Gen X members will not tolerate micromanagement and will, instead, choose to leave an organization based on leadership behaviors (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Cox et al., 2014; Lucas et al., 2016). Gen Y staff view leadership as coaches and mentors and, as a result, expect an equal amount of social interaction and managerial interaction (Cox et al., 2014; Thompson & Gregory, 2012). Developing trust with Gen Y employees requires a significant amount of leadership time and energy, as this highly technology-savvy group expects constant contact with management teams (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Carpenter & Charon, 2014; Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012).

Generational Conflict

Conflict on a team can derail team goals resulting in meager business outcomes and therefore presenting a problem for healthcare management teams (Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015; Yoon & Ringquist, 2011). Generational conflict in groups may arise as a result of a lack of understanding between team members and a lack of multigenerational leadership skills on the part of the management team (Flippin, 2015; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014). For example, a communication conflict may arise when a Gen Y team member speaks up publicly about expectations of constant managerial contact, while a BB team member may find this request indicative of poor job competence (Hendricks & Cope, 2013; Phillips, 2016). Another example may be when a Gen X employee interacts with senior leadership in a familiar way, devoid of respect for the station of the leader. This may be viewed as rude or disrespectful by BB on the team (Hendricks & Cope, 2013; Phillips, 2016). Communication conflicts can result in lost work time, poorly executed deliverables, and lost trust between team members and leadership (Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015).

Given the differences in expectations, compensation conflicts are problematic for leaders of multigenerational teams. Gen Y employees expect to be highly paid and quickly promoted over his or her BB counterparts (Schullery, 2013). Gen Y workers are often described by their BB coworkers as selfish, entitled, and high-maintenance for management teams (Schullery, 2013). Gen X employees expect to be rewarded with public recognition, credit for work completed, and compensated as part of the performance evaluation cycle (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Bussin & Rooy, 2014). As a result, Gen X employees are described by management teams as self-centered and focused on outcomes at any cost (Schullery, 2013). Team members often do not have multigenerational understanding; therefore, leaders who engage in generational-based compensation may be viewed as biased. Leaders agree that compensation is one of the riskiest generational preferences to manage, as fear of the perception of favoritism is real (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015).

Conflicts in healthcare teams may result in higher turnover rates. With Gen X and Gen Y encompassing greater than 50% of the current labor force, the lack of organizational commitment of these two cohorts can be costly for organizations (Catalyst, 2015; Fry, 2016). Backfilling open positions can cost an organization up to 200% of the new hire's salary, including lost productivity time, recruiting and hiring efforts, and onboarding requirements (Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015; Yoon & Ringquist, 2011). Twenty-first-century businesses have a fiscally vested interest in ensuring leaders have the skills to manage multigenerational teams and retain talent.

Multigenerational Leadership

Modern management faces multigenerational leadership problems in that traditional leadership theory and styles may not work on the new Gen Y-heavy, multigenerational team (Asencio & Mujkic, 2016; Schullery, 2013). Leadership styles, such as transformational leadership, may appeal to BB and Gen X; however, Gen Y employees may struggle. Transformational leadership is a style of leadership where the manager guides teams through change using relationships, collaboration, inspiration, and vision creation (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Thompson & Gregory, 2012). Although collaboration and relationship building is important to Gen Y staff, they also require the constant interaction and coaching a transactional leadership style may offer (Graham et al., 2015). Conversely, so, the Gen X employee prefers a blend of transformational leadership and management by exception, as these styles meet their needs for innovation and autonomy (Cox et al., 2014; Graham et al., 2015; Hills et al., 2013). The multifaceted need of the twenty-first century generationally diverse teams requires management to be in tune with individual employee needs, including the ability to nimbly adjust leadership style (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Ferri-Reed, 2014; Hillman, 2014). No longer can leadership teams seek to develop a standard, one-size-fits-all leadership style and expect continued business success (Asencio & Mujkic, 2016). Leadership styles such as servant leadership, where the management team seeks to understand the individual needs of each team member and then employ methods to meet those individual needs, have been suggested in the literature (Balda & Mora, 2011). Situational leadership, one that applies high levels of social and emotional intelligence, has also been proposed (Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014).

Another leadership problem exists due to a lack of managerial skill in managing teams where multigenerationalism is the diversity issue (Flippin, 2015; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014). Time-honored managerial behaviors are systematic and designed to deliver outcomes. These styles do not account for the emotional and social needs of the employees. Leaders who engage employees based on extrinsic reward alone are viewed by Gen X and Gen Y as cold, demanding, and lacking empathy (Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014). More than ever, social and emotional intelligence is necessary to manage diverse teams. Social intelligence is the ability to be highly aware of social environments and adapt one's behavior accordingly (Hills et al., 2013; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014). Emotional intelligence is the awareness of the emotions of self and others and the ability to control one's behavior concerning those emotions (Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014). Contemporary leaders must be able to assess the social environments in multigenerational teams and demonstrate behaviors that are sensitive to the individual emotional needs of the team members. These skills may be innate for some managers; however, leaders have expressed frustration at the lack of opportunities to augment or develop social and emotional intelligence talents (Hillman, 2014; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014; Schullery, 2013).

Leaders have expressed frustration with a lack of understanding of multigenerational diversity issues, as well as a lack of leadership support and training to deal with this management problem (Balda & Mora, 2011; Carpenter & Charon, 2014; Lucas et al., 2016; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014; Phillips, 2016; Wiedmer, 2015). Authors suggest leaders examine their personal leadership style and assess the effectiveness of the style on his or her multigenerational direct reports (Hendricks & Cope, 2013; Phillips, 2016). While this suggestion seems intuitive, leaders may require support and training to understand personal leadership style, as well as the tools to assess the effectiveness of their style beyond the day-to-day outcomes of the team. Leaders are encouraged to conduct research and educate themselves about multigenerational preferences. The "do it yourself" demand on leaders creates a resource and education gap for managers0  (Carpenter & Charon, 2014). Effectively managing a team through multigenerational conflict and adapting leadership delivery styles to individuals requires more than management self-assessment and self-education (Carpenter & Charon, 2014; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014).

Disagreement regarding the types of training opportunities required for leaders exists among authors. While some studies suggest the application of generational theory in order to understand differences and adapt management behaviors in response (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Ferri-Reed, 2014; Graham et al., 2015), others suggest that calling out differences in generational preferences perpetuates the problem (Flippin, 2015; Lucas et al., 2016). Instead, education regarding leadership styles designed to highlight commonalities between generations as a means to decrease conflict, such as appreciative inquiry, has also been suggested (Flippin, 2015).

Some leadership studies have recommended solutions to this problem. For example, in a case study conducted by Blattner & Walter (2015), a large catering organization allowed the work teams to define and lead workplace culture, including compensation, benefits, and workplace practices. These work teams reflected the generational stratification found in the global market; Gen Y encompassed greater than 50% of the employees of this business. The leaders of the company agreed to abandon the traditional "command and control approach" and instead, allowed the multigenerational team to identify the managerial constructs necessary for success (Blattner & Walter, 2015). The case study resulted in a multigenerational team-based leadership model culminating in a 14% increase in catering sales and a 117% increase in profits one year after the study was completed (Blattner & Walter, 2015). These profound results are an example of how generationally sensitive leadership can lead to decreased team conflict, increased team trust, and greater company performance (Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015; Hillman, 2014; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014).

Another suggested leadership intervention to the multigenerational team conundrum is that of reverse mentoring. Reverse mentoring is defined as pairing a junior employee with a more senior employee with the goal of increasing understanding of work practices and preferences (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015). This exercise in "social exchange" is meant to help team members develop sensitivity for and understanding of generationally driven preferences (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014). Leaders carefully selected teams of Gen Y and BB employees to participate in the reverse mentoring program. The preparation for participation included education about BB and Gen Y generational characteristics and preferences and was offered to program participants as well as leadership (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015). Through the application of multigenerational education and understanding, the study resulted in a decrease in team conflict and an increase in productivity and trust (Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015; Bolser & Gosciej, 2015; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014; Yoon & Ringquist, 2011). Some additionally gained benefits of the reverse mentoring program in the study were an increase in technology skills of the BB team members and a more self-directed learning style of the Gen Y staff (Bolser & Gosciej, 2015).

Conclusion

The management of multigenerational teams in twenty-first-century America poses a new problem for leadership teams. As the population of BB continues to decline, the traditional leadership styles developed with this generation are becoming increasingly obsolete (Cox et al., 2014; Crisan, 2016; Graham et al., 2015; Hillman, 2014; Hills et al., 2013; Phillips, 2016; Schullery, 2013). As the Gen Y population of workers continues to grow, the generational preferences of these workers will more deeply infiltrate business culture (Catalyst, 2015; Fry, 2016). As stated in this literature review, relationships and trust between leaders and direct reports are pivotal to the success of business objectives (Bjørnskov & Méon, 2015; Yoon & Ringquist, 2011). Leaders who are perceived to be empathetic, fair, relationship-driven, and adaptable to the needs of individual team members are considered to be more competent and trustworthy (Guinalíu & Jordán, 2016). Healthcare managers who are not prepared to address the unique expectations of the multigenerational team, specifically the needs of the Gen Y worker, risk a decline in productivity, an increase in turnover, and ultimately a loss of revenue to the company (Asencio & Mujkic, 2016; Balda & Mora, 2011; Bussin & Rooy, 2014; Guinalíu & Jordán, 2016; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014; Thompson & Gregory, 2012; Wiedmer, 2015). As a result of the generational population shift in the U.S. and abroad, leadership must learn to adapt to these demands for new leadership styles. Few empirical studies exist regarding leadership style and the new Gen Y-heavy, multigenerational team outcomes. While there is much research about multigenerational teams, there is a need for field testing of styles of leadership.

---

References/Resources