University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The next generation of leaders: an exploration of the experiences of millennials as administrators in southern California’s urban public schools

(USC Thesis Other)

The next generation of leaders: an exploration of the experiences of millennials as administrators in southern California’s urban public schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Next Generation of Leaders: An Exploration of the Experiences of Millennials As
Administrators in Southern California’s Urban Public Schools

Sarah F. Payne

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Sarah F. Payne 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Sarah F. Payne certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Clara Finneran
Christina Kishimoto, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study investigated the perspectives and experiences of millennial-aged leaders in the field of
education as they navigated multigenerational workplaces. Specifically, this study explored how
millennial leaders differentiate themselves from leaders of other generations, the types of
changes they make in organizations, and how they approach resistance in the workplace.

v
Dedication
To all the educators, teachers, administrators, and mentors who have guided me to become the
woman and advocate I am today. Thank you for your unending support and love.

vi
Acknowledgements
To my loving partner, Mark Anthony Loya, I could not have succeeded in this program
without your constant love and support. Your dedication to my success is as strong as my own,
and I could not imagine navigating this life without you.
A special thanks to the Payne and Loya families as well as Kamaria Villarreal for their
ongoing love, support, and encouragement. To my father, David, for instilling in me a strong
work ethic and for always supporting my academic endeavors. And my dearest sisters Anna and
Isabella, I hope that seeing my struggle and achievement will remind you of how incredibly
smart, capable, and powerful you are as young women. I’m so proud of you both and so grateful
for your enthusiasm and love.
I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my committee chair, Dr. Christina
Kishimoto, as well as my committee members, Drs. Clara Finneran and David Cash. Without
your guidance and steadfast support, I would not have been able to complete the final steps of
my educational journey.
Finally, to the little girl who dedicated her life to the pursuit of education and saw it as a
way to rise above and overcome. You were right, and it was worth it.

No conflict of interest exists in the creation or publication of this study. No financial
support or assistance was provided by any organization or individual for the completion of this
study.
Correspondence concerning this study should be addressed to Sarah F. Payne, 5843
Kauffman Ave, Temple City, CA 91780. Email: sfpayne@usc.edu

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 4
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 4
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 4
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 9
Generationally Diverse Workplaces ................................................................................... 9
Perceptions of the Millennial Generation ......................................................................... 13
What Millennials Seek in the Workplace ......................................................................... 16
Millennial Leadership Traits and Contributions ............................................................... 17
Generational Theory ......................................................................................................... 25
Summary of the Literature ................................................................................................ 31
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 35

viii
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................... 35
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 36
Selection of the Population ............................................................................................... 36
Design Summary ............................................................................................................... 37
Instrumentation and Protocols .......................................................................................... 39
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 41
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 42
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 43
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 45
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 45
Results: Research Question 1............................................................................................ 47
Discussion: Research Question 1 ...................................................................................... 55
Results: Research Question 2............................................................................................ 56
Discussion: Research Question 2 ...................................................................................... 59
Results: Research Question 3............................................................................................ 60
Discussion: Research Question 3 ...................................................................................... 66
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 67
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Findings ...................................................................................... 68
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 68
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 69
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 69
Results and Findings ......................................................................................................... 69

ix
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 74
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 76
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 78
References ..................................................................................................................................... 80
Figures........................................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix A: Focus Group Protocol ............................................................................................. 91
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 93
Appendix C: Survey Items ............................................................................................................ 96
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter .............................................................................................. 101
Appendix E: Interview/Focus Group Introduction Statement .................................................... 103
Appendix F: Survey Information Sheet ...................................................................................... 105
Appendix G: Interview Information Sheet ................................................................................. 107
Appendix H: Focus Group Information Sheet ............................................................................ 109
Appendix I: Letter of Informed Consent .................................................................................... 111
Appendix J: Survey Question 9 .................................................................................................. 114

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey Question 4 50
Table 2: Interview Question 3 51
Table 3: Focus Group Responses on Capacity 64

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Research Triangulation 43
Figure 2: Survey Question 1 46
Figure 3: Survey Question 7c 52
Figure 4: Survey Question 13e 62
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework Map 90

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
“One of the advantages younger workers feel they have in the workplace is being
teachable. If you master nothing else, master learning” (Schwarzbart & Espinoza, 2015, p. 1). As
we continue into the 21st century and younger generations are entering the workforce,
generations previously viewed only as students or learners are now also becoming those doing
the teaching and leading. Even though the baby boomer generation remains in the workforce and
leadership roles at a higher rate than ever before, millennials are also a crucial cohort in the
world’s current economic structure (Fry, 2019). Millennials, defined as individuals born between
1981 and 1996 according to most sociological studies, are now the largest population in the U.S.
workforce, making up 35% of the labor force overall (DeSilver, 2016; Dimock, 2019).
Additionally, they are the most educated working generation, with 46% of millennial women and
36% of millennial men obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher as of 2016 (Graf, 2017). As
millennials transition from being students to being members of the workforce, new demands and
expectations exist for organizations, especially when it comes to opportunities for roles in
leadership. However, when millennial individuals have access to leadership roles they are not
only met with stereotypes and ageism due to their youth, but also must navigate leading
organizations in an ever-changing and fast paced world (Schwarzbart & Espinoza, 2015).
Background of the Problem
In the U.S. education system, there is a need for qualified school administrators and
educators. Data collected by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP,
2017) showed that there is an existing national administrator shortage, with a 50% turnover rate
within the first 3 years for school administrators and an expected 6% increase in administrative
positions by 2022. Although the average age of a school principal in the United States remains

2
around 49 years old, with a median age of 47 years old, millennials who are between the ages of
25–40 are beginning to rise into positions of leadership, hence increasing the need for research
and analysis on the manners in which they lead and create change within organizations (Beiter,
2021; National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). Additionally, according to Carver-Thomas
et al. (2022) there is a substantial teacher shortage that has grown since the onset of the COVID-
19 pandemic, with 50% of surveyed districts needing to fill 10% of their total positions. There
was also a significant exodus at the end of 2020, with a 26% increase of teacher retirements
compared to 2019 (Hong, 2022).
Although the average age of retirement is increasing and members of the baby boomer
generation and Generation X remain in the workforce longer, retirement has increased in the
education sector (Fry, 2019; Hong, 2022). As millennials remain the majority of the workforce
and are currently the most educated working generation, it is imperative to consider that
members of this generational cohort will seek out opportunities to fill the open leadership
positions in education (Graf, 2017). Because nearly 4.5 million more millennials are expected to
enter the labor force within the next decade and therefore shift the generational dynamics of
organizations, it is time to start addressing the ways in which members of this generation
differentiate themselves and navigate a world in which they are generalized and considered
inexperienced (Torpey, 2020).
Statement of the Problem
Because the millennial generation now makes up the majority of workers in the labor
force, consisting of approximately 56 million individuals, it is necessary for millennial educators
to begin transitioning into leadership roles (DeSilver, 2016). Studies have shown that millennial
individuals are overall less likely to be hired than more senior workers even with equivalent

3
experience (Corgnet et al., 2015). This is most likely due to negative assumptions and
generalizations made about the generational population and does not account for the unique
needs and abilities of members of this group (Jauregui et al., 2020). Additionally, one could see a
connection between this decreased likelihood of being hired due to generational perceptions and
the large number of unfilled positions in education (Corgnet et al., 2015). However, although
there are perceived negatives and positives of being led by a millennial individual, it is logical to
note that with the existing shortages and increasing number of millennials in the general
workforce, that they will begin to fulfill needed roles in leadership at a higher rate (Schwarzbart
& Espinoza, 2015). As millennials rise to fill some of these positions, it will become more
important to understand the ways in which millennials manage, lead, and interact with those
around them in educational settings to create organizational and systemic changes in an
environment of high attrition.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences and impact of millennial
educators in Southern California as they continue their careers in school administration. This
phenomenological study investigated the differences in leadership styles and perspectives
between millennials and those of other generations, including changes that millennial educational
leaders introduce to their organizations and how they are affected by their generational
experiences. In addition, this study investigated how millennial leaders approach and address
resistance to their leadership and institutional changes from those of other generations in public
education. Surveys, interviews, and a focus group were conducted to gather data and information
pertaining to these experiences and perspectives, in alignment with the research questions.

4
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide this study:
1. How do millennial educational leaders differentiate themselves from leaders of other
generations?
2. What generationally-informed changes have millennial education leaders introduced?
3. How do millennial educational leaders approach resistance to institutional change?
Using generational theory, originally developed by Karl Mannheim (1923) and later
revitalized by Jane Pilcher (1993), this study examined the formal and informal experiences of
millennial public-school leaders in Southern California. Through a generational lens and with the
understanding of generational differences being formed by diverse, historically-based
sociological and cultural experiences for age groups, research was conducted to better
understand the differences in millennial leadership styles and preferences, the changes and
initiatives that they find most imperative and effective, and how they cope with resistance and
opposition as leaders in an institution.
Significance of the Study
A study of this type has yet to be conducted in the field of education, specifically
pertaining to generationally-informed changes and how millennial educational leaders approach
resistance. The hope is that this study provides and shares previously unheard perspectives and
advances the understanding of millennials in the field of educational leadership.
Limitation and Delimitations
This study was limited to millennial-aged public-school leaders in Southern California
and their self-reported experiences and perspectives regarding their role in leadership. Interview,

5
focus group, and survey questions pertained directly to generationally-based experiences and
actions in the workplace during participants’ time as public-school administrators.
Delimitations in this study included the generational age of the public-school leaders
(millennials aged 25–40), geographic location (Southern California), and the number of leaders
who served as participants in this study.
Definition of Terms
• Attrition occurs “when an employee leaves the company through any method,
including voluntary resignations, layoffs, failure to return from a leave of absence, or
even illness or death” (Lucas, 2021, p.1). There are two types: voluntary and
involuntary.
• Baby boomers are “members of the large generation born from 1946 to 1964” who
would be in the age range of 77 to 59 as of the year 2023 (Pew Research Center,
2008, p.1).
• BOE: An acronym for Board of Education, the governing body of citizens that
oversees publicly funded preschool, elementary, and secondary school education
programs in a state, region, county, or city (Law Insider, 2022).
• Educational equity is “achieved when all students receive the resources they need so
they graduate prepared for success after high school” (Center for Public Education,
2016, p. 1).
• Educational leader: An individual who engages in collaborative processes with staff,
students, and families while utilizing the talents and skills of employees to meet the
goals of the educational organization (Schares, 2017).

6
• ELL: An acronym for English Language Learner, referring to the student population
that does not speak English as a first language (The Glossary of Education Reform,
2013). These students receive additional instructional services to help them improve
their English language skills.
• Equality “in education is achieved when students are all treated the same and have
access to similar resources” (Center for Public Education, 2016, p. 1)
• Equity is present when a situation is handled fairly and justly, or when “distributions
[are] regarded as fair even though they contain both equalities and inequalities”
(Stone, 2002, p. 42). Essentially, equity is about providing what is needed, although
what is needed may be different for each situation or individual and therefore it is not
synonymous with equality.
• GE: An acronym for general education, which is “the program of education that
typically developing children should receive, based on state standards” (Merriam-
Webster, n.d., para. 1). GE classes usually have a majority of neurotypical children
and can be integrated to also contain students with disabilities or who receive special
education services.
• Generational theory describes how the time period in which a person is born can lead
to shared perspectives or characteristics, as well as how generational cohorts cycle
based on historical or socially significant events (Mannheim, 1952; Strauss & Howe,
1991).
• Generation X: The term used to categorize individuals born between the years 1965-
1980, who would be between the ages of 43–58 as of the year 2023 (Dimock, 2019).

7
• Generation Y: Another term for the millennial generation, defined as anyone born
between 1981–1996 (Dimock, 2019).
• Generation Z: The term used to categorize individuals born between 1997–2012, who
would be between the ages of 11–26 as of the year 2023 (Dimock, 2019).
• LEA: An acronym for Local Education Agency, which is defined as “a public board
of education or other public authority within a state that maintains administrative
control of public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school
district, or other political subdivision of a state” (EdSource, 2022, p.1).
• Millennial: Anyone born between the years 1981–1996 (Dimock, 2019).
• Othering is “a term that not only encompasses the many expressions of prejudice on
the basis of group identities but… provides a clarifying frame that reveals a set of
common processes and conditions that propagate group-based inequality and
marginality” (Powell & Menendian, 2016, p.1). Examples of othering include racism
and ethnocentrism.
• Retention, in the context of educational employees, refers to the school district or
organization’s ability to keep employees over time; the opposite of attrition (Society
for Human Resource Management [SHRM], 2022).
• Stereotype is “a fixed, over generalized belief about a particular group or class of
people” and results in the inference that each person within a group or subgroup has
the same characteristics and abilities as all others within that group, ignoring
individuality (McLeod, 2017, p.1).
• Stereotype threat is defined in the academic field as a socially based psychological
threat that arises when one is involved in or doing something for which a negative

8
stereotype about one’s group applies (Steele & Aronson, 1995). This means that
members of a group are aware of the existing stereotypes and make efforts to prevent
themselves from doing something that could confirm the negative stereotype, even if
it is something desired or preferred.
• Talent management: The way employers recruit, develop, and grow a workforce that
is productive, improves performance and will lead to a more competitive organization
(ADP, 2020).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study,
related data, and statistical figures regarding millennial employment rates and their entry into
lead positions, relevant terminology and definitions, and explicit statement of the research
questions. Chapter 2 presents the literature review, focused on the following areas:
generationally diverse workplaces, existing perceptions of the millennial generation, millennial
leadership traits and contributions, and an overview of generational theory. Chapter 3 describes
and outlines the methodology for this study, including detailed information pertaining to
participant selection, research instruments utilized, and data collection and analysis. Chapter 4
explains and expands on the research findings of the study. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings of
the study, notes implications for practice, and provides recommendations and final conclusions.
References and appendices follow Chapter 5.

9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Millennials, also known in the research as Generation Y, are members of a noted
generation between the ages of 25–40 who are currently dominating the U.S. workforce
(DeSilver, 2016). Because of their impact on the economy, differing work and life priorities, and
community-oriented traits, it is imperative for organizations and society in general to understand
the ideas and beliefs correlated with being a part of this generational cohort. To address how
millennials differentiate themselves as leaders, I will address how they are distinctive generally
in research and literature.
In this chapter, I will first review the concept of generationally diverse workplaces and
the need for a better understanding of intergenerational workplace dynamics as millennials
continue to enter positions of leadership and grow more influential in today’s workforce. Then, I
will examine existing perceptions of the millennial generation and the varying empirical
evidence that has led to stereotypes and assumptions. I will also explore millennial leadership
traits and contributions based on existing empirical research, the international perspective on
millennials, and the gender dynamics in modern education and leadership. Finally, I will provide
an overview of Mannheim’s (1952) founding of generational theory and an analysis of the
literature that both supports and refutes this original conception of the theory and conclude the
chapter by providing a summary of the literature in conjunction with this study’s conceptual
framework (Appendix J).
Generationally Diverse Workplaces
Workplaces are becoming more diverse each passing year, with millennials becoming the
majority of the workforce, resulting in a need for a better understanding of intergenerational
workplace dynamics (Woods, 2016). Instead of relying on grouping and stereotypes, which can

10
lead to poor management decisions and a lack of collaborative relationships, it is imperative that
organizations focus on honing the intergenerational aspects of their workforce and foster positive
between-group relationships (Van Rossem, 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic brought its own set
of challenges for intergenerational workplaces, such as a decrease in interaction and an increase
in visible technological ability differences among groups. The intergenerational relationships that
were complex and required intervention to begin with now need mending and nurturing more
than ever as interactions and workplace interdependence increase (Urick, 2020).
Generational difference in the workplace is not a new phenomenon that has arisen with
the influx of millennial employees, but rather has existed as long as a variety of age ranges have
coexisted in the workplace. People of different generations naturally have varying workplace
expectations based on their positionality, perspectives, and experiences. These varying work
expectations can be communicated and interpreted in a variety of manners, which often leads to
workplace conflict between generations (Haynes, 2011). It is imperative that work environments
strive to create and provide a space that is inclusive of all the generations in their workforce and
allows for positive interactions while also working to understand the differences in employee
values and expectations (Haynes, 2011; Woods, 2016). Understanding these generational
differences is important so that organizations can leverage those differences and similarities to
enhance the work being done and the experience for all employees. In doing so, organizations
can better approach the concept of trust among their generationally diverse employees and
promote a more positive and accepting workplace culture where people are willing to learn from
one another regardless of age or grouping (Carr-Edosomwan, 2018).
Beiter (2021) and Murphy (2012) elevated the importance of this type of workplace
culture, one with intertwined mutual learning experiences, through their research on millennial

11
mentorship in intergenerational workplaces. Murphy emphasized the importance of reverse
mentoring when developing millennial leaders, based on the noted importance of enhancing
relationships between generations as millennials fill more and more positions in the workforce.
The idea of reverse mentorship is a plausible step toward better intergenerational interactions,
because it allows older generations to be mentored by the younger generations; bridges
generational gaps; and has been shown to expand workplace knowledge, reduce assumptions,
and overturn negative stereotypes, which in turn enhances workplace relationships. Beiter
revisited mentorship research almost a decade later and came to a similar conclusion: that
modern mentorship between generations has a positive impact on a workplace environment. It is
evident that this kind of mentorship serves as proactive support for millennials in the
organization or in leadership roles as they navigate these ever-changing work environments, and
that mentorship enhances intergenerational workplace relationships, bonds, and trust.
Demographic trends show a drastic increase in the number of millennials in the
workforce, as well as an increase in the level of education being attained in comparison with
previous generations. At the present, and in the foreseeable future, millennials are the largest
generation in the workforce, and their numbers will continue to increase while the number of
workers in other generations will continue to decrease. Data collected from the Pew Research
Center showed that as of 2019, 35% of the U.S. workforce were millennials, and additional data
collected from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that by 2029 there will be an
additional influx of 4.5 million millennials into the workforce (DeSilver, 2019; Torpey, 2020).
However, age is not the only factor differentiating this group from previous and older
generations in the workforce. According to Freeman (2019) and data collected from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, millennials have the highest rate of education attainment in

12
comparison to older generations. Around 45% of all millennials in the workforce have
postsecondary degrees in comparison to 35% in other generational cohorts. When broken down
by gender, data collected showed that 46% of female millennials ages 25–29 at the time of
research had at least a bachelor’s degree (Graf, 2017). This could very well be related to the fact
that the wage gap between college graduates and non-college graduates is the widest it has been
in decades (DeSilver, 2019). To earn the desired wages in today’s workforce, higher educational
attainment is a requirement for many millennials.
Additional factors differentiate the millennial generation in the workforce from other
generational cohorts related to health and wellness, racial and gender identity, and parenthood
(Freeman, 2019; Graf, 2017). According to Freeman (2019), the millennial generation was more
likely to have a multitude of responsibilities simultaneously, such as taking care of young
children, being in school, and being employed. However, although they may have to juggle these
responsibilities, research has also shown that millennials value self-care and attend to their
personal well-being more than other generational cohorts (Freeman, 2019; Graf, 2017). On
average, millennials spend 17 more minutes a day on personal care and report getting 23 more
minutes of sleep per night than other generations (Freeman, 2019). Gender and racial identity are
also notable aspects of the millennial workforce, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, with millennials being more likely to be of Hispanic or Latino descent than
other generations in the workforce. The millennial generation is also more evenly represented in
the workforce when it comes to gender in comparison to other generations (Freeman, 2019; Graf,
2017). The millennial generation is a strong representation of today’s workforce and the future of
the U.S. workforce, leading to an increased responsibility to research and study the ways in

13
which they navigate, prioritize, and enhance their working environments alongside members of
other generations.
Perceptions of the Millennial Generation
Millennials are studied frequently in varying contexts, yet there is little empirical
evidence consistently supporting the assumptions or stereotypes made about this generation.
Research conducted by Corgnet et al. (2015) indicated that assumptions and stereotypes related
to millennials, such as them being less diligent individuals or less committed to their work, have
caused organizations to be less interested in or willing to hire individuals from this cohort.
Organizations have based this reluctance to hire on notions of millennials being less diligent or
committed to their work than other generations. However, other studies found that millennials
often have traits that are desirable for management and the workforce, such as the desire for
feedback and professional growth, knowledge of technology, creativity, and social consciousness
(Baker Rosa & Hastings, 2018; DiPietro, 2012; Graham et al., 2015; Roberts, 2019). It can be
said that in many cases, organizational perceptions can create reality when it comes to
stereotypes and generational leadership traits (Taylor & Stein, 2014). Labels often perpetuate
stereotypes, but research has yielded mixed results when it comes to the capabilities and
attributes of millennials in the workplace (Baker Rosa & Hastings, 2018).
Millennials have introduced new expectations of employers and new definitions of
organizational loyalty. Baker Rosa and Hastings (2018) and Roberts (2019) both concurred that
millennials in the workforce want and seek more feedback than other generations and are capable
of accepting and enacting change following positive and negative constructive feedback. Roberts
also proposed that millennials have the expectation that leaders and managers in an organization
will take the time to get to know them and that millennials will thrive in a more supportive and

14
collaborative environment. Millennials need opportunities for professional development and
growth and view themselves as collaborative and inclusive team players (Roberts, 2019; Taylor
& Stein, 2014). Other traits that are commonly associated with the millennial generation include
extrinsic motivation, a need for connection to prerequisite skills, being technologically savvy and
visual learners, creativity, social consciousness, an insatiable desire for learning, and high levels
of engagement (Baker Rosa & Hastings, 2018; DiPietro, 2012; Graham et al., 2015; Roberts,
2019). Additional traits that have been negatively associated with the millennial generation,
some being contradictory to those already noted, include a sense of entitlement, a focus on
performance over learning, higher motivation to seek out better opportunities regularly, and a
stronger personal focus (DiPietro, 2012; Gong et al., 2018; Roberts, 2019; Weber, 2017).
Although many of the aforementioned traits are backed by research, multiple scholars
have addressed the existence of mixed research findings and results when defining different
generational cohorts (Baker Rosa & Hastings, 2018; Corgnet et al., 2015; Einolf, 2016; Taylor &
Stein, 2014). Weber (2017) explored personal value orientation based on generation, attempting
to determine the professional priorities of millennial leaders. Weber concluded that millennial
leaders focus more on competence than morality, emphasize competence more than Generation
X but less than baby boomers, and emphasize morality more than baby boomers but less than
Generation X. However, Einolf (2016) concluded through research that the true difference
between millennials and other generations, Generation X in particular, is even smaller than
expected and that many perceptions of differences between generations are based on other
factors, such as age. Corgnet et al. (2015) added to this notion of a perception of differences
versus a reality of differences by claiming that findings indicated a lack of correlation between
personality traits and task performance. It appears that although positive and negative

15
associations have been made about the millennial generation, there are mixed research results
when it comes to millennial capabilities in a variety of areas (Baker Rosa & Hastings, 2018).
Taylor and Stein (2014) took the time to delve deeper into the leadership and managerial
aspects of millennial workers, something that is less common within generational research at this
time. They demonstrated generational differences in managerial behaviors but not leadership
behaviors, indicating that leadership traits and capabilities in general remain consistent across
generations. Suyanto et al. (2019) pinpointed transformational leadership as being a powerful
tool for millennial employees and leaders. Because millennials are in an environment of constant
access to information and increased modes of technology and communication, they need
leadership styles that lead to innovation, foster creative thinking, and increase development and
productivity. When speaking in relation to organizational citizenship behavior, millennials were
more likely to be ranked in a positive light when they were directly involved in job crafting and
had a say in the way they interact within the company, which supports the idea of their need for
innovation and an environment that fosters creativity (Gong et al., 2018). Although millennials
continue to be affected by factors in the workplace such as diversity, influence of social media,
levels of accommodations, and communication barriers between generations for myriad reasons,
one consistency across research is that millennials desire a supportive environment that will
allow them to grow professionally (Roberts, 2015). A variety of positive and negative
assumptions, stereotypes, and traits associated are with the millennial generation, but the
research investigating the truth of these claims is mixed at best, and it is important for
organizations to take the necessary steps to honor and acknowledge the traits of their employees
and leaders as individuals instead of relying on these overgeneralized whole group assumptions.

16
What Millennials Seek in the Workplace
A variety of findings are related to the traits of millennials in the workforce and society,
but when it comes to work preferences, there are statistically significant consistencies. Evidence
shows that different generations do in fact have different preferences when it comes to job
security, work-life balance, advancement, and company leadership (Pasko et al., 2021). To
obtain and retain millennial talent, workplaces must invest in and provide preferred workplace
opportunities and attributes. Some common millennial preferences seen across literature and
studies include proper competitive wages, excellent health benefits, flexibility in schedule, and
opportunities for advancement (Barbosa, 2021; Pasko et al., 2021). Additionally, millennial
employees preferred offerings such as tuition reimbursement, opportunities for career
development, or professional development, and services that contribute to a healthy work-life
balance (Barbosa, 2021).
Millennials were also noted to have specific preferences when it comes to communication
in the workplace and their ability to collaborate effectively with colleagues and superiors (Hall,
2016). Hall (2016) found that the millennial generation seeks a workplace with healthy
communication, open communication, and accessible leadership that is open to communication
and collaboration when it comes to the needs and concerns of employees. It was evident that
millennials desire consistent constructive criticism and feedback, and that they are open to the
idea of learning from more experienced workers of varying generations in the workplace.
Organizational culture affects workplace preferences for any employee of any generation,
but all individuals need an environment that supports their creativity and growth to be successful
(Barbosa, 2021; Hall, 2016). Johnson (2014) conducted research to determine the workplace
characteristics and attributes associated with each generation in the workforce. Johnson found

17
that although all generations had similar organizational leadership preferences, general
workplace preferences varied. Some participants selected what would be considered “typical” for
their generation, but as individuals there were nuances and mixed data related to many of the
traits and attributes. Although identifying traits and characteristics correlated with a particular
generation can be complex and difficult, especially due to media and social influence, it is
important for organizations to take the time to better understand the preferences of those they are
hiring or whom they currently employ to ensure that they are meeting the needs of the staff to
increase productivity, retention, and general contentment with their employment.
Millennial Leadership Traits and Contributions
The Future of School Leadership
There is a principal/administrator shortage across the country, and with millennials
becoming the majority of the workforce, more will rise to the ranks of leadership in education.
According to the NASSP (2017), it was predicted that the demand for employment of qualified
school principals would increase 6% by 2022. Statistics indicated that there was already a lack of
sufficient candidates to replace those leaving the field or retiring, reiterating the fact that more
individuals in the workforce need to be inspired to pursue roles in educational leadership. This
finding is emphasized by the fact that around 50% of school principals do not stay in the position
after 3 years of leading a school (NASSP, 2017).
The school principal role is not the only leadership position that schools are struggling to
fill and retain; superintendents are also in short supply and districts continue to see high rates of
attrition (ILO Group, 2022). Davis and Bowers (2019) conducted an analysis of the pathways to
superintendency and what factors directly affect that pathway. They found that the likelihood of
becoming a superintendent is affected by age, gender, experience, education, and level of

18
employment (Davis & Bowers, 2019). The pathway to superintendency itself varies greatly for
everyone based on intersectional facets such as age, gender, and geographic location (Davis &
Bowers, 2019). Since July 2021, data collected showed that 44 of the top 500 largest school
districts in the United States announced the loss or resignation of a superintendent. Within those
districts, up to 94% of superintendents hired as replacements were men and around 76% of the
female superintendents who left their positions during the COVID-19 pandemic were replaced
by men. Statistics showed that geographic location also plays a role in the disproportionate
percentage of women hired as superintendents (ILO Group, 2022).
As schools and districts continue to navigate the shortage of leaders to fill important roles
such as principal and superintendent, they are having to restructure and reorganize to keep public
education running as smoothly as possible. Research conducted by Harris (2008) emphasized
that schools are having to restructure their leadership and administrative teams to create smaller,
more interconnected groups with a common sense of purpose. Harris supported the notion that
schools and organizations need to start seeing leadership roles as interactive, gauging success by
the qualities of interactions instead of simply deferring to a title or formal position. This type of
reorganization has led and continues to lead to greater leadership involvement while encouraging
creativity and innovation in organizations.
Millennials in Leadership
Qualified millennials are already serving in positions of leadership and contributing to
research as participants, leading to an increase in data-driven findings on this generation as
leaders. According to Schwarzbart and Espinoza (2015), millennials were able to become known
as the greatest generation of leaders and were already some of the most highly ranked and best
available. Millennial leaders were predicted to manage and lead their organizations with a low-

19
power orientation that emphasized and valued transparency, inclusivity, and collaborative
feedback. Schwarzbart and Espinoza believe that this highly socialized generation of leaders
could bring drastic changes to organizations now and in the future.
Research has shown that millennial leaders can have an energizing presence and are not
only successful in shifting workplace norms but also have a strong ability to adapt to existing
systems and organizational structures (Crozier, 2018; Sessa et al., 2017). In fact, millennials
were believed to be most likely to lead organizations to innovation in fields such as healthcare
(Gerard, 2019). Although it is noted that all generations of leaders valued factors like honesty,
understanding tasks, listening, and helping to uplift others, some research leaned toward
millennials being more focused on short-term results and self-growth than other generations
(Sessa et al., 2007). When Crozier (2019) conducted a study on millennial superintendents, they
observed a notable level of effectiveness and saw a focus on enhancing school and organizational
culture as well as a positive impact on technology use and integration in the workplace.
As the millennial generation grows older and organizational leaders become younger,
there is an increased interest in millennial leadership and their successes (Galdames & Guihen,
2022). Galdames and Guihen (2022) identified the most common and consistent classifications
of millennial leaders across literature: technologically proficient, desire for work-life balance,
values oriented, desire for feedback and communication, desire for diverse workplaces, and a
need for purposeful work. However, it is important to note that although the amount of research
has increased, results are still variable and there is a lack of cohesion in findings across all
empirical research, with little research being conducted specifically related to millennials in
educational leadership. Additionally, most of the research produced was also based in the

20
Western perspective and did not represent the millennial generation globally (Galdames &
Guihen, 2022).
Generational identity does not always directly affect leadership behaviors or lead to a
correlation between behaviors (Salvador, 2020). For example, Salvador (2020) found that being
a millennial did not affect positive or rewarding reciprocity behaviors in comparison to other
generations. However, being a millennial did affect negative reciprocity in comparison to other
generations, with millennial leaders found to be more likely to punish unkind behaviors than
leaders belonging to the baby boomer generation. Research and a variety of findings supported
the need for more studies analyzing the differences and similarities between and within
generational groupings (Gerard, 2019). Organizations should not ignore those differences and
similarities, but rather should seek awareness and investigate the implications as to better serve
their organizations and make the best decisions when it comes to workplace leadership (Sessa et
al., 2007).
International Research on Millennial Leadership
Various international studies were conducted on the millennial generation (generally
accepted as encompassing individuals born between 1981–1996), which collected substantial
information about how the economic and social positions of different countries affect the known
or assumed traits of this generation. Telling and notable research regarding millennials from the
Philippines, Australia, and the United Kingdom gives insight into perceptions and attributes on
an international scale (Gabriel et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2016; Zachara, 2020). Zachara (2020)
focused on the millennial generation in England through the lens of leadership as political power.
An analysis was conducted related to millennial leadership roles in public service or politics with
the purpose of tracking changes that occurred in ways of thinking and events or attributes that

21
would increase the potential for new idea formation or implementation. Zachara found that
millennials had increased access to information that led to an increased awareness of global
challenges, resulting in the millennial generation having a deeper commitment to social and
economic justice within their countries and communities. Furthermore, millennials in England
were found to be more likely to reject established political rules, leading to a theory that they
could bring about the erosion of existing Western democratic norms. This finding raised the
question of whether existing political and societal norms have a place in the realm of future
leadership or if younger generations such as millennials will bring about the reconstruction of
leadership norms in places like the United Kingdom.
Globally speaking, it is understood that millennials will enter and dominate the workforce
by the year 2025 and will continue to acquire leadership roles quickly and at a steady rate. A
deep analysis was conducted of millennial leadership in Philippine workplace environments
where millennials were leading older generations (Gabriel et al., 2020). Gabriel et al. (2020)
found that in the Philippines, common traits existed among millennial leaders, such as
transnational and transformational leadership styles and a deep interest in building strong
interpersonal relationships with all staff to enhance the working environment. Millennial leaders
in this country viewed soft skills and interpersonal skills and hard skills development as equally
important, setting them up for success in terms of leading intergenerationally.
Research conducted by Lambert et al. (2016) on Australian school leadership focused
more on existing and persisting generational collisions within the workforce instead of the
successes of millennial leaders, as Gabriel et al. (2020) described. Lambert et al. focused on
investigating how or if an educator’s generational cohort, gender, and position affected their
beliefs on generational leadership changes. The findings showed that in Australia, generational

22
collide was a real and problematic issue affecting members of all three of the studied
generational cohorts. Referring to millennials by the alternative title of Gen Y, Lambert et al.
noted that common themes in their findings included that Gen Y felt other generations were
focused on putting in the years or earning positions in leadership through years served whereas
Gen Y focuses on skills and capabilities over time served. Gen Y saw promotions as a natural
progression and aspiration, instead of optional, as members of other generations may view them.
Although the millennial generation, or Gen Y as Australia prefers, is universal in terms of age
range, there are similarities and differences between leadership style and intergenerational
relations depending on geographic location, social norms, and individual positionality based on
demographics (Gabriel et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2016; Zachara, 2020).
Gender-Based Analysis of Millennial Leadership and Opportunities
A variety of research has explored the intersectionality between belonging to the
millennial generation and traits such as gender, educational attainment, and leadership
preferences. Throughout the research, gender was a consistent variable that was noted,
scrutinized, and evaluated when it comes to leadership (Fiddler, 2018; Finneran, 2016; Meston,
2020; Sadler et al., 2020; Stefanco, 2017). Sadler et al. (2020) conducted a qualitative study
analyzing how millennials perceive a leader’s effectiveness based on factors like gender and
general leadership characteristics. This research study found that regardless of gender,
millennials are softening their view of leadership and seeking more communal traits. The
expectation is shifting, with millennials expecting to interact with members at all levels of an
organization regardless of status, gender, experience, or other workplace factors.
However, many empirical research studies have moved toward studying the experiences
of women in leadership roles, often focusing specifically on millennial women in the workforce

23
(Fiddler, 2018; Finneran, 2016; Meston, 2020; Stefanco. 2017). Studies have shown a consistent
desire for advancement opportunities from female leaders but note that gender stereotypes and
schemas as well as generational perceptions continue to hinder progression and opportunities
(Fiddler, 2018; Finneran, 2016; Meston, 2020). Many women participating in these studies felt
that networking opportunities were still too male-dominated, with many baby boomer female
participants even indicating that they felt leadership was just for the men of an organization
(Fiddler, 2018; Finneran, 2016). Fiddler (2018) noted that there was still a strong societal
influence on promotions for women and that discrimination based on gender and generational
cohort was still relevant. Meston (2020) agreed with these findings and expanded on this idea by
publishing findings indicating that the generational differences affecting promotion were also in
turn affecting retention rates for women in organizations.
Women in organizations are seeking leadership that embodies passion, integrity, and
authenticity while allowing for the preparation and support of up-and-coming leaders (Meston,
2020; Stefanco, 2017). Statistics showed that millennial women were more likely than men to
have the education and experiential requirements needed to engage in the international workforce
and therefore are needed in leadership roles in this high-demand field (Stefanco, 2017). Too
many organizations are failing to prepare their female employees for success on an
organizational or global scale, leading to a lack of qualified individuals being placed in
leadership positions in a variety of sectors (Finneran, 2016; Stefanco, 2017). In education
specifically, leaders are retiring at a rapid rate and members of younger generations who vocalize
a desire to advance in their careers are often not being given the opportunity to build their
leadership capacities to fill those needed positions (Finneran, 2016). Leaders could not only
promote an organization and its stakeholders, but also through their positional authority change

24
the perception and reality of opportunity within the workplace (Meston, 2020). If more women
and millennials are given opportunities in leadership and opportunities for advancement, existing
leaders must take action to intentionally advocate in order to prepare these employees for success
(Finneran, 2016; Meston, 2020).
Contradictions in Trait Research
There are contradictory findings pertaining to millennial traits, attitudes, perceptions, and
preferences among various empirical studies, raising questions about how current and previous
research is considered (Gerard, 2019; Haynes, 2011; Sadler et al., 2020; Zachara, 2020). Gerard
(2019) emphasized the lack of empirical research conducted related to differences within the
millennial generation and the lack of analysis of internal variances within a single generational
cohort, leading to concerns about whether existing research on millennials is overly broad or
stereotypical in nature, and thus not generalizable.
There are additional blatant contradictions in the millennial research pertaining to traits,
attributes, and theories (Haynes, 2011; Sadler et al., 2020; Zachara, 2020). For instance, Zachara
(2020) noted how some research indicated that millennials have enhanced social awareness and
an influence on existing political structures, whereas other research claimed an absence of
millennials from politics, including in voter turnout. Haynes (2011) indicated that research
pointed to Gen Y workers being scarce and predicted that there will not be enough of them
entering the workforce in the future to sustain productivity. Yet, a variety of studies show Gen Y,
or millennial, workers as the largest population in the workforce (DeSilver, 2019; Torpey, 2020).
Sadler et al. (2020) also addressed contradictions in research through an analysis of the Gen Me
versus Gen Meaningful framework. Millennials are often viewed by the public and in research as
being egocentric, self-centered, and overindulged by adults, and thus are perceived as being high

25
maintenance. Simultaneously, millennials were described as workers who value personal time
and causes over their place of employment, consistently showing that they focused on
contributing to the organizations they work for and emphasized social responsibility.
Millennials care about service and social responsibility and are bringing a new
organizational perspective to the workplace. Thus, organizations need to account for generational
shifts in their design in order to attract and retain talent. This shift will necessitate organizational
cultures and environments that engender the values of their employees and meet their needs,
regardless of generational status. Organizations will always need leaders who foster meaningful
relationships, provide meaning for tasks, and foster social and morally meaningful attributes
inside and outside of the organization, regardless of the generational make-up of the organization
(Sadler et al., 2020).
Generational Theory
Generational theory was originally developed by sociologist Karl Mannheim in 1952 and
his work has served to influence how researchers use and define the term generation. According
to Mannheim, generational cohort creation gave people an opportunity to make sense of their
differences in society and correlate groups or individuals with certain time periods (Pilcher,
1994). Generations were formed based on factors such as biology, time, biographical
connections, and historical connections. In theory, generations share a distinctive consciousness
that is formed from social change and common experiences (Mannheim, 1952). Pilcher (1994)
emphasized the importance of researchers and sociologists taking the time to read and analyze
Mannheim’s original works and appreciate his contributions to the creation of the term
generation to advance continual research on the subject.

26
In 1965, Ryder revisited Mannheim’s work addressing generational cohorts, also referred
to as birth cohorts, and corroborated his original findings. Ryder stated that although birth
cohorts could be a threat to societal stability, the same changes and transformations they produce
could also be seen as an opportunity for substantial growth and positive impact. Ryder’s research
uplifted generational cohort differences on an international scale, with a variety of cultures
having their own defined differences and similarities based on time of birth. However, Ryder
was also very aware of the need for additional and continued research on generations to better
understand the potential connections between birth cohort and social experiences. Research
related to the categorization of all humanity and all of history could not end with Mannheim
(1952) or Ryder, and over the years the field of sociology has continued to seek a deeper
understanding of and expansion on these initial theories.
Strauss and Howe (1991) utilized Mannheim’s theory and definition of generations in
their own work as they moved toward a more specific definition of generational cohorts.
Although Mannheim’s work was seen as lacking a model and guidelines for continued
investigation into generational phenomena, Strauss and Howe used it as a foundational concept
in their own theories (Pilcher, 1994). Strauss and Howe defined a generation as being all people
born within a 20-year period, because that was considered the length of a single phase in one’s
life. They continued to expand on this definition by proposing that generations are recurring and
cyclical, mirroring how spiritual movements and crises cycle throughout history. This expanded
definition was followed by the creation of four generational categories—prophet, nomad, hero,
and artist—with each generation in the past, present, and future fitting into one of these four
categories. In many ways, Strauss and Howe paved the way for a new generation to bring their
perspective to the concept of generations, originally defined almost 40 years prior. Sociology

27
researchers have continued to explore this phenomenon over 70 years since its introduction.
Recent Applications and Analysis of Generational Theory
Generational theory is frequently cited in other literature and research, but many scholars
note the overuse, contested nature, and inconsistency of findings when it comes to generational
differences. Researchers such as Strauss and Howe (1991) were able to provide a greater, more
detailed definition of a generation based on their theories, but with greater categorization, the
more inconsistent data can become as people break or resist the mold. Since as early as 1989, the
shortcomings of assumptions based solely on age-based categories have been noted, particularly
as the complex issues of social and political context within groups were considered (Schuman &
Scott, 1989).
Many researchers seek to better understand if and to what extent an individual’s
generation can directly influence their manner of being, from values and morals to personal
philosophies (Robertson et al., 2012). The concept of generations that succeed one another and
differences based on grouping go back to ancient Greece and Rome, with tensions being noted
between generations even then (Knight, 2009). Many believe that the generation to which you
belong, and therefore the year you were born, directly influence your overarching values, culture,
and lens (Buskirk-Cohen et al., 2016; Robertson et al., 2012). Although some philosophers
theorized that acknowledgement of generation differences could be positive in the absence of
blame, others were concerned that generational differences in research had been translated too
broadly, creating stereotypes that permeate Western society (Jauregui et al., 2020; Knight, 2009).
Modern day research around generational theory often takes a deeper look at generational
differences and poses questions about the legitimacy of findings based on a variety of factors that
may not have been considered in empirical works of the past (Buskirk et al., 2016; Parry &

28
Urwin, 2011). Personal characteristics as well as generational differences are not only based on
birth year but also derived from experiences with historical and political events, the introduction
of technology, local environmental and socioeconomic factors, and geography (Buskirk-Cohen et
al., 2016; Green, 2017; Jauregui et al., 2020; Knight, 2009; Schuman & Scott, 1989). In
conjunction with these factors, one also must consider the individual’s gender, nationality,
ethnicity, and the level of privilege (Jauregui et al., 2020; Parry & Urwin, 2011). Interestingly,
when considering factors such as the introduction of technology in the 20th and 21st century, one
could see an impact on multiple generations regardless of birth order, differing from research on
other historical events. Memories of major events and social movements, much like technology,
are also believed to disproportionately affect the population, with individuals in multiple stages
of life being affected in a variety of ways based on personal experience and recollection
(Schuman & Scott, 1989). Because a variety of factors are not always considered and there are
exceptions to the rules, there is a possibility that previous generational research is flawed and
missing crucial components.
One method that can be used to enhance generational research and generalizability is the
creation, acknowledgment, and use of subgroups within generations (Parry & Urwin, 2011;
Robertson et al., 2012). In their research, Robertson et al. (2012) recommended the inclusion of a
generational subculture theory, which serves as an additional variable that can be utilized when
analyzing the cultural traits, values, and morals of a given generation. Parry and Urwin (2011)
also addressed the need for subcategories such as subgroups within generations based on gender,
culture, ethnicity, and any other factors that form one’s positionality and influence one’s
experiences. More research, with consideration of subcategories and a variety of factors, is

29
needed to reach a higher level of understanding and accuracy when it comes to generational
effects so that distinguishing differences can be better identified.
Although some researchers and sociologists seek methods by which to enhance
generational research, others have found parts of the existent theories too unreliable,
contradictory, or overused (Buskirk-Cohen et al., 2016; Jauregui et al., 2020; Knight, 2009;
Parry & Urwin, 2011; Schuman & Scott, 1989). Jauregui et al. (2020) found that within their
research, generational archetypes were simply a myth formed from the stereotypes and
generalizations created about cohorts of people. When coming up with these archetypes, all too
often environment and context were ignored, resulting in adverse labeling and the arbitrary
grouping of large numbers of individuals. Knight (2009) concurred with this sentiment,
emphasizing that although generational differences could be seen as a positive quality, the
theories themselves and related labels were often overused and highly contested. For example,
with the millennial generation alone different research showed both negative and positive overall
associations related to traits and characteristics. These findings emphasized the lack of clarity
and alignment across research findings, leading experimenters to question if either or both
findings were accurate (Buskirk-Cohen et al., 2016). There were too many mixed results in
generational empirical research studies, and several limitations led to a critical review of any
type of categorization of differences or ideas of generational imprinting (Parry & Urwin, 2011;
Robertson et al., 2012). However, some experts felt that the accuracy of generational research
could be positively affected through the use and adoption of generational humility. Increased
generational humility could lead to an increased understanding of individuality among social
groups and generational cohorts (Jauregui et al., 2020).

30
Generational research has not just led to applications, contradictions, and critiques, but
has also greatly affected how younger generations are viewed by organizations and the general
workforce (Buskirk-Cohen et al., 2016; Edge, 2014; Green, 2017; Knight, 2009). Edge (2014)
conducted a generational literature review and analysis of the traits assigned to younger
generations. Although it was found that each successive generation had varying views and
attitudes toward work, goals, expectations, and compensation, there was an overarching
conclusion from the literature that progressive generations such as millennials are more
extrinsically motivated. This led to ongoing concern from organizational recruiters and leaders
that by employing millennials, they would be employing a group of individuals who were
disconnected from and cynical toward organizations and their leaders (Knight, 2009). Around the
world, these attributes were said to be related to economic turmoil and downturn, with younger
generations having faced recessions, a substantial lack of employment opportunities, pay
reductions, a loss of upward mobility, and the devaluation of college degrees. Overall, many
members of the millennial generation feel that their prospects are far fewer and that they will
have to work longer and harder to achieve the same success that previous generations have
enjoyed. The perception of this cohort could perpetuate this reality (Green, 2017).
Gaps in Research
Stereotypes and generalizations of millennials may stem from a reliance on early
generational research studies, especially considering the lack of empirical research on this topic
over the past decade. Within the last decade, there has been a lack of empirical studies in general,
with many of the existing studies focusing on the millennial generation as learners or newcomers
to the workforce instead of leaders (Buskirk-Cohen et al., 2016; Galdames & Guihen, 2022).
There were inconsistencies in the data and findings, inevitably leading to the creation of

31
stereotypes on which organizations continue to base their hiring practices even though the largest
population in the workforce is part of the millennial cohort (Galdames & Guihen, 2022). Many
research findings were often taken as truths, overgeneralizing the traits of a vast group of
individuals without the acknowledgement of additional factors such as environment, values,
demographics, and history that could create more accurate subgroupings within generational
cohorts (Parry & Urwin, 2011; Robertson et al., 2012). More research is needed to better
understand if there are factual correlations between generational cohorts and individual attitudes
and traits in a variety of settings and fields. In education alone, there is a scarcity of research
looking at the millennial cohort outside of their existence as students, even though many are now
well into their 30s and raising an even younger generation (Galdames & Guihen, 2022). It is time
for researchers to delve deeper into the attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of millennials as
leaders in the field of education and how they are affecting existing systems and people of all
generations around them.
Summary of the Literature
Workplaces, including educational organizations, are continuing to grow more diverse
with each passing year in terms of race, gender, generation, and a variety of other factors
(Haynes, 2011; Urick, 2020; Van Rossem, 2019). This leads to an increased need for
organizations in society to better understand the dynamics of workplace environments and how
to better meet the needs of the millennial generation that makes up much of the workforce
(DeSilver, 2019; Murphy, 2012; Woods, 2016). As millennials continue to advance from learners
to leaders, the level of educational attainment and value of work life balance continues to
increase and should lead organizations to reflect on their existing systems and practices
(Freeman, 2019; Graf, 2017).

32
With this influx, there is a continued need to study the millennial generation in a variety
of contexts, because current empirical research is scarce and many of the assumptions and
stereotypes related to this generation were not supported consistently across research (DiPietro,
2012; Einolf, 2016; Graham et al., 2015). Many have perceived millennials as being driven by
constructive feedback, possessing a desire to learn and grow, having an increased pressure to
succeed, and being active workers who are tech savvy and visually intuitive (Baker Rosa &
Hastings, 2018; Corgnet et al., 2015; DiPietro, 2012; Graham et al., 2015; Roberts, 2019;
Suyanto et al., 2019). Research has also delved into the personal values of millennials, their
competency skills, communication preferences, and leadership styles, yielding mixed findings
(Roberts, 2019; Suyanto et al., 2019; Weber, 2017). However, the reality is that these findings
vary too greatly and have led to assumptions that could affect the ways in which millennials are
perceived by organizations, thereby affecting their growth, advancement, and opportunities in the
global workforce (Corgnet et al., 2015).
Although trait and characteristic findings were inconsistent, research did show a strong
correlation between generational cohort and work preferences, particularly for millennials
(Barbosa, 2021; Hall, 2016; Johnson, 2014; Pasko et al, 2021). Millennials are a creative and
diverse group that seeks support and wants to work in environments where there is room for
improvement and growth (Barbosa, 2021). To retain millennial workers, workplaces have to
offer perks like flexible schedules, health benefits, reasonable compensation, healthy
communication, and opportunities for advancement (Hall, 2016; Johnson, 2014; Pasko et al.,
2021). Without making these adjustments, workplaces are creating environments that exclude
most of the workforce or lead to lower levels of retention and therefore lower levels of
organizational cohesion and productivity.

33
Many overlook the implications of a millennial-dominated workforce, and it is worth
noting that when there are shortages in leadership positions, especially in education, it is
becoming more and more likely that millennials will be the ones available and qualified to step
into those positions (NASSP, 2017). Pathways to educational leadership are different depending
on factors such as gender, experience, age, education, and position or ranking, but the demand
for principals and superintendents in education continues to increase (Davis & Bowers, 2019;
NASSP, 2017). Schools are continuing to move toward restructuring, which leads to higher
levels of leadership involvement and the desire for innovation and creativity in the workforce
(Harris, 2008). This shift toward systemic changes and innovation in the field of educational
leadership creates an environment that is more appealing to the millennial generation, and to fill
these positions now and in the future, it is imperative that educational organizations are open to
new generations of leaders.
Even though millennial leadership is understudied in all fields, there are already a
plethora of qualified millennials in leadership roles across the globe who have participated in
research and advocating for opportunities for those of younger generations (Crozier, 2018;
Schwartzbart & Espinoza, 2015; Sessa et al., 2007). Though mostly focused on the Western
perspective, research has been conducted on millennial leaders across multiple countries from
the United States and Philippines to Australia and the United Kingdom (Gabriel et al., 2020;
Galdames & Guihen, 2022; Lambert et al., 2016; Zachara, 2020). Research conducted in each
country noted the existence of generational tensions for a variety of reasons, but also emphasized
that the millennial generation is dedicated to building strong relationships and quality skill
development within organizations while possessing a deep awareness of global issues,
challenges, and social justice (Gabriel et al., 2020; Galdames & Guihen, 2022; Lambert et al.,

34
2016; Zachara, 2020). Although location and demographics greatly influenced experiences for
millennials in leadership, gender was also a factor that had to be considered (Fiddler, 2018;
Finneran, 2016; Meston, 2020; Sadler et al., 2020; Stefanco, 2017). Millennial women were
more likely to have higher qualifications than millennial men, yet they continued to struggle with
male-dominated systems and ongoing gender-based discrimination (Fiddler, 2018; Finneran,
2016; Stefanco, 2017). It is important that organizations and researchers consider the
intersectionality of not only demographics and age, but also gender, race, and any other factors
that are creating an ongoing uphill battle for millennials as they strive to lead in modern society.
Generational theory, developed by Mannheim (1952) and continued by numerous other
researchers and theorists over the years, continues to influence the definition and use of the term
generation, lending itself to the creation of generalized perceptions about each subsequent
generation. Continued research is needed to better understand the connection between social
change or events and birth cohorts, if any, to determine if there are sound findings indicating a
correlation between traits, characteristics, and generations (Buskirk-Cohen et al., 2016; Jauregui
et al., 2020; Knight, 2009; Ryder, 1965; Schuman & Scott, 1989). There must be a continued
consideration and analysis of subcategories leading to intersectionality within generations, such
as age, race, gender, demographics, cultural values, moral philosophies, and even individual
experiences (Knight, 2009; Robertson et al., 2012). It is time for millennials to be viewed and
researched as leaders in today’s workforce in all fields instead of simply as emerging adults
(Buskirk-Cohen et al., 2016). Theorists, sociologists, and researchers have a responsibility to
move away from the inconsistent findings of more narrow and privileged perspectives and
toward empirical studies that address the nuances, experiences, and perspectives of millennial
aged leaders that both define and challenge generational archetypes (Jauregui et al., 2020).

35
Chapter Three: Methodology
In the United States and in California specifically, there is a growing need for qualified
school administrators and a growing millennial workforce. The millennial generation, which
includes people born between the years 1981–1996, accounted for 56 million individuals in the
active workforce as of 2016 (DeSilver, 2016). With a growing demand for a viable pipeline of
educational leaders and a growing number of millennials, it becomes increasingly important that
organizations be educated in generational perspectives and given an opportunity to manage and
support the substantial talent pool of millennial individuals so that the increasing number of
vacancies can be filled. Jauregui et al. (2020) identified negative stereotypes toward the
millennial population that often affected their access to leadership roles and administrative
positions. Corgnet et al. (2015) corroborated this point by noting that millennials with equivalent
experience were overall less likely to be hired than senior workers. As the California teacher and
educator shortage continues, the need for additional teachers and school administrators will also
continue (National University, 2021). As millennials rise to fill some of these positions, it will
become essential to understand the ways in which millennials manage, lead, and interact with
others based on research instead of stereotypes.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of millennial educational
leaders in Southern California and the impact they have on organizations as they continue their
careers in school leadership. In this study I investigated the differences in leadership styles and
perspectives between millennials and members of other generations. Additionally, I analyzed
changes that millennial educational leaders introduced to their organizations, how those proposed

36
changes were influenced by their generational experiences, and how the leaders approached and
addressed resistance to their leadership or to institutional changes.
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide this study:
1. How do millennial educational leaders differentiate themselves from leaders of other
generations?
2. What generationally-informed changes have millennial education leaders introduced?
3. How do millennial educational leaders approach resistance to institutional change?
Selection of the Population
I conducted interviews, a focus group, and a survey of millennial educational leaders to
determine how this generation of leaders differentiated themselves, the changes they introduced,
and their approach to resistance based on generation or age. Knowledge gained from the
interviews, focus group, and survey helped inform the type of support that millennial leaders and
administrators need as they navigate workplaces often perpetuating existing generational
stereotypes. This research also supports organizations better understanding the impact this new
generation of leaders seeks to make and how organizations can better meet their needs as
employees and leaders.
Participants in this study included 30 public school leaders and administrators serving in
Southern California urban public school districts during the 2022–2023 school year. Information
on leaders and administrators selected for the survey, focus group, and interview were retrieved
from the California Department of Education website as well as via email communications with
local Southern California district offices. During participant selection, any additional information
needed regarding the individuals was found or confirmed through email and telephone

37
communications. The survey, focus group, and interview participants all belong to the millennial
generation, having been born between 1981–1996, were in a position of leadership in a public
educational organization, and worked in an urban school setting in Southern California. Urban
public schools and districts in Southern California were the focus of this study due to their
ongoing work with marginalized populations, larger multigenerational employee workforces, and
broader opportunities for advancement.
To conduct this study, I used purposeful sampling for my survey, focus group, and
interviews because I selected participants and research sites based on specific criteria related to
geographic location and age (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Candidates who met the established
criteria were eligible to participate in the research study. Participants were selected regardless of
race, color, gender, ethnicity, background, or years of experience in a leadership position. Thirty
individuals were surveyed, eight were interviewed, and four participated in a focus group.
Sampling issues included a lack of educational leaders who fit the overall criteria, school district
resistance to employee participation, educational leaders’ inability to agree to the time
commitment required to participate in the study, and school district procedures and requirements
for their employees to participate in research.
It is important to know more about these study participants because they are part of a
generation that has reached a stage in their careers and lives to be qualified to pursue positions of
leadership in education. This means that they have a direct impact on initiatives, organizational
changes, and educational policies in highly populated urban school districts.
Design Summary
For this study, I conducted qualitative research to interact with the participants,
understand the meanings behind their experiences and perspectives, and interpret information

38
they provided while in their natural settings. In conjunction, the dominantly qualitative aspects of
this study allowed the opportunity to conceive ways to improve existing practices and mindsets
while also producing credible and understandable results (Maxwell, 2013).
This study adopted Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell’s (2013) steps for designing
and conducting a research study. The study focused on explaining the research problem and
purpose of the study in Chapter 1 and provided a review of the literature and development of the
conceptual framework in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 addresses methods of data collection, whereas
Chapters 4 and 5 are dedicated to methods of analysis, presentation of findings, and recognition
of validity and reliability factors.
Methodology
The methodology for this qualitative study included the use of a mixed-methods survey,
collected through a digital questionnaire, qualitative interview questions answered by eligible
participants belonging to the millennial generation, and qualitative focus group questions
administered in a collaborative setting. When developing the interview protocol, I decided to
utilize a semi-structured interview protocol to allow for increased flexibility and a conversational
tone. I also chose to create and use a focus group interview protocol composed of semi-
structured questions to facilitate discussion, with additional probing questions to stimulate
engagement and group communication (Lochmiller & Lester, 2019). In addition to
understanding the experiences that millennial leaders encounter and how they navigate
organizational structures and resistance on a personal level, it was necessary to survey all
participants to understand how their experiences in leadership as millennials may be
interconnected. Further, millennial leaders were interviewed and surveyed to understand the role
of stereotypes in educational workplaces, how multigenerational organizations are navigated, and

39
how age affects leadership experiences and organizational change. All three qualitative research
questions were addressed in the interviews, focus group, and survey questions.
Mixed-Methods and Triangulation
To ensure internal validity in the research study, two types of interactive qualitative
research instruments and one type of mixed-method instrument were utilized, allowing for a
triangulation of the data. The findings and analysis were also cross-referenced for consistency
and reliability in comparison with the extensive literature review. I used generational theory to
provide a theoretical basis to add depth and connections to my findings and to prior research.
Instrumentation and Protocols
Qualitative Instruments: Interviews and Focus Groups
Qualitative data was gathered using individual interviews and a focus group interview.
The individual interview consisted of questions written to ensure alignment with the three
targeted research questions. The interview protocol consisted of 10 questions, with a series of
probing and follow up questions connected to Questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (see Appendix
B). Follow-up questions and probes were utilized to clarify meaning, enhance understanding, and
allow for flexibility during the interview (Lochmiller & Lester, 2019). For this study, I used
Zoom virtual conferences and face-to-face meetings to conduct the interviews with each
participant. The interview itself was open-ended, semi-structured, recorded, and transcribed.
The focus group interview protocol was designed with four questions, with Questions 1
and 2 including probing topics (see Appendix A). Overall, the focus group interview protocol
addressed all three of the research questions and created a less intimidating environment for
participants to voice their perspectives and bounce ideas off one another (Lochmiller & Lester,
2019). The focus groups were conducted using Zoom virtual conferences to increase the chances

40
of participation and to provide the consideration of limiting travel time and expenses for all
participants.
Mixed-Method Instrument: Survey
An additional form of data collected for this study was gathered from a mixed-methods
survey. The survey had five parts with a total of 13 main questions, some containing multiple
prompts or propping questions as found in Questions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 (see Appendix C). All
survey questions correlated with the three research questions of the study. Part I of the survey
focused on participant age and employment information, Part II aligned to Research Question 1,
and Part III focused on all three research questions. Part IV of the survey focused on Research
Question 2, and lastly Part V contained questions related to Research Question 1 and closed with
a final demographic question. Out of the 13 survey questions, one was open-ended whereas the
rest were closed-ended. All questions provided meaningful data related to the research questions,
avoided bias, and were designed to ensure as much comfort as possible for participants. In
addition, the survey design incorporated a four-point scale in Part II, consisting of “yes,”
“sometimes,” “no,” and “unknown.” In Part III and IV, a 5-point Likert style scale was used,
with answers ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Part III also included a 5-
point rating scale ranging from 1 (not respected) to 5 (extremely respected). The survey
instrument was made accessible to 30 millennial educational leaders in Southern California
urban public schools by utilizing Qualtrics. I designed the survey for this study to produce a
numeric description of the experiences, perspectives, and attitudes of the millennial leaders who
participated in the study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2019).

41
Data Collection
Creswell’s (2009) data collection steps were utilized and followed when conducting the
research for this study. I began by locating the individuals and sites, gained access and created a
professional relationship, engaged in purposeful sampling, collected, and recorded data,
addressed any field issues, and properly stored the data. To collect the mixed-methods data,
surveys were made accessible to 30 millennial leaders and administrators in Southern California
urban public schools using the aforementioned selection criteria. A cover letter accompanied the
survey and attached protocol, stating the purpose of the study and the protections for participants
(see Appendix D).
To collect qualitative data for this study, interviews were conducted with eight of the
millennial participants who indicated their willingness to participate in an in-depth semi-
structured personal interview. As mentioned previously, purposeful sampling was used to select
the interview participants who met the selection criteria. This was done to seek the best and most
reliable answer to the research questions and address the purpose of the study. Prior consent and
confidentiality were of the utmost importance during this study, and I ensured that all
participants fully understood the nature of the interview, their right to participate or withdraw,
and their right to anonymity and confidentiality (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Each of the millennial leaders interviewed received 6 weeks of advance notice to
schedule a mutually agreeable time at which to be interviewed either virtually or in person. I
reiterated to the interviewees that I would be recording the interview as well as taking notes, and
that their consent could be withdrawn at any time. I asked the participants for permission to
digitally record the interview to ensure their comfort and maintain ethics as a researcher (Rubin
& Rubin, 2012). Each interview lasted approximately 50 minutes. Follow-up phone calls and

42
emails were completed as necessary to clarify information or responses, gather additional
information relevant to the research questions, and answer any questions the participants had. All
interviews, which were conducted virtually, were transcribed, reviewed, and coded.
Data Analysis
This study utilized a qualitative approach, incorporating both mixed-methods data from
the surveys and qualitative data from the interviews and focus group. All items in the survey,
focus group, and interview protocols were connected directly to the study’s research questions.
The research questions guided the methodology and therefore the data analysis for this study.
After collecting all data from the surveys, focus groups, and interviews, I wrote reports
for each of the sources, documenting the data and results of each. All responses in the surveys,
interviews, and focus group interviews were transcribed and coded. I used the information
provided by the participants through these three instruments to develop the data analysis.
Utilizing the process of triangulation (see Figure 1), a means of ensuring checks and balances
among the research methods to determine if the variety of methods all support the same
conclusion, I compared the findings (Maxwell, 2013). I also compared my data analysis to the
findings of the literature review. This research process helped to determine convergence,
divergence, or a combination of both for the findings (Creswell, 2009). Generational theory was
applied as a method of linking the findings within larger perspectives and theoretical constructs.
I ensured that participant confidentiality was protected throughout the duration of the process.

43
Figure 1
Research Triangulation

Validity and Reliability
Throughout the study, every effort was made to ensure reliability and validity of the
study and its subsequent findings. The steps that were followed ensured maximum validity and
reliability, including acknowledgement of biases and positionality as well as reactivity,
triangulation of the data and member checking, adequate time spent conducting the research,
researcher self-reflection, peer review, audit trail, and purposefully seeking variation in the
sample selection within the constraints of the specific criteria (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).

44
Summary
This study utilized a qualitative approach, with a significant focus on qualitative data
collection from interviews and focus groups and supporting mixed-methods data from surveys.
The data collected from millennial leaders and administrators in Southern California urban
public schools was analyzed through the lens of the three research questions posed: how
millennial leaders differentiate themselves from those of other generations, the generationally-
informed changes that millennial leaders introduce, and how millennials in leadership approach
resistance to institutional changes they introduce. These findings are presented in Chapter 4, with
an in-depth discussion of the findings in Chapter 5.

45
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this research study was to explore the experiences of educational leaders
in Southern California who are classified as millennials, being born between 1981–1996, and
their impact on their respective organizations as they continue their careers in leadership and
administration. In this study, I investigated the differences in leadership styles and perspectives
between millennial educational leaders and leaders from other generations in the context of
facilitating change and navigating resistance to that change. Research Question 1 focused on how
millennial educational leaders differentiate themselves from other leaders, Research Question 2
explored what generationally-informed changes millennial leaders introduced, and the final
research question investigated the preferred millennial approach to addressing resistance to
institutional changes they have initiated.
Utilizing the lens of generational theory, originally developed by Karl Mannheim (1923)
and later revitalized by Jane Pilcher (1993), this study examined the formal and informal
experiences of millennial school administrators in Southern California. Using a generational
lens, this research provides a better understanding of the differences in millennial leadership
styles and preferences, the institutional change that they find most imperative and effective, and
how they cope with resistance and opposition as leaders of a particular age in educational
organizations.
Participants
This study used a qualitative semi-structured interview and focus group approach, as well
as a mixed-methods survey to collect data from participants. Participants in this study consisted
of a total of 30 educational leaders in Southern California public schools serving kindergarten
through 12th grade schools, including elementary, middle, and high schools. All participants

46
belong to the millennial generation, having been born between 1981–1996, and were in a
position of leadership in a public urban school setting for the 2022–2023 school year (see Figure
2). Of the 30 participants selected, all completed the online digital survey, eight participated in
the interview component, and four participated in the focus group.
The 30 participants came from 16 different school districts or charter organizations
within Southern California. Candidates volunteered to participate based on email invitations, in-
person invitations, and invitations sent through professional alumni platforms. Pertaining to the
eight interview participants, the various professional leadership roles held by candidates included
assistant superintendent, executive director, director of curriculum and instruction, principal, and
program coordinator. The focus group consisted of an executive director, assistant
superintendent, a principal, and a program coordinator from four different districts or charter
organizations.

Figure 2
Survey Question 1

47

This qualitative study utilized survey, interview, and focus group components to ensure
triangulation of the data and research findings to better enhance and discern existing themes. The
participant sample was representative of the population being researched, and no additional
recruitment was deemed necessary due to the variety of positions held and number of
organizations represented.
Results
The research results are outlined subsequently and organized based on research questions.
For each research question, there is a review and connection to relevant literature and an
overview of the results. The results are discussed in relation to two or three emerging themes
corresponding to each research question. A summary of results is provided, and the chapter
concludes with a final comprehensive summary. The following questions were used to guide this
study:
1. How do millennial educational leaders differentiate themselves from leaders of other
generations?
2. What generationally-informed changes have millennial education leaders introduced?
3. How do millennial educational leaders approach resistance to institutional change?
Results: Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do millennial educational leaders differentiate
themselves from leaders of other generations?” Prior research described millennials in the
workforce as creative, technologically proficient, values oriented, and communicative, with a
growing desire for work-life balance and flexibility in the workplace (Barbosa, 2021; Galdames
& Guihen, 2022; Roberts, 2019). Findings have also shown that millennials in leadership are

48
more likely to lead with low-power orientations, transparency, and inclusivity compared to those
belonging to other generations (Schwarzbart & Espinoza, 2015). Additionally, scholars have
described millennials as adaptable and capable of shifting norms effectively, while also rejecting
the status quo and existing barriers (Crozier, 2018; Zachara, 2020). When comparing
generational groups in leadership, research has pointed to the idea that the millennial generation
prides itself on being collaborative, communicative, team-oriented individuals (Hall, 2016;
Gabriel et al., 2020; Taylor & Stein, 2014). Although additional long-term research may be
necessary to determine if millennial leaders maintain these traits in the workplace as they age,
data collected through this study’s surveys, focus groups, and interviews showed
interconnectivity between the traits and values described in prior research and the traits and
values expressed by participants in this study. For example, participant A002 discussed their
version of norms and preference for a collaborative workplace by stating,
I don’t believe in asking staff to do something I’m not willing to do myself, even if it’s as
simple as picking up trash or something like that. Helping to really do some of their dirty
work. So, really modeling my expectations for them and being a part of the team, not
sitting in an office dictating what’s happening.
Although participants did not always correlate certain traits or preferences with their age
or generation, many held similar beliefs aligning with not only other participants in the study but
also those described in prior research on the millennial generation. For instance, 75% of
interviewees in the study specifically indicated valuing collaboration in the workplace as leaders.
Given participants’ responses, it can be concluded that millennial educational leaders
differentiate themselves from leaders of other generations in terms of their overarching values

49
and priorities, resistance to traditional or stagnant structures, and dedication to collaborative
experiences in the workplace.
The Value of Values and Boundaries
In conjunction with the literature, research showed that the millennial participants in this
study place high importance on their personal values matching those of the organization for
which they work and the existence of sustainable work-life balance. When asked about work
preferences when seeking employment, 23 of the 30 respondents indicated a preference for
healthy work-life balance (see Table 1). Participants also emphasized the importance of being
able to prioritize their families and find balance between leadership roles and personal priorities.
For example, participant A006 stated,
I think one thing that made me feel comfortable taking this position was being able to
prioritize my family. I’ve seen myself shift from being hyper focused on career to more
being about people and family and shifting the priorities.

50
Table 1
Survey Question 4
Which of the following work preferences do you seek in a place of
employment?
Number of responses
Flexible schedules 15
High compensation 15
Health or fringe benefits 13
Open communication 22
Consistent feedback 20
Mentorship 20
Job security 11
Advancement opportunities 14
Healthy work-life balance 23
Total 153

Additionally, 50% of the interview participants explicitly noted the importance of the
alignment of their workplace and their core values. Participants raised the importance of
alignment between staff values and organizational values with their own in order for them to feel
comfortable in a leadership role (see Table 2). Participants were also looking at the larger
systemic structures, such as a school district, to determine if the overarching vision and goals
aligned with their personal set of values. This interview data indicated that millennial leaders
view alignment of values as a key aspect of their leadership positions, a noted difference in the
priorities of millennials and other generations based on prior research.

51
Table 2
Interview Question 3
Participant What are some of the most important things you look for in a leadership role?
A001 “I think that if the core values of the staff differed considerably from mine that
would be a big concern.”
A004 “Something like being in a place that’s in line with my values is really important
to me.”
A002 “I look at the district’s vision, their goals, and make sure that really their core
values are aligned to mine.”
A003 When listing their values, they included: “Integrity … trust … humility …
reflection … forgiveness … and team-building.”

Resisting and Abandoning Traditional Perspectives
In review of the data, numerous survey questions and interview responses (Survey
Questions 7 and 15 and Interview Questions 3, 4, and 5) indicated that millennials hold a
negative view of hierarchical models in education and actively seek to question the status quo
while encouraging more participative leadership styles. Participants were asked to respond to the
statement: I see differences in leadership styles between millennial administrators and other
administrators (Gen X and Boomers; Survey Question 7c), survey data indicated that 87.5% of
the respondents to this question selected “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree,” indicating an
overall acknowledgement of the difference between millennial leadership practices and those of
other generations (see Figure 3). When asked to select their own personal leadership style in the
survey, 50% of millennial respondents selected “participative leadership.” This finding indicated
millennials’ desire to be involved leaders who participate actively in their organization, which is
something respondents did view as connected to prior generations.

52
Figure 3
Survey Question 7c

Not only do millennials seek involvement in the organizations they lead, but also the
results show a desire from many millennials to question and resist preexisting leadership
structures in education. During the focus group, Speaker 1 described how they differentiate
themselves from other generations by stating:
I think the big piece is like leveraging teacher voice and trying to flatten the leadership
structure as much as I can, whereas I would say that non-millennials are more interested
in the typical power structure at a school.
The speaker here emphasized not only their support of teacher voice, but also shared their desire
to “flatten” top-down hierarchical structures that they perceived as more typical and supported
by previous generations.

53
When participants were asked about generational differences between what they do for
their staff and what leaders of previous generations do (Interview Question 5c), participant A003
described their experiences as a new leader facing existing structures, stating,
I think what I found was in my early leadership positions when I was pushing against the
edge of the system where it was the status quo, I ran into so much of the old guard who
was trying to hold it back and keep it the way it was.
Participant A001 added to this notion by conveying the following during their interview session:
I also think that as much as possible, not having a hierarchical configuration of leadership
is important to me. … And I find that very difficult to kind of get behind because I feel
like there’s a lot of archaic or sometimes classist or all these types of layers that can make
that problematic.
These two examples highlight the overarching negative connotation given to hierarchical
traditional models, pointing to millennials’ desire to be in an organizational space that allows for
creative thought and processes, as well as reduced rigidity and increased flexibility. The
interview data also indicated that millennials would like to be able to or continue to be able to
lead in ways that are creative, change-oriented, relatively informal, and positive.
A Focus on Collaboration and Reciprocal Feedback
As evidenced across all components of data collection for this research study, the desire
for collaboration and for feedback from the millennial generation was consistent and frequent.
When asked, “Which of the following work preferences do you seek in a place of employment?”
(Survey Question 4), the second most popular response was “Open Communication” with 22 of
30 respondents, and the third was “Consistent Feedback” with 20 of 30 respondents (see Table
1). When participants were asked, “What are some of the most important things you look for in a

54
leadership role?” (Interview Question 3), three of the eight interviewees specifically mentioned
collaboration or the opportunity to be collaborative. Then when asked, “In what ways, if any, are
you different from other individuals in positions of leadership within your current organization?”
(Interview Question 4), six of the eight interviewees indicated that they identified themselves as
having a collaborative nature or that they valued collaboration. Data collected through the focus
group also indicated a proclivity for collaborative natures. Speaker 3 described their own
availability as an administrator, stating, “If someone calls or I say the door is always open, you
can come in, and everyone’s like, I’m so sorry for interrupting you. … Literally, that’s what I’m
here for.” Speaker 4 addressed a leader’s need for collaboration as well, noting, “It’s okay for
people to ask for help and to stretch people in different ways if it’s what’s best for kids.” These
findings confirmed that millennial educational leaders consider collaboration a way they
differentiate themselves as leaders in the educational workplace.
A significant aspect of collaboration on which participants focused was the concept of
giving and receiving feedback. During the interview portion, when asked, “What are some of the
ways that you interact with your staff, as a leader, if any, that other leaders do not?” (Interview
Question 5), 50% of interviewees included the idea of being open to feedback, questions, and
even pushback. For example, participant A001 stated, “I’m really open to feedback. So, I want
people to call me out, whoever they are, and ask questions or push back on something. That’s
something that’s important to me.” Participant A007 built upon this concept, responding to the
same question by stating:
I think a lot of the difference is how I approach conversations in a more, I think,
meditative way. So really leaning into hearing different perspectives, being open minded,

55
asking questions, I think that’s different than how others might approach the same
conversations.
These responses emphasized the importance of feedback when it came to millennial leadership
practices and the way participants extended vulnerability in the name of collaboration and
growth in the workplace.
Discussion: Research Question 1
Overall, the data collected from the survey, focus group, and interviews pertaining to
research question one reinforced the notion that millennial leaders are different from those of
other generations in three key areas: (a) their focus on core values and work-life balance; (b) a
desire to resist and restructure existing hierarchical models; and (c) exhibiting high levels of
collaboration, including openness to feedback. Evidence in literature corroborates these findings.
Galdames and Guihen (2022) classified millennials as those who desire work-life balance, are
values oriented, and seek opportunities for feedback and open communication in the workplace.
Barbosa (2021) also found healthy work-life balance to be a priority for millennials, alongside a
desire for flexibility and opportunities for organizational growth and improvement. These
preferences—as well as the noted inclination toward organizational transparency, inclusivity, and
more equitable and balanced power structures—support the idea of millennials resisting and
seeking to restructure traditional models and organizational hierarchies (Schwarzbart &
Espinoza, 2015). Finally, there is consistent evidence supporting the idea that millennials hold a
desire for consistent learning that leads to an open mind toward collaboration, communication,
and feedback, while also noting some of the often-negative stereotypes associated with these
traits, regardless of their positive connotation in certain settings (Baker Rosa & Hastings, 2018).

56
Results: Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “What generationally-informed changes have millennial
education leaders introduced?” Since the early 2000s, there has been an evident shift in the
nature of school leadership itself, with organizations beginning to restructure their systems and
hierarchical structures to create smaller, more interconnected groups that encourage creativity
and involvement (Harris, 2008). This shift has been furthered by the millennial generation, with
research showing that millennial leaders emphasize positive school and organizational culture,
enhance technology use and integration, and shift workplace norms effectively (Crozier, 2018).
Prior research has described millennials as being technologically savvy visual learners with
constant access to information and technology that increases their awareness of global events
(Galdames & Guihen, 2022; Graham et al., 2015; Suyanto et al., 2019; Zachara, 2020).
Additionally, research has found that millennial leaders are energized, seek professional growth,
and care about communal and collaborative environments based on strong personal relationships
with employees (Gabriel et al., 2020; Sadler et al., 2020; Sessa et al., 2007). The research
findings of this study correlated with the findings of existing research, with analysis of the
survey, focus group, and interview components showing that millennial leaders are often
intentional and careful in how they bring about change, making sure that staff and their needs are
respected and valued. Additionally, data analysis pointed to the idea that many millennial leaders
incorporate and enhance technology use within their organizations during their time in
leadership, which aligned with previous research findings.
Valuing and Respecting Staff and Their Needs
When conducting thematic analysis and coding of the data, it was evident that the
millennial participants in this study place a high value on the concept of respecting and

57
appreciating staff in the organization and addressing their needs whenever possible, including
when change is being implemented on any scale. When asked, “How many initiatives, if any,
have you tried to introduce in the last school year?” (Survey Question 12), 95.8% of respondents
indicated that they have introduced or attempted to implement at least one initiative.
Furthermore, when participants were asked to provide an example of a generationally-informed
change made while in leadership (Survey Question 9)—that is, knowledge, traits, habits, and
preferences that exist for one generation that may not be stereotypically common in other
generations—participants mentioned several explicit examples. These included the
implementation of changes surrounding staff care and respect, such as the creation of “norms and
working agreements,” “flexible schedules and working hours,” pushing for “access to
information and increased transparency,” as well as “humane decision making” and even staff
birthday celebrations. One participant stated that a change they made in their organization was to
move toward a “people first leadership orientation.”
Relationships are important to millennials, as evident in a majority of participant
responses to the question, “What changes have you made, if any, in your organization since
joining the leadership team?” (Interview Question 6). Data revealed that seven of the eight
interviewees mentioned the importance of valuing staff and their needs while building
relationships. Participant A001 expanded on this idea in their response, stating,
You have to show to people that you respect them and that you want to work with them in
all those pieces, removing a level of control that I didn’t feel was beneficial … and not
necessarily treating them like professionals.
Participant A003’s response was aligned with the previous response, noting that the biggest
change they made was to:

58
set up department meetings, build those relationships, to have folks get to know one
another, to set up trainings that everyone can attend, [and] to learn the big picture so there
isn’t this monopolization of power that comes with consolidated knowledge.
In conjunction with the survey data, both responses offered evidence that millennials were
seeking to restructure educational organizations to be more person-centered and communal while
distributing power and acknowledging the differences and strengths of those who surrounded
them.
The Incorporation and Expansion of Technology
Based on the data collected for this research study, and in alignment with prior research,
evidence showed that millennials place an emphasis on the implementation of technology to
update, enhance, and bring about changes in educational organizations. Participant A008
summarized the importance of technology as a leader, stating, “So many systems had to just
evolve, and in order to make our lives easier and our team feel successful and connected,
simplifying in that way was kind of the perspective, I think that I have.” Furthermore, seven of
the 14 survey respondents explicitly mentioned technological changes they implemented or
incorporated into their organizations during their time as a leader (see Appendix K). These seven
responses detailed generationally-informed changes around technology such as improving
efficiency, streamlining systems, providing one-to-one technology for students, data collection,
and even the use of social media accounts.
Responses collected during the focus group also illuminated connections between
millennial leaders and their feelings about technology integration. Three of the four focus group
participants engaged in conversation pertaining to technology and their experiences with other
generations in the workplace. Speakers 3 and 4 discussed how they are often leaned on to explain

59
basic technology functions and programs, with Speaker 3 expressing how technology use “is a
critical part of the job.” They also did not feel that they could cover the breadth of needs when it
comes to bridging the gaps in knowledge for members of other generations in leadership roles.
Interestingly, Speaker 1 brought up Generation Z for the first time, indicating that they felt being
a millennial and having technological awareness helped them to relate better to the younger
generation. However, Speaker 1 also provided this perspective: “Being a millennial leader, they
rely on you for a tech perspective. But I also have been in meetings where it’s like almost a
tokenism.” Overall, it can be concluded that millennial leaders often seek to make changes when
it comes to the use and integration of technology in organizations, but those changes come with
additional challenges when working in intergenerational workplaces.
Discussion: Research Question 2
The data for Research Question 2 showed that the generationally-informed changes that
millennial educational leaders introduced are often focused on two areas: (a) technology
innovation and integration, and (b) practices and systems that value and respect staff and their
needs. Urick (2020) emphasized the generational differences when it comes to technological
awareness, with millennials having superior knowledge in that field. Not only are millennials
more technologically proficient, they are also more likely to use that technology actively to
enhance their organizations and effectively create shifts in workplace norms (Crozier, 2018;
Galdames & Guihen, 2022; Suyanto et al., 2019). With respect to the idea of millennials
implementing practices and systems that value staff, research indicated that millennial leaders
seek systemic designs that allow for greater leadership involvement based on interactions and
relationships instead of simply titles or positions (Harris, 2008). Sadler et al. (2020) emphasized
this point by concluding that millennials maintain softened views of leadership in comparison to

60
other generations, and desire positive interactions with members of all levels of the organization.
Research indicated that not only are millennial leaders technologically savvy, they are also
attuned to making changes in their organizations that they feel will simplify and better the lives
of their staff while honoring their contributions and needs as people (Crozier, 2018; Graham et
al., 2015). This study verified and aligned with established research on generationally-informed
changes sought by and led by millennials.
Results: Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “How do millennial educational leaders approach resistance
to institutional change?” When looking at research findings pertaining to millennials, this
generation has often been described as highly socialized individuals who would most likely lead
transparently, inclusively, and based on collaborative feedback (Schwartzbart & Espinoza, 2015).
Thus, work environments need to provide spaces for members of all generations to collaborate.
Millennials are said to have a desire for healthy, consistent communication and the ability to
speak with people from all levels of an organization about mutual needs and concerns (Hall,
2016; Haynes, 2011). However, millennials value not only collaborative structures but also the
ability to understand differences in values, expectations, and perspectives of people from varied
generations and backgrounds who work within the same organization (Woods, 2016).
Mentorship and communication between members of different generations has been found to be
a source of proactive support for millennial leaders, as well as seeking out relationships with
members of all generations to understand the differences that exist as well as their implications
(Meston, 2020; Sessa et al., 2007). The findings of this research study were corroborated by prior
research, with evidence gathered from interviews, surveys, and the focus group showing that
millennial leaders approach resistance to institutional change through collaborative processes

61
that are reflective and responsive, as well as through building relationships and leveraging
support from people of all generations within their organizations. Additionally, this research
substantiated that a key component of how millennials approach resistance to change is through
meeting people where they are and being responsive and flexible when it comes to balancing
needed change and the capacity of one’s staff.
Collaborative Practices
Communication processes are vital in all organizations, but data gathered in this study
showed that collaboration was a common action that millennial educational leaders use when
approaching or faced with resistance. When asked, “When proposing institutional changes in
your organization, what forms of resistance do you encounter, if any? How do you deal with this
resistance?” (Interview Question 7c), the majority of interviewees mentioned collaborative
processes such as discussions, feedback, and conversations as being preferred methods of dealing
with resistance. For example, participant A002 responded “I think just really making sure that,
one, we are taking a collaborative approach. We are working together on something, whether
that’s with staff or with parents, to make sure that everyone had a chance to be heard.” This idea
was shared by participant A007, who stated, “I think that my leadership style supports a more
open kind of collaborative environment to create change together based on shared values.” This
idea of collaboration and receiving input from stakeholders was seen again in focus group
responses. Speaker 3 emphasized, “We have to get input. I want to know what everyone has to
say.” Millennial leaders felt their collaborative natures and styles positively affected how
comfortable their staff was in communicating their opinions and perspectives when change was
being made. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement regarding the following
statement: “When someone disagrees with a change made, they communicate their disagreement

62
directly to me” (Survey Question 13e). Results showed that 17 out of 24 respondents for this
question answered with either “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” (see Figure 4). Responses
and data collected from the research study components all supported the conclusion that
millennial educational leaders approached resistance to institutional change through
collaborative processes with stakeholders.

Figure 4
Survey Question 13e

63
Meeting People Where They Are
When reviewing the data collected to answer Research Question 3, it became apparent
that many millennial leaders in education approached resistance to change by considering where
people in the organization are and their capacities for innovation as they go about creating
change. It was evident that millennial leaders perceive themselves as thoughtful when
considering change. When asked, “I take time to think about the pros and cons of changes I
propose” (Survey Question 13d), all 24 respondents to the question selected either “somewhat
agree” or “strongly agree.” Furthermore, when asked, “In what ways, if any, has your perspective
as a millennial influenced the changes you made?” (Interview Question 6a), the same theme
appeared again, with multiple interviewees discussing the importance of change occurring
alongside input and buy-in, with staff feeling a level of responsibility toward and investment in
the changes being made. Participant A001 summarized this idea well in their response, stating,
I think something I came to understand or maybe I felt like I just did understand, is you
have to get people to feel like the ideas are partially at least generated by them. You’re
not going to get investment if they think it’s just you and you’re pushing it on them. And
you also have to figure out how to honor the process of making changes in an
organization.
This idea of involving stakeholders in change and decision-making in the name of
acknowledging their position was also supported by responses gathered during the focus group
component of the study. Three of the four focus group participants conveyed the importance of
inspiring others to become invested in change, while paying attention to the audience and
recognizing the existing capacities of those who would need to be involved or affected (see Table
3).

64
Table 3
Focus Group Responses on Capacity
Participant Response
Speaker 2 So, I think it’s also the administrator needs to be pragmatic, right? It’s like, okay,
well, this is an amazing idea, but how do we translate it in a way that really
feels doable to people and not just in this, like, everyone’s inspired and intuit
moment?
I think that being mindful of the transition process and making sure that people
are coming along with you for each step is really important, and then also the
buy-in and having people feel really invested in what’s going on is also really
important.
Speaker 3 I find that I’m just paying a lot more attention to the audience. And when rolling
out initiatives, I try to be intentional about like, is this something that everyone
on our team is like, has the time and the skill set to be able to do?
Speaker 4 So, my kind of motto with any changes is go slow to go fast. I want to make sure
we’re in on the collective whole so that when we move forward, we’re in a good
spot.

Responses to the interview question, “When proposing institutional changes in your
organization, what forms of resistance do you encounter, if any? How do you deal with this
resistance?” (Interview Question 7c), also provided evidence supporting the concept of
understanding where members of the organization are, their buy-in, and how inclusion and
compromise can mitigate some of the resistance to change that leaders may face. When asked
this question, seven out of the eight interviewees discussed how people often need more time to
process or adjust to upcoming changes and how sometimes a little bit of compromise and
consideration can lead to decreased resistance and increased clarity around the changes being
made. Participant A002 described how they approached this type of resistance by stating, “I want
to hear what you have to say. I want to listen, tell me what’s going on so we can help support and

65
find either a solution or an understanding so we can move forward.” Participant A003 built on
this notion by explaining,
You find resistance of just the inertia of people not wanting to change; I believe that you
change that one conversation at a time, and not by trying to overnight change anyone’s
mind, but to create a culture where there isn’t shame and blame, but it’s okay to ask
questions that you’re uncomfortable about.
Many interviewees identified a main source of resistance as an individual’s lack of comfort with
change, and the desire for prolonged timelines. Despite this resistance, the evidence from all
research components of the study showed that millennial leaders chose to meet those needs
directly through compromise without sacrificing the desired institutional changes.
Leveraging Relationships and Support
In addition to meeting people where they are and instilling collaborative structures to
manage resistance to institutional change, evidence also pointed toward millennial leaders
choosing to provide support and bolster relationships in response. When asked to elaborate on
their responses to the question, “When proposing institutional changes in your organization, what
forms of resistance do you encounter, if any? How do you deal with this resistance?” (Interview
Question 7c), five of the eight interviewees noted the importance of appreciating, advocating for,
and empowering others through listening and supporting. Participant A008 elaborated on how
they approached resistance, stating,
I think just being super supportive, like hearing and validating the concerns about
students and staff. … I would hope that because I’ve had these relationships and been
super present, that people would maybe rally behind or be aligned with these changes.

66
This sentiment was reiterated by participant A002 who, when asked the same question,
responded, “Being a listening ear, coming from a supportive lens and trying to be as transparent
as possible with them, letting them know that I’m on their team and how can I support them.”
Focus group responses also supported the idea of supporting others and building relationships.
Speaker 4 emphasized the importance of “thinking of the audience first” and Speaker 3 spoke
about of the importance of close relationships with their own prior administrators and how they
had tried to mirror those relationships as a leader. The evidence clearly suggested that another
means of broaching resistance to institutional change, in the perspectives of millennials, was to
provide support and build relationships to increase understanding, trust, and alignment.
Discussion: Research Question 3
Following the review and data analysis of the responses pertaining to Research Question
3, it can be concluded that millennial educational leaders approach resistance to institutional
change by considering where stakeholders are and their capabilities, while also implementing
collaborative and supportive structures that help enhance relationships among members of the
organization. Haynes (2011) emphasized the importance of collaborative opportunities in the
workplace for members of all generations to help acknowledge and bridge differences.
Millennials are known for their desire for healthy communication and collaboration, as well as
their preference for constructive feedback from all levels of an organization (Hall, 2016;
Schwarzbart & Espinoza, 2015). However, this level of collaboration and communication could
not occur without an understanding of employee values and needs, as well as the ways in which
knowledge transfer occurs within organizations (Woods, 2016). To reach those who may resist
necessary change, millennial leaders have chosen to pay attention to the differences that exist

67
among staff and recognize that members of all generations value honesty, support, and leaders
who listen (Sessa et al., 2017).
Summary
Research Question 1 focused on how millennial educational leaders differentiate
themselves from those of other generations. The findings indicate that millennial educational
leaders are more likely to abandon traditional perspectives and systems while building more
collaborative relationships. Millennial leaders are found to care more about having their core
values respected and represented, whether through work-life balance or through opportunities for
growth and vulnerability. This finding is consistent with existing research literature. Research
Questions 2 and 3 are related, with both discussing institutional change brought about by
millennial leaders. Research Question 2 asked about the types of generationally-informed
changes that have been introduced by millennial leaders. The findings conclude that millennial
leaders tend to shift organizations toward being more staff-centered and person-first while also
incorporating or enhancing technology integration. Much of the existing literature on millennial
change-making mentioned the social and decentralized nature of millennial leadership, as well as
their affinity for technology and simplifying processes. Research Question 3 connected to
Research Question 2 by asking how millennial educational leaders deal with resistance to
institutional change by stakeholders in their organizations. The study’s findings confirm that
millennial leaders navigate resistance by acknowledging individuals’ mindset and capacity,
collaborating, and building supportive relationships with others within the organization.

68
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Findings
The concept of generations has existed since the time of the ancient Greeks, although
sociological analysis of the concept has existed since the 1950s when Karl Manheim dove into
the idea of grouping people based on their age, experiences, and shared histories (Knight, 2009;
Manheim, 1952). Since then, generational grouping has become the norm in society and has led
to researchers and scholars exploring the ideas of common traits or characteristics based on one’s
generation (Pilcher, 1994; Robertson et al., 2012). Today, the millennial generation, defined by
most sociologists as being those born between 1981–1996, makes up the largest percentage of
people currently in the U.S. workforce (DeSilver, 2016; Dimock, 2019). They are also the most
educated generation, while possibly the least understood by organizations and employers (Grad,
2017; Knight, 2009). Generations are defined by archetypes that often translate into stereotypes,
both positive and negative, but it is time for organizations to begin addressing nuances and
intersectionality within generations to respect the individuality and commonalities of workers
(Jauregui et al., 2020; Parry & Urwin, 2011). As the existing workforce continues to change in
favor of millennials, it is imperative that organizations begin to acknowledge intergenerational
differences, communication methods, and workplace expectations to best meet the needs of
incoming and up and coming millennial leaders (Buskirk-Cohen et al., 2016; Schwarzbart &
Espinoza, 2015).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of millennial educational
leaders working in Southern California public schools and the impact they have on the
organizations they serve as leaders. In this study, I investigated the ways in which millennial
educational leaders differentiate themselves from leaders of other generations, the types of

69
changes that millennial leaders introduce, and how they approach and address resistance to
institutional changes that they make within the organization. The purpose of this study and the
research questions represented the conceptual framework utilized (see Figure 5).
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this research study:
1. How do millennial educational leaders differentiate themselves from leaders of other
generations?
2. What generationally-informed changes have millennial education leaders introduced?
3. How do millennial educational leaders approach resistance to institutional change?
Methodology
This study was conducted using a qualitative approach. Data was collected from 30
millennial educational leaders working in Southern California urban public schools during the
2022–2023 school year. The study consisted of a 10-question qualitative interview completed by
eight participants, a focus group consisting of four prompting questions that was completed by
four participants, and a 14-question mixed-methods survey distributed to all 30 participants. All
data collected was interpreted through triangulation, with multiple sources supporting each
finding presented.
Results and Findings
All findings presented in this study are based on data collected and analyzed upon
completion of the three research components: the interviews, focus group, and surveys. This
section will present the interpretation of this data in connection to relevant research and existing
research literature.

70
Research Question 1: How Do Millennial Educational Leaders Differentiate Themselves
From Leaders of Other Generations?
The Value of Values and Boundaries
When considering the question of how millennial educational leaders differentiate
themselves from leaders of other generations, three main themes emerged, beginning with how
millennials place a higher value on factors like alignment to core values and setting boundaries.
This theme is supported by research, because millennials are often described as being values-
oriented and seeking workplaces that provide work-life balance and flexibility (Barbosa, 2021;
Galdames & Guihen, 2022; Roberts, 2019; Pasko et al., 2021). These preferences are commonly
associated with personal versus professional boundaries. Research also shows that millennials
value opportunities for growth, communication, fair compensation, and organizations that
promote constructive feedback and consistent learning opportunities (Hall, 2016).
Resisting and Abandoning Traditional Perspectives
The next theme that emerged for Research Question 1 is that millennial educational
leaders differentiate themselves from leaders of other generations by resisting and abandoning
traditional perspectives in education. Research conducted by Schwarzbart and Espinoza (2015)
supports this theme, predicting millennials to lead with low-power orientation that is transparent,
inclusive, and based on feedback. This style stands in contrast to traditional leadership styles
often adopted by previous generations. Zachara (2020) also noted that millennials often reject
established rules and norms, demonstrating a higher level of resistance toward the traditional and
a desire to make systemic change. Millennials are found to be effective at shifting norms while
adapting to various environments, supporting their change efforts (Crozier, 2018). Millennial
leaders are commonly known for being socially conscious, engaging, and communicative, but

71
research also indicates that they value skills and capabilities over years of service, which is
contradictory to traditional educational hierarchical structures (Lambert et al., 2016).
A Focus on Collaboration and Reciprocal Feedback
The last theme that emerged for Research Question 1 is that millennial educational
leaders vary from leaders of other generations due to their strong desire for collaboration and
constructive feedback from a variety of stakeholders. Research shows that whereas the average
female in leadership sees herself as collaborative and inclusive regardless of generational
association, millennials of all genders are described as desiring and seeking more feedback than
leaders of other generations (Baker-Rosa & Hastings, 2018; Taylor & Stein, 2014). Millennials
not only desire healthy and open communication according to research, but also are more
accepting of both positive and negative feedback (Hall, 2016; Roberts, 2019). Research also
indicated that millennial leaders emphasized the importance of building strong personal
relationships that are often based on collaboration (Gabriel et al., 2020).
Research Question 2: What Generationally-Informed Changes Have Millennial Education
Leaders Introduced?
Valuing and Respecting Staff and Their Needs
When reviewing the data collected for Research Question 2, two main themes emerged.
The first theme related to generationally-informed changes introduced by millennials was that of
placing a higher value on staff appreciation and recognition while also considering staff needs on
a personal and professional level. Research shows that millennials themselves value an
environment that is supportive of a variety of qualities, including professional growth,
reorganization, and personal values (Harris, 2008; Roberts, 2019; Weber, 2017). Millennials are
changing the way leadership is viewed, moving toward a more communal work environment

72
where leaders care about and interact with members of all levels of the organization (Sadler et
al., 2020). Harris (2008) noted that millennial leaders base success in leadership on the quality of
interactions instead of simply aligning themselves to a hierarchy, which explains their desire for
smaller, more interconnected groups and distributed leadership.
The Incorporation and Expansion of Technology
The second theme that emerged when analyzing data related to generationally-informed
changes that millennial educational leaders introduced was that of technology integration.
Millennials in all contexts are described as being technologically savvy and strong visual
learners (Graham et al., 2015; Urick, 2020). A literature review conducted by Galdames and
Guihen (2022) found that one of the top classifications for millennials was that they were
technologically proficient. When conducting research on millennial superintendents, Crozier
(2018) found that millennial superintendents positively influenced technology use and
integration in the districts they served.
Research additionally discussed millennials’ increased access to information because of
their technological proficiency (Suyanto et al., 2019; Zachara, 2020). Suyanto et al. (2019) found
that millennials are usually active workers who constantly access information and technology to
inform their work in leadership. Research from Zachara (2020) noted that the increased access to
information has led to millennials having an increased awareness of global challenges and
systems. It can be concluded that that this increased awareness has led to a deeper understanding
and commitment to social and economic justice among millennials.

73
Research Question 3: How Do Millennial Educational Leaders Approach Resistance to
Institutional Change?
Analysis of the triangulated data collected in response to Research Question 3 resulted in
the identification of three main themes. The first theme indicates that millennial educational
leaders approach resistance to institutional change through collaborative practices and increased
communication. Prior research shows that all work environments must provide a space for
collaboration for members of all generations (Haynes, 2011). Haynes (2011) noted that
workplace expectations can vary for each generational cohort, but Beiter (2021) emphasized that
collaborative practices such as modern mentorship can bridge gaps in understanding between
members of different generations, including leaders. Research has found that millennials are both
highly social, but also favor healthy and open communication that allows for staff and
stakeholders to speak honestly about concerns or needs they may have, even when change is
being implemented (Hall, 2016; Schwarzbart & Espinoza, 2015).
Meeting People Where They Are
The next theme that was evident during data analysis was that millennial leaders in
education often approach and address resistance to change within their organizations by meeting
people where they are and acknowledging the nuances of change processes. Prior research on
multigenerational workforces finds that in order to be successful, leaders need to understand the
myriad differences in employee values and perspectives. To move forward with change, leaders
must acknowledge the necessity of knowledge transfer and understand the time and effort that
goes into such a transfer. Additionally, when it comes to changes in organizational structure,
there is a need for transparency and updates throughout the process to gauge where people are
and help move them in the right direction as change is being made (Woods, 2016). Millennial

74
leaders not only are socially aware, but also can have a strong influence on a variety of existing
structures to create change even in the face of resistance (Zachara, 2020).
Leveraging Relationships and Support
The final theme for Research Question 3 was that millennial educational leaders often
turn to strong relationships and mutual support to navigate resistance when implementing
organizational change. Past research has shown that members of all generations value leaders
who demonstrate honesty, increased understanding of organizational activities, and good
listening skills (Sessa et al., 2007). Additional traits sought by intergenerational cohorts include
passion, integrity, and authenticity (Meston, 2020). Members of the workforce across generations
want to work for and with someone who is supporting others and helping them to achieve within
the organization (Sessa et al., 2007). Research has shown that one’s perception of a workplace is
greatly affected and influenced by the type of leader at the helm and the leadership styles they
choose, meaning that the building of relationships can drastically change how someone views an
organization and the decisions it makes (Meston, 2020). Communication, collaboration, and
mentorship can lead to enhanced relationships and proactive support for millennials in leadership
and members of other generations who work alongside them (Beiter, 2021).
Implications for Practice
This study contributes to research pertaining to traits and characteristics of millennial
leaders in the field of education, as well as what qualities are valued by millennial leaders and
inform the changes they choose to introduce. Additionally, this study contributes to research
regarding multigenerational workplaces and how millennial leaders deal with resistance in an
organization. Study findings yielded themes that may inform educators, educational leadership
teams, and educational organizations moving forward. These findings provide implications for

75
leadership preferences and values, as well s how the millennial generation navigates educational
leadership roles in multigenerational settings.
The first implication for practice by school district leaders, school boards, and hiring
managers indicates that in order to recruit and retain strong administrators belonging to the
millennial generation, educational organizations must emphasize the value of collaborative
structures and flexible systemic models. Considering that millennials currently make up most of
the active workforce and that the United States continues to lose around half of all educational
administrators within 3 years of hiring, it is logical to see the need for shifts that better meet the
preferences of those who are rising to the occasion and make up much of the hiring pool
(DeSilver, 2019; NAASP, 2017). The findings of this study showed that millennial educational
leaders are looking for workplaces that value not only their time, but also their voices. Whether
providing opportunities for teamwork, feedback, and mentorship cycles, or even creating open
leadership structures with less hierarchical constraints, millennials are positively affecting and
adding value to educational organizations.
The second implication for practice by school district leaders, as well as site leaders of all
generations, emphasizes the need for increased technological proficiency and the opportunity for
millennials to take on leadership roles related to technology. Times are changing, and society
along with it. As we continue to shift toward greater technological advancement, it is important
that millennials are not the only generation in the workplace that is well versed in the application
of such programs; they must also be given the opportunity to utilize their strengths. Findings
from this study indicated that millennial educational leaders felt a level of frustration with being
some of the only knowledgeable individuals in their organization when it came to technology
utilization. Some even went as far as to say they felt tokenized or placed on a pedestal because of

76
their knowledge of technology. For organizations to advance and grow, leaders of all generations
should be given the tools to be successful and knowledgeable in critical areas such as educational
technology. Knowledgeable millennials should be allowed to take the reins and help lead the
organization into a reframing of technology utilization. This is a natural evolution that could
positively affect intergenerational collaboration and relations within the workplace.
The third implication for practice by school district leaders as well as school staff uplifts
the importance of acknowledging the less prescriptive and formulaic forms of leadership
presented by millennial educational leaders. One of the most common themes related to
millennial leaders constantly being aware of the need to meet stakeholders where they are, while
also acknowledging the need for buy-in. The data indicated that millennial leaders are less likely
to subscribe to leadership styles that revolve around giving directives and orders without
collaborative conversations and buy-in from staff. Millennial leaders aim for teachers, staff, and
stakeholders to think critically about changes made and to understand the “why” behind
decisions being made by leadership teams instead of simply following orders. The study findings
also indicated that individuals working in education under the leadership of a millennial may
come to experience greater levels of transparency, greater tolerance for risk-taking, and even new
challenges as they attempt to move employees toward greater involvement and away from
learned helplessness.
Recommendations for Future Research
The review of literature conducted for this study noted a need for additional research on
the millennial population in a variety of contexts, including education, because the subject
continues to be underrepresented. Additionally, the literature review pointed to a lack of research
regarding millennials in leadership roles instead of in student or learner roles. Although this

77
study contributed to the research on millennials in educational leadership, further research is
needed to better understand the role of millennials as leaders. Three recommendations for future
research are provided subsequently.
The first recommendation for future research is to further investigate how millennial
leaders differentiate themselves and navigate change and resistance in other sectors and types of
organizations. Using multiple instruments, this study addressed millennial leaders specifically in
education, but millennials are also in leadership roles in a variety of other career paths such as
medicine, business, and technology. Study findings showed that millennial leaders in education
differentiate themselves through collaboration, adhering to strong values, and abandoning
traditional perspectives, but those opinions and views are given through the lens of working in
educational systems. It would be beneficial to generational research to further investigate the
traits, characteristics, preferences, and approaches of millennial leaders in other fields.
The second recommendation for continued research is to dive deeper into the
intersectionality and subgroups that exist within the overarching group of millennial educational
leaders. It is important to note that the goal of this study was not to make generalizations about
all millennial leaders, but these findings could be strengthened by narrowing the specificity of
candidates based on other demographic factors and types of intersectionality. The data collected
for this study was based on age, position, and geography. It did not consider other personal
information such as gender, sexuality, race, or disability. Recreating a study like this one while
considering additional variables or combinations of variables could strengthen the findings
pertaining to the generation. For example, collecting survey data from black, indigenous, and
people of color who are also female-identifying millennial educational leaders could help
determine if additional factors influence leadership traits and actions, in addition to generational

78
cohort. Exploring subgroups in the context of this research will help ensure more equitable and
diverse participation among demographic groups and help organizations to consider the diverse
needs of millennial individuals when hiring for leadership positions.
The last recommendation is to conduct this research on a larger and broader scale by
investigating the experiences and leadership characteristics of millennial educational leaders in
other countries. This study involved a triangulation of data, with the use of surveys, a focus
group, and interviews to help ensure accuracy. However, due to limitations, this study only
involved a total of 30 participants serving in Southern California public schools, with only eight
completing interviews and four participating in the focus group. Expanding the participant pool
outside of Southern California, or even the United States, and recruiting a higher number of
eligible participants could further support the findings indicated here. In doing so, the amount of
data gathered, analyzed, and coded would be significantly larger. By enlarging the participant
pool for this study, more school districts on a global scale would be able to utilize this data to
understand, serve, and better prepare for working with millennial employees. Millennials bring
with them innovation and an ability to improve work environments and enhance the mindsets of
those around them, and an analysis of this study in various cultural contexts would only enhance
the research findings.
Conclusions
This study has shown that millennial educational leaders, a vast and expanding
population, differentiate themselves from other leaders in positive ways and continue to use their
experiences to guide their leadership and inform change. Although all of the leaders who
participated in this study are individuals and represent a lifetime of specific experiences, this
study emphasized that millennial leaders could have a positive impact on organizational practices

79
while shifting the ways in which leadership and education are approached (Crozier, 2018;
Gerard, 2019; Schwarzbart & Espinoza, 2015). Study findings suggest that millennial
educational leaders vary from those of other generations due to their desire for a greater level of
collaboration, the focus on alignment of personal and professional values, technological acuity,
and a dedication to exploring a variety of leadership structures. Additionally, this study
emphasizes that millennial educational leaders have a tremendous value add to organizations in
that they are more attuned to the needs of their staff, focused on building relationships, and
motivated to support all members of the organizations they serve.
Although millennial stereotypes are real and persistent, it is important to note the positive
contributions that millennials are making to the field of education as they continue to fill
leadership roles. Millennial leaders face new challenges, such as technology integration and the
nuances of social media, as well as age-old ones such as navigating a multigenerational
workplace. To meet the ever-increasing demand for qualified educational leaders, organizations
must continue to respect and seek to understand the largest demographic in the workforce.
Millennials must persevere and continue to navigate resistance and hurdles to make necessary
systemic changes in one of the most important and impactful sectors of this country: education.

80
References
ADP. (2020, July 9). Talent management – What is it and why is it important?
https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/w/what-is-talent-
management.aspx
Baker Rosa, N.M., & Hastings, S. O. (2018). Managing millennials: Looking beyond
generational stereotypes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(4), 920–
930. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2015-0193
Barbosa, A. (2021). Strategies for motivating and retaining millennial workers [Doctoral
dissertation, Walden University]. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection
at ScholarWorks.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11838&context=dissertatio
ns
Beiter, B. (2021). The implications of modern mentorship in building self-efficacy and
succession potential for millennial school leaders (UMI No. 28322392) [Doctoral
dissertation, Robert Morris University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
Buskirk-Cohen, A., Duncan, T. A., & Levicoff, M. (2016). Using generational theory to rethink
teaching in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(1), 25–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1110787
Carr-Edosomwan, C. (2018). The lived experience of millennials in leading a generationally-
diverse workplace: A phenomenological study (UMI No. 10826872) [Doctoral
dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology]. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses.

81
Carver-Thomas, D., Burns, D., Leung, M., & Ondrasek, N. (2022). Teacher shortages during the
pandemic: How California districts are responding. Learning Policy Institute.
https://doi.org/10.54300/899.809
Center for Public Education. (2016). Educational Equity: What does it mean? How do we know
when we reach it? https://www.nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/cpe-educational-equity-
research-brief-january
2016.pdf?la=en&hash=A0F139B97D13C589CE00F186E594BEF1C3396F93
Corgnet, B., Gonzalez, R. H., & Mateo, R. (2015). Cognitive reflection and the diligent worker:
An experimental study of millennials. PloS One, 10(11), Article e0141243.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141243
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage.
Crozier, A. J. (2018). Millennial superintendents: A phenomenological study of the next
generation of K-12 public education leadership (UMI No. 10791180) [Doctoral
dissertation, Western Illinois University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
Davis, & Bowers, A. J. (2019). Examining the career pathways of educators with superintendent
certification. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(1), 3–41.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18785872
DeSilver, D. (2016). 10 facts about American workers. Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/01/8-facts-aboutamerican-workers/
Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where millennials end and Generation Z
begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-
millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

82
DiPietro, M. (2012). 11: millennial students: Insights from generational theory and learning
science. To Improve the Academy, 31(1), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-
4822.2012.tb00680.x
Edge, K. (2014). A review of the empirical generations at work research: Implications for school
leaders and future research. School Leadership & Management, 34(2), 136–155.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.869206
EdSource. (2022). Local education agency (LEA). https://edsource.org/glossary/local-education-
agency-lea
Einolf, C. (2016). Millennials and public service motivation: Findings from a survey of master’s
degree students. Public Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 429–457.
Fiddler, S. C. (2018). Eventual leadership for millennial women. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing.
Finneran, C. A. (2016). Building the leadership capacity of women in K–12 education:
Successful strategies that create the next generation of women school and district leaders
(UMI No. 10235549) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California].
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
Freeman, M. (2019). Time use of millennials and nonmillennials. U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/time-use-of-millennials-and-
nonmillennials.htm
Fry, R. (2020, April 28). Millennials overtake baby boomers as America’s largest generation.
Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/28/millennials-
overtake-baby-boomers-as-americas-largest-generation/

83
Gabriel, A. G., Alcantara, G. M., & Alvarez, J. D. G. (2020). How do millennial managers lead
older employees? The Philippine workplace experience. SAGE Open, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020914651
Galdames, S., & Guihen, L. (2022). Millennials and leadership: A systematic literature review.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 33(1-2), 146–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1812380
Gerard, N. (2019). Millennial managers: Exploring the next generation of talent. Leadership in
Health Services, 32(3), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-01-2018-0004
The Glossary of Education Reform. (2013, August 29). English-language learner definition.
https://www.edglossary.org/english-language-learner/
Gong, B., Greenwood, R. A., Hoyte, D., Ramkissoon, A., & He, X. (2018). Millennials and
organizational citizenship behavior. Management Research Review, 41(7), 774–788.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2016-0121
Graf, N. (2017). Today’s young workers are more likely than ever to have a bachelor’s degree.
Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2017/05/16/todays-young-
workers-are-more-likely-than-ever-to-have-abachelors-degree/#
Graham, C. M., Daniel, H., & Doore, B. (2015). Millennial leadership: The oppositional
relationship between leadership type and the quality of database system’s development in
virtual environments. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(3), 29–48.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015070103
Green, A. (2017). The crisis for young people: Generational inequalities in education, work,
housing and welfare. Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58547-5

84
Hall, A. (2016). Exploring the workplace communication preferences of millennials. Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 20(1), 35–44.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow’s leaders. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203607909
Haynes, B. P. (2011). The impact of generational differences on the workplace. Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, 13(2), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630011111136812
Hong, J. (2022). Short-term fixes won’t really solve California’s teacher shortage. CalMatters.
https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2022/03/california-teacher-shortage/
ILO Group. (2022), New ILO group analysis shows inequities persist in hiring and pay equity for
women superintendents. PR Newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-
ilo-group-analysis-shows-inequities-persist-in-hiring-and-pay-equity-for-women-
superintendents-301530129.html
Jauregui, J., Watsjold, B., Welsh, L., Ilgen, J. S., & Robins, L. (2020). Generational “othering”:
The myth of the millennial learner. Medical Education, 54(1), 60–65.
https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13795
Johnson, R.M. (2014). Follow me! Followership, leadership and the multigenerational
workforce [Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University]. NSUWorks, H. Wayne
Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship.
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hsbe_etd/3.
Knight, Y. (2009). Talkin’ ‘bout my generation: A brief introduction to generational theory.
Planet, 21(1), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.11120/plan.2009.00210013

85
Lambert, P., Marks, W., Elliott, V., & Johnston-Anderson, N. (2016). Generational change in
Australian school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(2), 114–134.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2014-0069
Law Insider. (n.d.). District board of education definition.
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/district-board-of-education
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lucas, S. (2021). Employee attrition: All you need to know. AIHR.
https://www.aihr.com/blog/employee-attrition/
Mannheim, K. (1923). Beiträ ge zur theorie der weltanschauungs interpretation. Hö lzel.
Mannheim, K. (1952). Essays on the sociology of knowledge, by Karl Mannheim. Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
McLeod, S. (2017). Stereotypes. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/katz-
braly.html
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). General education. In Merriam-Webster dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/general%20education
Meston, M. W. (2020). A generational study: Professional millennial women who aspire to
become senior leaders (UMI No. 28093787) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University].
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

86
Murphy, W. M. (2012). Reverse mentoring at work: Fostering cross-generational learning and
developing millennial leaders. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 549–573.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21489
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2017). Position statement: Principal
shortage. https://www.nassp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Principal_Shortage.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). National teacher and principal survey.
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/ntps1718_2019082202_a12n.asp
National University. (2021, October 12). The California teacher shortage and COVID-19.
https://www.nu.edu/resources/the-california-teacher-shortage-and-covid19/
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and
evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010. 00285.x
Pasko, R., Maellaro, R., & Stodnick, M. (2021). A study of millennials’ preferred work-related
attributes and retention. Employee Relations, 43(3), 774–787. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-
05-2020-0224
Pew Research Center. (2008). Baby Boomers: The gloomiest generation. Pew Research Center’s
Social & Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-
trends/2008/06/25/baby-boomers-the-gloomiest-generation/
Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim’s sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. The British
Journal of Sociology, 45(3), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/591659
Powell, J., & Menendian, S. (2016). The problem of othering: Towards inclusiveness and
belonging. Othering and Belonging: Expanding the Circle of Human Concern, 2, 14–39.
http://www.otheringandbelonging.org/the-problem-of-othering/

87
Roberts, E. (2019). Millennial vs non-millennial teachers: Understanding the ongoing battle
occurring in classrooms around the world. Journal of Business Diversity, 19(3), 89–97.
https://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v19i3.2216
Robertson, C. J., Ralston, D. A., & Crittenden, W. F. (2012). The relationship between cultural
values and moral philosophy: A generational subculture theory approach. AMS Review,
2(2-4), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-012-0029-2
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.)
Sage.
Ryder, N. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological
Review, 30(6), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.2307/2090964
Sadler, A., Grabianowski, J., & Ashley, G. (2020). Through the lens of a millennial: Opening the
aperture of millennials’ views of leaders. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 20(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.14182
Salvador, G. V. (2020). Different yet similar: Multi-generational professionals and their
sentimentality towards reciprocity. Journal of Business Diversity, 20(1), 66–79.
https://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v20i1.2708
Schares, D. K. (2017). Becoming a culturally competent educational leader. In C. Curran, & A.
Petersen (Eds.), Handbook of research on classroom diversity and inclusive education
practice (54–76). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2520-2.ch003
Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories. American Sociological
Review, 54(3), 359–381. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2090964
Schwarzbart, & Espinoza, C. (2015). Millennials who manage: How to overcome workplace
perceptions and become a great leader. Pearson.

88
Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differences in leader
values and leadership behaviors. The Psychologist Manager Journal, 10(1), 47–74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10887150709336612
Society for Human Resource Management. (2019). Managing for employee retention.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-
samples/toolkits/pages/managingforemployeeretention.aspx
Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test-performance of
African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Stefanco, C. J. (2017). Beyond boundaries: millennial women and the opportunities for global
leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(4), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21505
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.). Norton.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). The history of America’s future: 1584 to 2069. William
Morrow & Company, Inc.
Suyanto, U. Y., Mu’ah, M., Purwanti, I., & Sayyid, M. (2019). Transformational leadership:
millennial leadership style in industry 4.0. Manajemen Bisnis, 9(1)
https://doi.org/10.22219/jmb.v9i1.9437
Taylor, C. M., & Stein, L. (2014). Stories of generational leadership: Women higher education
administrators voices. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 34, 1–10.
Torpey, E. (2020). Millennials in the labor force, projected 2019‒29. U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2020/data-on-display/millennials-in-labor-
force.htm

89
Urick, M. (2020). Generational differences and COVID-19: Positive interactions in virtual
workplaces. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 18(4), 379–398.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2020.1818662
Van Rossem, A. H. D. (2019). Generations as social categories: An exploratory cognitive study
of generational identity and generational stereotypes in a multigenerational workforce.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(4), 434–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2341
Weber, J. (2017). Discovering the millennials’ personal values orientation: A comparison to two
managerial populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(3), 517–529.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2803-1
Woods, K. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity and the multi-generational workforce. Journal
of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 20(1), 95–111.
Zachara, M. (2020). The millennial generation in the context of political power: A leadership
gap? Leadership, 16(2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715019885704

90
Figures
Figure 5
Conceptual Framework Map

91
Appendix A: Focus Group Protocol
Provide a welcome message to all participants present.
Group Guidelines
1. There are no right or wrong answers, only differing opinions, or perspectives.
2. One person should speak at a time.
3. We are on a first name basis and no additional identifying information must be shared
during this focus group interview.
4. Respectfully agree or disagree with others.
5. Please keep cell phones and any other electronic devices on silent or turned off. If you
must take a call, please quietly step out and return as soon as possible.
6. My role as moderator is to guide the discussion, so you should be speaking to one
another.
Focus Group Questions
I would like to start by asking about your generationally based experiences.
1. What is it like being a millennial educational leader? Additional probes (as needed):
• age factors
• work organization
• intergenerational interactions
2. How do you navigate millennial stereotypes? Additional probes (as needed):
• everyday life
• workplace
3. How do your experiences inform the changes you make within an organization?
4. How do you approach resistance to your leadership or changes you propose?

92
Closing Comments
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspectives with me today in this collaborative
focus group setting. I appreciate your time and willingness to participate in this research study.
Everything you have said and all the information you have provided will greatly benefit my
study. If I have any follow up questions, may I contact you? What is your preferred method of
contact? Again, thank you for your participation!

93
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Welcome participants and thank them again for their time and participation.
Setting the Stage
I would like to start by asking you some questions about your personal and professional
background.
1. First, tell me about your background in education.
• What led you to pursue a career in education?
• How long have you worked in the field of education?
• What roles or positions have you held since working in education?
• How long have you been employed by your current organization?
2. What grade levels do you work with currently?
Heart of the Interview
I would like to start by asking you some questions about your experiences in the
workplace as a millennial in leadership.
3. What are some of the most important things you look for in a leadership role?
• Name one situation or factor, if any, that would be a deal breaker for you in a
place of employment.
• If you have ever left a leadership position, what was the main reason for your
leaving?
4. In what ways, if any, are you different from other individuals in positions of
leadership within your current organization? In what ways, if any, does age affect
your leadership style? In what ways?
• What about your leadership choices?

94
• In what ways, if any, has your age affected your career?
5. What are some of the ways that you interact with your staff, as a leader, if any, that
other leaders do not?
• What do you attribute this to?
• Why do you choose to do these things for your staff?
• Have you noticed a generational difference between what you do for your
staff as compared to leaders of another generation? If so, in what ways?
• In what ways, if any, do you stand out from other leaders you have worked
with?
I would like to continue by asking you a few questions about organizational change.
6. What changes have you made, if any, in your organization since joining the leadership
team?
• In what ways, if any, has your perspective as a millennial influenced the
changes you made?
• How, if at all, has your perspective as a millennial impacted your ability to
make changes?
7. When proposing institutional changes in your organization, what forms of resistance
do you encounter, if any?
• What forms of resistance, if any, do you encounter from the community?
• What forms of resistance, if any, do you encounter from other leaders within
your organization?
• How do you deal with this resistance?

95
• Do you navigate resistance differently than other leaders in your organization?
If so, how?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about general practices at your school of
employment.
8. Tell me about the support you receive as a leader or administrator.
• Who provides you with support and what type of support?
• How frequently do you receive support?
• Would you like to receive more support, and if so, to what outcome?
In this last section, I would like to ask you about your personal leadership style.
9. How would you describe your leadership style? What experiences have led you to
take on this particular leadership style?
10. How does your leadership style influence your approach to leading institutional
change?
Closing Question
What other insights would you like to share regarding your experience as a leader from
the millennial generation?
Closing Comments
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspectives with me today. I appreciate your
time and willingness to participate in this research study. Everything you have said and all the
information you have provided will greatly benefit my study. If I have any follow up questions,
may I contact you? What is your preferred method of contact? Again, thank you for your
participation!

96
Appendix C: Survey Items
What is your age as of today?
• under 25
• 25–30
• 31–35
• 36–40
• over 40
How many years have you worked in any type of leadership position (at any
organization)?
• less than 1 year
• 1–2 years
• 3–4 years
• 5–9 years
• 10 or more years
Which of the following work preferences do you seek in a place of employment? Select
up to three options that resonate with you.
• flexible schedules
• high compensation
• health/fringe benefits
• open communication
• consistent feedback
• mentorship
• job security

97
• advancement opportunities
• healthy work-life balance
• other: _________________
Do you feel that millennials are represented in positions of leadership in the field of
education? (yes, sometimes, no, or unknown for the following)
• locally (city or county)
• statewide
• nationally
Do you feel that your personal priorities are the same as others belonging to different
generations (that is, Gen X, Boomers, Gen Z) within your current organization? (yes, sometimes,
no, or unknown for the following)
• Generation Z (born 1997–2012)
• Generation X (born 1965–1980)
• Baby boomers (born 1955–1964)
Do you feel that your leadership style is the same as others belonging to different
generations (that is, Gen X, baby boomers, Gen Z) within your current organization? (yes,
sometimes, no, or unknown for the following)
• Generation Z (born 1997–2012)
• Generation X (born 1965–1980)
• Baby boomers (born 1955–1964)
The following questions are about your experiences as millennial educational leaders.
Please select the option (strongly disagree to strongly agree, or neither) on the scale that most
accurately represents your position regarding each statement provided.

98
• I feel I am able to make a positive impact in my organization.
• I often face resistance from others when I attempt to make organizational changes.
• I see differences in leadership styles between millennial administrators and other
administrators (Gen X and boomers).
• I have encountered positive stereotypes about millennials during my time in
leadership.
• I have encountered negative stereotypes about millennials during my time in
leadership.
• I try to stand out in comparison with other leaders in the organization.
On a scale of 1–5 (1 = not respected and 5 = extremely respected) rate how respected you
feel overall as a leader within your current organization.
Provide one example, if any, of a generationally-informed change that you made as a
leader within your current organization. (Generationally-informed refers to the different subsets
of knowledge, traits, habits, and preferences that exist for one generation that may not be
stereotypically common in other generations.)
How many initiatives or organizational changes, if any, have you tried to introduce in the
last school year?
• none
• 1–2
• 3–4
• 5–9
• 10 or more

99
The following questions are about your experiences with implementing organizational
change. Please select the option (strongly disagree to strongly agree, or neither) on the scale that
most accurately represents your opinion regarding each statement provided.
• When I attempt to make changes in my organization, as a leader, I face resistance.
• My supervisor(s) are supportive of changes I make.
• The staff I supervise are supportive of changes I make.
• I take time to think about the pros and cons of the changes I propose.
• When someone disagrees with a change made, they communicate their disagreement
directly to me.
• I am confident when proposing changes.
• I propose changes that are strategically aligned to my organization’s goals.
Which option below best describes your personal leadership style?
• authoritarian leadership
• participative leadership
• delegative leadership
• transactional leadership
• transformational leadership
• unknown/unsure
What race do you consider yourself? Select all that apply.
• Black/African American
• White/Caucasian
• Asian/South Asian
• Pacific Islander

100
• Native American/ Indigenous
• Hispanic/Latinx
• 2 or more races
• prefer not to answer

101
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter
May 2022
Dear Survey Participant,

Thank you so much for the time you agreed to spend to answer some of my questions.
The survey should take no more than 20 minutes.
Before you get started, I want to provide an overview of my study to answer questions
that you might have about your participation in this survey. I am a doctoral student at University
of Southern California (USC) and am studying how millennial educational leaders navigate
organizations, leadership, and institutional changes.
I want to assure you that this survey will be kept strictly confidential and no identifying
information will be used with your responses. Your information and/or responses will not be
shared with your district, principal, supervisors, or other staff in your organization. All survey
data will be anonymous. The data I collect from the surveys and interviews conducted will be
used to help answer my research questions. Additionally, I want you to know that I will be
strictly in the position of researcher during this process, meaning I will not be judging any of the
responses received.
I will keep the data in a password protected computer and all data will be destroyed after
three years. Remember, this survey is totally voluntary, and you may opt out at any time. There
are no known risks for your participation in this survey. Please be honest and candid in your
responses.
If you have any questions about the study, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at
sfpayne@usc.edu.

102
Again, thank you so much for your valuable time and your contribution to this
educational research study.

Sincerely,
Sarah F. Payne

103
Appendix E: Interview/Focus Group Introduction Statement
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today and for your participation in my
research study. As mentioned previously, the (interview/focus group) should take approximately
(45 minutes/ one hour). Does this timeframe still work for you?
Before we begin today, I would like to remind you of the focus and components of this
research study, which was provided to you in writing via the Study Information Sheet. I’m open
to answering any questions you may have regarding the study or your participation in this
interview. I am a doctoral student at USC in the Rossier School of Education, and I am
conducting a study on how millennial educational leaders navigate organizations, leadership, and
institutional changes. I am speaking with multiple educational leaders and administrators in
Southern California urban public schools to learn more about this topic and obtain multiple
perspectives.
I want to provide assurance that I am conducting this interview/focus group strictly as a
researcher and none of your reactions or responses will be evaluative or impact your position or
career. I will not be making judgements or providing any form of advice. My only intention is to
understand your perspectives and experiences.
As stated in the Study Information Sheet provided to you prior to this meeting, this
interview is confidential. Your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team,
including other teachers, administrators, or the district. The data will be collected and reported,
and while some direct quotes will be used, your identity will not be shared, and pseudonyms will
be utilized to protect your identity and confidentiality. I am happy to provide you with a copy of
the final research paper if you so desire. Additionally, data collected will be kept in a password
protected computer and will be destroyed and deleted after 3 years have passed.

104
Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? I have brought a
recorder with me today so that I can accurately document what you share with me. The recording
is only for the purpose of the study and will not be shared with anyone outside of the research
team. Do I have your permission to record our conversation today?

105
Appendix F: Survey Information Sheet
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people
who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. Please
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
Purpose of the Study
The study will investigate how millennial educational leaders navigate organizations,
leadership, and institutional changes. It will examine millennial leadership practices, styles,
obstacles, and choices. Additionally, it will investigate generational differences and/or
similarities among educational leaders. The knowledge gained will be used to take a larger look
at existing research findings regarding millennial educational leaders and to provide insight
regarding the perspectives of millennials as they enter and/or remain in positions of leadership in
public school systems. The study is being conducted because millennials are the largest
population currently in the workforce and there is an increasing need for leaders and
administrators in the field of education.
Participant Involvement
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to take an online survey that will
take about 20 minutes to complete. You will not be required to answer any questions that you do
not want to. After taking the survey, you may volunteer to participate in a focus group that will
last no longer than one hour. The focus group will be recorded and transcribed, and you do not
need to respond to any questions that you do not want to. If you do not want to be recorded, you
may not participate in this additional segment of the study but can still complete the survey.

106
Alternatives to Participation
Your alternative is to not participate in the study. Your status and relationship with the
researcher will not be affected in any way if you choose or do not choose to participate in the
study.
Confidentiality
There will be no information collected in this study that will identify you as a participant.
The online survey will be anonymous and remain confidential.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
Investigator Contact Information
Principal Investigator: Sarah Payne can be reached via email at sfpayne@usc.edu or
phone at (559) 280-7747 or through their Faculty Advisor Dr. Christina Kishimoto.
IRB Contact Information
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

107
Appendix G: Interview Information Sheet

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people
who voluntarily choose to participate. This document explains information about this study.
Please ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
Purpose of the Study
The study will investigate how millennial educational leaders navigate organizations,
leadership, and institutional changes. It will examine millennial leadership practices, styles,
obstacles, and choices. Additionally, it will investigate generational differences and/or
similarities among educational leaders. The knowledge gained will be used to take a larger look
at existing research findings regarding millennial educational leaders and to provide insight
regarding the perspectives of millennials as they enter and/or remain in positions of leadership in
Southern California public school systems. The study is being conducted because millennials are
the largest population currently in the workforce and there is an increasing need for leaders and
administrators in the field of education.
Participant Involvement
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in an individual
interview that will take about 45 minutes. You will not be required to answer any questions that
you do not want to. After participating in the individual interview, you may volunteer to
participate in a focus group that will last no longer than one hour. The focus group will be
recorded and transcribed, and you do not need to respond to any questions that you do not want
to. If you do not want to be recorded, you may not participate in this additional segment of the
study but can still complete the individual interview.

108
Alternatives to Participation
Your alternative is to not participate in the study. Your status and relationship with the
researcher will not be affected in any way if you choose or do not choose to participate in the
study.
Confidentiality
There will be no information collected in this study that will make you identifiable as a
participant. The interview will be anonymous in all published documentation and a trained
interviewer will conduct the focus groups to protect confidentiality. Your names and any other
identifiable information will be removed from the transcripts when the recordings are
transcribed. After the recordings are transcribed, they will be destroyed. All transcriptions will be
protected and stored in a password protected computer, being deleted, and destroyed after three
years have passed.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
Investigator Contact Information
Principal Investigator: Sarah Payne can be reached via email at sfpayne@usc.edu or
phone at (559) 280-7747 or through their Faculty Advisor Dr. Christine Kishimoto.
IRB Contact Information
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

109
Appendix H: Focus Group Information Sheet
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people
who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. Please
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
Purpose of the Study
The study will investigate how millennial educational leaders navigate organizations,
leadership, and institutional changes. It will examine millennial leadership practices, styles,
obstacles, and choices. Additionally, it will investigate generational differences and/or
similarities among educational leaders. The knowledge gained will be used to take a larger look
at existing research findings regarding millennial educational leaders and to provide insight
regarding the perspectives of millennials as they enter and/or remain in positions of leadership in
public school systems. The study is being conducted because millennials are the largest
population currently in the workforce and there is an increasing need for leaders and
administrators in the field of education.
Participant Involvement
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a focus group
that will take no more than one hour. You will not be required to answer any questions that you
do not want to. The focus group will be recorded and transcribed, and you do not need to respond
to any questions that you do not want to. If you do not want to be recorded, you may not
participate in this part of the study.

110
Alternatives to Participation
Your alternative is to not participate in the study. Your status and relationship with the
researcher will not be affected in any way if you choose or do not choose to participate in the
study.
Confidentiality
There will be no information collected in this study that will make you identifiable as a
participant. The focus group members will be anonymous in all published documentation and a
trained interviewer will conduct the focus groups to protect confidentiality. Your names and any
other identifiable information will be removed from the transcripts when the recordings are
transcribed. After the recordings are transcribed, they will be destroyed. All transcriptions will be
protected and stored in a password protected computer, being deleted, and destroyed after three
years have passed.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
Investigator Contact Information
Principal Investigator: Sarah Payne can be reached via email at sfpayne@usc.edu or
phone at (559) 280-7747 or through their Faculty Advisor Dr. Christine Kishimoto.
IRB Contact Information
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

111
Appendix I: Letter of Informed Consent
Dear Educational Leader,
This letter is to request your permission for participation in a research study that explores
millennial leadership practices, styles, obstacles, and choices. Additionally, it will investigate
generational differences and/or similarities among educational leaders. The knowledge gained
will be used to take a larger look at existing research findings regarding millennial educational
leaders and to provide insight regarding the perspectives of millennials as they enter and/or
remain in positions of leadership in public school systems. The study is being conducted because
millennials are the largest population currently in the workforce and there is an increasing need
for leaders and administrators in the field of education.
This research study is based on survey data collected, 45–60 minute individual
interviews, and two focus groups with educational leaders in Southern California urban public
school districts. Participants may choose to participate in one, some, or all the research study
components. All participants who indicate a willingness to participate in each type of study
activity may or may not be selected to participate in that activity. Surveys will be developed and
distributed through a web-based tool called Qualtrics and can be accessed on any device.
Interviews will be conducted either in person or via Zoom conference call based on participant
availability. Focus groups will be conducted via Zoom conference call. While it is understood
that no internet-based interaction or transmission can be perfectly secure, every reasonable effort
will be made to protect your confidentiality.
I will be the only person accessing the data, recordings, and/or transcripts. If at any time
during the survey, interview, or focus group you are participating in you would like to withdraw
from the project, all the data collected in relation to your participation will be deleted

112
immediately. Your participation is voluntary, and you may at any time withdraw consent to
participate in this study. There are no known or foreseeable risks of participation in this study.
As stated in the Study Information Sheet provided to you prior to this meeting, this
interview is confidential. Your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team,
including other teachers, administrators, or the district. The data will be collected and reported,
and while some direct quotes will be used your identity will not be shared and pseudonyms will
be utilized to protect your identity and confidentiality. I am happy to provide you with a copy of
the final research paper if you so desire. Additionally, data collected will be kept in a password
protected computer and will be destroyed and deleted after 3 years have passed.
I am a doctoral student at University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA. This
research is part of my dissertation. I am working under the direction and supervision of my
advisor, Dr. Christina Kishimoto (ckishimo@usc.edu) at the Rossier School of Education. If you
have any questions about this research study, please contact me at (559) 280-7747 or
sfpayne@usc.edu. This project has been reviewed in accordance with the USC procedures
governing research participation.
A signature below indicates your willingness to participate in the study. If you intend to
participate, please sign, and return the letter to me within one week of receipt. Thank you for
your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Sarah F. Payne

113
I have read and understand the consent form above. I understand the parameters of this research
and confirm that I am a willing participant.
Signature: __________________________________ Date: ______________________

114
Appendix J: Survey Question 9
Provide an example, if any, of a generationally-informed change that you made within
your current organization while in a leadership position. (Generationally-informed refers to the
different subsets of knowledge, traits, habits, and preferences that exist for one generation that
may not be stereotypically common in other generations.)
See below for participant responses.
• Improve efficiency by creating online forms and systems for things that used to be
paper forms or more labor-intensive processes.
• Open mindedness
• Blocked days (where no school staff are able to work) in addition to paid holiday,
celebration of Juneteenth, 360 evaluative feedback, covid leave (beyond what was
required by the state), flexible schedules and working hours based on the position
(what was possible).
• I honestly haven’t paid too much attention to generational differences, maybe because
the majority of people I work with are also millennials. I could maybe say that older
generations have different ideas of “professionalism” in terms of dress, what we share
socially, and working from home. I’d also say that I make a lot of decisions that push
using new technology, which may be generational.
• During evaluations, I prefer to use a coaching model to help develop growth in my
staff.
• implementation of restorative discipline practices rather than punitive consequences
• Staff birthdays are now celebrated school-wide monthly.
• doing more than what the job description says

115
o Building the capacity of newer staff through coaching.
o Use of tech to streamline systems.
o Thinking outside of the box- or how things have “always been done.”
• Incorporating one-to-one technology in the classroom where students maintain a
digital work portfolio that follows them through the grade levels. Teachers have
access to important previous work from the students to help build on prior
knowledge. Students have access to prior work that they can revisit for various
reasons.
• utilization of technology to gather data, implement change/plans, gather feedback
• The only example that comes to mind right now is that I’m working with a school to
implement norms and working agreements among their staff. These have been typical
of all of my adult working environments, and I was surprised that they were not in
place broadly at my current organization, but at one school where I am starting, it
feels especially important that they are there. It happens that the principal of that
school and I are from different generations, and we seem to have different views on
the value of holding norms.
• I have adjusted some of the disciplinary policies related to dress code and technology
use.
• As a principal, I run all of our school social media accounts because my assistant
principal does not have social media and does not know how to work it.
• access to information and increased transparency
o pushing for humane decision making
o “people first” leadership orientation

116

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leading the new generation: principal leadership practices that promote retention of millennial teachers

PDF

Interconnectedness of cultural responsiveness, retention, and mentorship: understanding the experiences of BIPOC intern educators with BIPOC mentors

PDF

Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

PDF

The role of district and school leaders in educating traumatized children in California public schools

PDF

A phenomenological study of secondary women athletic directors: an exploration of systemic bias

PDF

An examination into leadership strategies that stop perpetuating the equity gap of historically marginalized students in high schools

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K-12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

Leadership development in a multigenerational workforce: a qualitative study

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

A qualitative phenomenological study examining the influence of political climate on African American teachers’ perceptions of professional experiences within predominately White K–12…

PDF

The policy of privilege: a case study on the role of policy on segregated enrollment patterns in Washington state's highly rated public magnet schools

PDF

How they got there: examining the advancement of women of color in K–12 leadership roles

PDF

A phenomenological study of the impact of English language learner support services on students’ identity development

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

Gender-inclusive housing in northeastern boarding schools: a comparative case study of how housing policies impact gender expansive students’ sense of belonging

PDF

Management of the multi-generational workforce in state government

PDF

Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners

PDF

Sorting through stress: how middle school administrators in southern California adapt and build resilience in a post-pandemic world

PDF

The failure to attract and hire Millennials and Gen Zs within the U.S. aerospace & defense industry creates workforce scarcity

PDF

The exploration of lived experiences of Black women directors in student affairs who led others during COVID-19

Asset Metadata

Creator Payne, Sarah Faith (author)

Core Title The next generation of leaders: an exploration of the experiences of millennials as administrators in southern California’s urban public schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/07/2023

Defense Date 03/09/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag administrators,baby boomers,California,education,Generation X,generation Y,Generation Z,generational,leadership,Millennials,multi-generational,OAI-PMH Harvest,Public schools,Urban

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kishimoto, Christina (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), (Finneran, Clara)

Creator Email sarahfaith72496@gmail.com,sfpayne@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112956341

Unique identifier UC112956341

Identifier etd-PayneSarah-11586.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PayneSarah-11586

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Payne, Sarah Faith

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230410-usctheses-batch-1018 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu