The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-8269.htm

Comparisons
Age and leadership: comparisons of age groups
of age groups in different kinds
of work environment
Gerry Larsson 661
Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership, Swedish Defence University,
Karlstad, Sweden and Department of Public Health, Received 20 January 2020
Revised 28 April 2020
Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Elverum, Norway, and Accepted 14 June 2020

Christina Björklund
The Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet,
Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is twofold. First, to compare the self-rated leadership behaviors,
leadership-related competencies and results of the leadership of younger, mid-aged and older leaders; and
second to compare these aspects among younger leaders in different kinds of the work environment and
between men and women.
Design/methodology/approach – Data was collected using the developmental leadership questionnaire
from a sample of Swedish leadership course participants (N = 7,743).
Findings – The results showed that the younger group of leaders (29 years old or younger n = 539), rated
themselves more negatively than the mid-aged (30–50 years, n = 5,208) and older (51 years or older, n = 1,996)
leaders. Analysis of the group of younger leaders showed that those working in the private sector scored most
favorably. The gender comparison revealed that young male leaders scored higher on negative conventional
(transactional) and destructive leadership behaviors. A logistic regression analysis of the younger group
showed that social competence, developmental leadership and destructive leadership (negative) influenced
self-rated results of leadership.
Research limitations/implications – The study is based on leaders’ self-ratings only.
Practical implications – The results can be used in leadership development contexts and in
individualized coaching or mentoring programs.
Originality/value – The results have new implications for leadership theory related to self-confidence,
stereotypes, selection and organizational culture.
Keywords Leadership, Work environment, Age, Theory-based measurement,
Developmental Leadership Questionnaire (DLQ)
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
According to recent labor polls, young people have shown an increasing reluctance to take
on leadership positions, at least in Sweden (Fjällberg, 2012; Ledarna, 2014). The studies

© Gerry Larsson and Christina Björklund. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is
published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce,
distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non- Management Research Review
Vol. 44 No. 5, 2021
commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full pp. 661-676
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
The research was funded by AFA Insurance. DOI 10.1108/MRR-01-2020-0040
MRR show that many in the younger generation do not find the organizational demands and
44,5 expectations worth fighting for Rorstorm (2005). Recent studies have noted that leaders
today, irrespective of age, experience high demands in working life. Typical comments
concern long hours, high demands and difficulty in finding time for recovery and private life
(Ipsen and Jensen, 2012). Female leaders report more such concerns than male leaders
(Björklund et al., 2013; Ipsen and Jensen, 2012; Skakon and Kristensen, 2011). For young
662 people, these demands and the challenge of taking on one’s first leadership position coincide
with the time in life when many start a family (Lyons and Kuron, 2014). However, findings
are not unambiguous, with one study showing that young managers do indeed want to
advance their careers, but on the condition that it is possible to balance working life with
private life (Franzén et al., 2002).
Thus, findings are mixed and during the past years a more positive trend concerning
younger peoples’ propensity to take on a leadership position has also been shown (Vision,
2018). This makes it important for organizations to create opportunities and support to
younger managers just entering the position, as young managers are influential and begin
their development as soon as they begin their careers (Benjamin and O’Reilly, 2011).
Another challenge as a young leader is that taking on a leadership or managerial role not
only involves learning new tasks but also developing an identity as a leader (Hill, 1992).
This identity grows from the experience in a leadership role of encounters with other people
in different social contexts (Ibarra et al., 2010). Before gaining all this experience, it may take
some time before a young person can see him- or herself as a leader or manager. One
interview study, which followed eight first-time managers over time, concluded that
the managers’ work identity was constantly oscillating as the result of an ongoing dialectic
between continuity and change, progress and standing-still, knowing and not-knowing and
excitement and despair. It concluded that the best way of helping young leaders to grow into
their leadership role is to focus on learning from the challenges, problems and dilemmas
already present in the managers’ everyday working lives (Bolander et al., 2019). Results
from another interview study of young leaders show that the professional identity as a
leader is constructed through a process of creative imitation, in which emotions play an
important role in the performance of the professional identity (Åkerblom, 2011). Through
these kinds of process, an individual who looks upon him- or herself as a leader may
eventually come to think and act like one (Ligon et al., 2011).
Taking on a leadership position involves both coping with demands and developing an
identity as a leader. This raises the question of whether there will be a shortage of young
people entering leadership positions in the future.
A common theme in age-oriented leadership research is the stereotype construct, which
implies that members of a certain group, for instance young adults, are expected to share
characteristics and exhibit behaviors that are typical of their group (Corsini, 1999). It has
repeatedly been shown that people expect older leaders to be more experienced and
responsible and to use more authoritarian power at times of stress (Antonakis, 2011; Bass
and Bass, 2008; Kakabadse et al., 1998). However, the generality of this in leadership
contexts has begun to be questioned. The importance of age and seniority has been found to
vary between different kinds of organizations (Oshagbemi, 2004). Indeed, the opposite of the
stereotype is sometimes found, particularly in rapidly changing technology firms Bass and
Bass (2008).
Young leaders in working life have been found to face certain age-related challenges. One
of these is establishing trustworthiness in relation to older subordinates (Benjamin and
O’Reilly, 2011). Due to lack of experience, young leaders may also be at a disadvantage when
it comes to understanding others’ lives and having the interpersonal competencies needed
when communicating with others with different backgrounds (Benjamin and O’Reilly, 2011; Comparisons
Uen et al., 2009). Prensky (1998) argued that personnel under 30 years of age need to be of age groups
treated differently by supervisors and colleagues. They have grown up with advances in
technology and have different cognitive styles than older people (Bass and Bass, 2008).
Some measures have been proposed, which might make it easier for young leaders. These
include creating developmental possibilities early (Benjamin and O’Reilly, 2011), mentoring
(DeLong et al., 2008) and more flexible working conditions (Tulgan, 2011). However,
summing up, Pintonakis (2011) claims that the field of age and leadership is severely under- 663
researched.
In the present study, an attempt was made to fill some of the knowledge gaps about
young leaders. These gaps include possible general differences between younger and older
leaders. The question of potential differences between young leaders in different kinds of
work environment also appears to be under-researched. Possible gender differences among
young leaders also need further exploration. Finally, there is also a shortage of theoretically-
based analyzes of the relative contribution to outcome measures of the leadership of person-
related factors such as skills; context-related factors such as type of work environment; and
leadership behaviors.
The ambition of the present study was to take leaders’ own experiences as a point of
departure and to study age-related aspects of self-reported leadership behaviors, based on
an established leadership model and paying attention to gender and different kinds of the
work environment. The aim was: to compare the self-rated leadership behaviors, leadership-
related competencies and results of the leadership of younger, mid-aged and older leaders, to
compare the self-rated leadership behaviors, leadership-related competencies and results of
young male and female leaders’ leadership in different types of the work environment and to
analyze how theoretically-derived predictor variables contribute to self-rated results of
leadership among younger leaders.

The leadership model

The current study draws on “the leadership model,” a form of the transformational
leadership model, which has been adapted for use in Scandinavia (Larsson et al., 2003, 2018).
This model is presented below.
According to the leadership model, the actual behavior of a leader depends on the
interaction between a number of leaders and contextual characteristics. In theoretical terms,
this means that the model is based on the interactional person-situation paradigm (Endler
and Magnusson, 1976). Leader characteristics involve two components, namely, basic
prerequisites and desirable skills. The basic prerequisites impact the development of
desirable skills. The higher the level of basic prerequisites possessed by the individual
leader, the greater is his or her potential to develop desirable skills. The model also makes
the assumption that a favorable combination of basic prerequisites and desirable skills
constitutes a prerequisite for successful leadership. However, none of these is sufficient in
itself because leadership is also affected by contextual factors (Larsson et al., 2003; Larsson
and Hyllengren, 2013).
The contextual characteristics shown in Figure 1 should be regarded as examples. The
illustration demonstrates that groups and organizations influence one another. The same
applies to organizations and the environments in which they operate. All organizations
group their members together in some sort of structure. Every group develops its own group
culture to manage its external environment, while also being affected by the organizational
culture and structure. As shown in Figure 1, the model presents three different types of
leadership styles, namely, developmental leadership, conventional leadership and
MRR
44,5

664

Figure 1.
The leadership model

destructive leadership. Each of these leadership styles has a hierarchical model structure
(which includes factors such as exemplary and authentic model), sub-factors, (e.g. value
base) and multiple behaviors at the lowest level (the last-mentioned not shown in Figure 1).
The model also describes a relationship between different types of leadership behaviors,
where leaders differ in the extent to which they exhibit these behaviors. Hence, the model
should not be regarded as typology classifying leaders into different categories. All leaders Comparisons
use various styles to a greater or lesser extent. We have placed the different types of of age groups
leadership styles in a coordinate system with the axes representing organizational
performance and individual development. Organizational performance relates to more
objective outcomes measures such as productivity and sick leave. Individual development
refers to the leader gradually using developmental leadership behaviors more and more,
which subsequently also results in individual development in the organization (Larsson
et al., 2003, 2018). 665
The argument for choosing the leadership model is that it draws on the transformational
leadership model, the most widely used leadership model in leading scientific journals in
recent decades (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Diaz–Saenz, 2011). It also draws on the authentic
leadership model (Gardner et al., 2005). We also regarded the roots of the model in the
interactional person-situation paradigm (Endler and Magnusson, 1976) and
the Scandinavian adaptation of the original American models, as strengths, which make the
model an appropriate point of departure for a gender-oriented leadership study in Sweden
(Larsson et al., 2018).

Method
Participants
The sample consisted of all leaders participating in developmental leadership courses
conducted by trainers authorized by a Swedish university from July 2017 to June 2019 (N =
7,743). Prior to these courses, each leader rated him- or herself on the Developmental
Leadership Questionnaire [DLQ, Larsson (2006)]. The leaders (course participants) accessed
the DLQ via a Web-based link. The response rate is estimated as 100% because the
leadership courses use the participants’ responses as a point of departure.
Before responding to the questionnaire, participants are informed that their responses
may be used anonymously for research purposes. They can then choose to agree to this or
not, without this having an effect on their leadership course. In the present study, everyone
consented. The study was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles of human
research (Swedish Research Council, 2002), i.e. the principle of respect for autonomy,
beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice.
Background data (%) for the study group is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 is divided by age and type of work environment. The table shows that the
background variables gender, education, position and type of work environment vary
significantly between the three age groups. In the younger group (which is by far the
smallest group of leaders), differences between the three types of work environment are
noted for gender and education. The lower number of participants in the younger group
shown in Table 1 (397 instead of 539) is because of the fact that the missing individuals had
chosen the response alternate “other” for the question about a type of work.

Measures
The DLQ, based on a structural equation modeling analysis (Larsson, 2006), was used to
assess leadership behaviors. Developmental leadership is a leadership style with 21 items
designed to measure the three factors, namely, exemplary, authentic model, individualized
consideration and Inspiration and motivation. Sample item: “I act in accordance with the
opinions I express.” Conventional-positive leadership is a leadership style measured using
six items covering the facets demand and reward – seek agreements and control – take
necessary measures. Sample item: “I aim to reach agreements on what must be done.” The
factor conventional-negative leadership is also assessed using six items, measuring the two
 44,5

666
MRR

Table 1.

study group
Description of the
Whole sample Age group
29 years or 30–50 51 years or
younger (n = 539) years (n = 5,208) older (n = 1,996)
Variable Within age group % Within age group % Within age group % x2 p

Gender 53.40 0.000

Men 59 46 41
Women 41 54 59
Education 102.46 0.000
High school 1 1 3
University, no degree 33 18 23
University, degree 66 81 74
Position 262.38 0.000
Front line leader 49 21 14
Mid-level leader 46 65 63
High-level leader 5 14 23
Work environment 269.11 0.000
Public – military or rescue service 32 12 6
Public health care or school 15 40 51
Private industry or service 53 48 43

(continued)
Younger group Work environment
Public, military or rescue service Public, health care or school Private, industry or service
(n = 127) (n = 61) (n = 209)
Within work environment Within work environment Within work environment
Variable % % % x2 p
Gender
Men 75 28 75
Women 25 72 25
39.68 0.000
Education
High school 2 0 1
University, no degree 17 11 55
University, degree 81 81 44 70.19 0.000

Position
Front-line leader 59 56 48
Mid-level leader 41 40 49
High-level leader 0 4 3 5.69 0.223

Table 1.
667
of age groups
Comparisons
MRR facets, namely, demand and reward – if, but only if, reward and control – over control.
44,5 Sample item: “I keep a log of other people’s mistakes.” Finally, the destructive leadership
style consists of 17 items designed to measure the two factors active destructive leadership
and passive destructive leadership [incorporated into the DLQ from the instrument
Destrudo-L, Larsson et al. (2012)]. Sample item: “I avoid making necessary decisions.” A
detailed description of the leadership dimensions, factors and facets can be found in Larsson
668 et al. (2018).
The DLQ also contains items designed to measure the leader characteristic desirable
competencies (Figure 1) as follows: task-related competence; two items, management-related
competence; four items, social competence; two items and stress management skill-
related competence; four items. Finally, the instrument contains three items labeled results,
which are designed to measure the outcome of leadership. Sample item: “I contribute
markedly to increasing others’ effectiveness”.
Respondents are asked to judge how frequently they engage in the specific behavior
described by each item. Each behavior is rated on a nine-point frequency scale ranging from
never or almost never (1) to always or almost always (9). Pilot tests preceding the final
version of the DLQ showed that most respondents preferred a nine-point scale and felt they
could make meaningful differentiation between the scale steps. Scale scores were computed
by adding the raw scores of the items representing the scale and dividing the sum by the
number of items (scale scores could range from 1 to 9). Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)
coefficients ranged between 0.75 and 0.96.

Statistics
Comparisons between subgroups were performed using t-tests and one-way analysis of
variance followed by Scheffé tests, the most conservative post hoc comparison method with
respect to Type I errors. x 2 computations were performed to assess differences in the
proportions of categorical background variables. Statistical significance was assumed at
p < 0.05. Because of a high number of mean comparisons, Bonferroni corrections were
applied. When scale indices were computed (see above), only participants with complete
scores on all items in a given index were included (listwise deletion). The numbers of
participants shown in Tables 2 and 3 are consequently slightly lower than what is presented
in Table 1. Finally, a theory-driven hierarchical logistic regression analysis was performed
among the younger leaders, with self-rated results of leadership as a dependent variable.

Scalea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 M SD

1. Developmental leadership 1 7.19 0.75

2. Conventional positive leadership 0.70 1 7.34 0.82
3. Conventional negative leadership 0.27 0.12 1 1.89 0.91
4. Destructive leadership 0.50 0.42 0.50 1 1.72 0.61
5. Task-related competence 0.39 0.37 0.12 0.25 1 7.24 1.26
Table 2. 6. Management-related competence 0.56 0.46 0.09 0.28
0.55 1 6.72 1.25
Main study scales – 7. Social competence 0.50 0.34 0.17 0.26
0.28 0.38 1 7.51 1.21
8. Stress management-related competence 0.54 0.43 0.17 0.36
0.34 0.42 0.42 1 6.97 1.14
correlations
9. Results 0.69 0.55 0.17 0.42
0.40 0.57 0.44 0.50 1 7.11 1.00
(Pearson), means and
standard deviations Notes: aAll scales can range from 1 (lowest frequency) to 9 (highest frequency). All correlations are
(N = 7,743) statistically significant (p < 0.001)
 Age group
29 years or 30–50 years 51 years or
younger (n = 539) (n = 5,208) older (n = 1,996)
Variablea M SD M SD M SD F p Schefféb

Leadership scales
Developmental leadership 6.98 0.87 7.16 0.74 7.32 0.71 46.70 0.000 A, B, C
Exemplary, authentic model 7.38 0.82 7.53 0.69 7.67 0.67 46.38 0.000 A, B, C
Individualized consideration 6.73 1.04 6.95 0.93 7.15 0.88 49.79 0.000 A, B, C
Inspiration and motivation 6.81 1.02 6.97 0.91 7.13 0.87 30.75 0.000 A, B, C
Conventional positive leadership 7.39 0.89 7.32 0.82 7.39 0.82 5.24 0.005 C
Seek agreements 6.99 1.08 6.86 1.01 6.90 1.00 4.89 0.008 A
Take necessary measures 7.77 0.96 7.79 0.88 7.88 0.86 8.45 0.000 B, C
Conventional negative leadership 2.00 0.97 1.92 0.93 1.78 0.83 20.62 0.000 B, C
If, but only if, reward 2.11 1.19 2.10 1.19 1.97 1.10 9.82 0.000 C
Overcontrol 1.91 1.04 1.76 0.94 1.60 0.82 33.28 0.000 A, B, C
Destructive leadership 1.81 0.67 1.74 0.61 1.65 0.59 17.73 0.000 A, B, C
Active 1.55 0.61 1.52 0.58 1.44 0.56 13.53 0.000 B, C
Passive 2.21 0.95 2.07 0.88 1.98 0.88 16.27 0.000 A, B, C
Desirable competencies
Task-related 6.93 1.32 7.19 1.27 7.44 1.21 46.98 0.000 A, B, C
Management-related 6.28 1.44 6.66 1.24 6.97 1.16 70.79 0.000 A, B, C
Social 7.42 1.30 7.48 1.22 7.61 1.17 9.82 0.000 C
Stress management-related 6.72 1.34 6.94 1.13 7.09 1.04 24.37 0.000 A, B, C
Results 6.97 1.07 7.07 1.00 7.26 0.95 29.32 0.000 B, C

Notes: aAll scales can range from 1 (lowest frequency/level) to 9 (highest frequency/level). bAll significant difference between the youngest and the mid-groups.
B = significant difference between the youngest and oldest group. C = significant difference between the mid- and oldest groups

Comparison between
Table 3.

analysis of variance)
ages (one-way
669

leaders of different
of age groups
Comparisons
MRR Results
44,5 Whole sample descriptive statistics
Table 2 shows that the participants rate themselves favorably. All bivariate correlations
shown in the table are statistically significant at the p < 0.001 level because of the high
number of subjects.

670 Comparison between different age groups

Table 3 shows that the mean scores of the three age groups differ significantly on all scales
designed to measure leadership styles, desirable competencies and results of leadership. All
but two differences (conventional positive leadership and seek agreements) remain
statistically significant after Bonferroni corrections (p-values below 0.003 are required). The
general pattern is that the younger group scores less favorably than the mid-aged and older
groups.

Comparisons among the group of younger leaders

In the group of younger leaders, comparisons were made between different types of work
environments and between men and women. The result of the work environment
comparison is presented in Table 4.
Table 4 shows significant differences between the mean scores of young leaders in
different types of work environments on several scales. After Bonferroni corrections, the
differences for developmental leadership (including the subscales individualized
consideration and Inspiration and motivation) and for conventional negative leadership
(including the subscales if, but only if, reward and overcontrol), remain significant. The
general pattern is that young leaders in the private sector report the most favorable scores
and those working in the military and the rescue services show the least favorable.
The second set of analyzes compared female and male young leaders (t-tests). Female
leaders tended to report more favorable scores than male leaders on the leadership style
scales. The reverse was found on the scales designed to measure desirable competencies and
results. However, after Bonferroni corrections, only the following four comparisons
remained significant, with male leaders scoring higher (less favorable) on conventional
negative leadership including the subscales if, but only if, reward and overcontrol, as well as
on destructive leadership.

Logistic regression analysis

A hierarchical logistic regression analysis was performed on the group of younger leaders
with the self-rated results of leadership as a dependent variable. Following the theoretical
model (Figure 1), the desirable competence scales and the contextual variable type of work
environment (categorical) were entered in Step 1 and the leadership scales in Step 2. The
final model is summarized in Table 5.
The final model was statistically significant, as were both steps. The percentage of
correctly predicted individuals was 97.1, the Cox and Snell R2 was 0.696 and the Nagelkerke
R2 was 0.928. As can be seen in Table 5, social competence, developmental leadership and
destructive leadership (negative association) contributed significantly.

Discussion
The first aim was to compare the self-rated leadership behaviors, leadership-related
competencies and results of leadership, of younger, mid-aged and older leaders. The
findings show that the group of younger leaders rated themselves more negatively than the
 Work environment
Public (military, rescue Public (health care,
service) education) Private (industry, service)
(n = 127) (n = 61) (n = 209)
Variablea M SD M SD M SD F p Schefféb

Leadership scales
Developmental leadership 6.70 0.97 6.86 0.88 7.11 0.80 6.82 0.001 B
Exemplary, authentic model 7.22 0.92 7.24 0.83 7.47 0.75 3.99 0.019 B
Individualized consideration 6.44 1.10 6.69 1.11 6.89 1.00 6.51 0.002 B
Inspiration and motivation 6.53 1.06 6.50 1.02 6.98 0.95 8.73 0.000 B, C
Conventional positive leadership 7.33 0.99 7.27 0.96 7.43 0.83 0.88 0.416
Seek agreements 6.94 1.13 6.78 1.20 7.05 1.00 1.38 0.253
Take necessary measures 7.71 1.07 7.79 0.93 7.80 0.90 0.36 0.701
Conventional negative leadership 2.31 1.07 1.69 0.84 1.92 0.89 9.97 0.000 A, B
If, but only if, reward 2.40 1.25 1.75 1.07 2.04 1.12 6.70 0.001 A, B
Overcontrol 2.22 1.19 1.67 0.89 1.83 0.95 7.89 0.000 A, B
Destructive leadership 1.91 0.71 1.81 0.71 1.76 0.64 1.89 0.152 B
Active 1.69 0.69 1.47 0.63 1.50 0.57 4.20 0.016
Passive 2.26 0.93 2.36 1.01 2.14 0.93 1.39 0.250
Desirable competencies
Task-related 6.81 1.23 6.71 1.44 7.16 1.17 4.57 0.011 C
Management-related 6.25 1.41 5.85 1.56 6.45 1.32 3.70 0.026 B
Social 7.20 1.42 7.28 1.21 7.45 1.33 1.45 0.235
Stress management-related 6.49 1.37 6.63 1.46 6.75 1.36 1.27 0.282
Results 6.80 1.11 6.66 1.10 7.12 1.02 5.55 0.004

Notes: aAll scales can range from 1 (lowest frequency/level) to 9 (highest frequency/level). bAll significant difference between in the public (military, rescue
service) sector and leaders in the public (health care and education) sector. B = significant difference between leaders in the public (military and rescue service)
sector and leaders in the private (industry and service) sector. C = significant difference between leaders in the public (health care and education) sector and
leaders in the private (industry and service) sector

way analysis of
young leaders in
Comparison between
Table 4.

variance)
different work
671
of age groups

environments (one-
Comparisons
MRR Predictor variable B S.E. Wald df Sign. Exp (B)
44,5
Task-related competence 0.562 0.801 0.493 1 0.483 1.775
Management-related competence 0.716 0.789 0.824 1 0.364 2.046
Social competence 1.857 0.930 3.987 1 0.046 6.404
Stress management-related
competence 0.935 0.709 1.737 1 0.188 0.393
672 Type of work environment –
Private 2.072 2 0.355
Public, military 0.704 1.279 0.303 1 0.582 0.494
Table 5. Public, health care 3.032 2.255 1.809 1 0.179 20.746
Logistic regression Developmental leadership 8.161 2.540 10.327 1 0.001 3,503.182
analysis – predictor Conventional positive
leadership 0.702 1.240 0.320 1 0.571 2.017
variables on results
Conventional negative
(final model, young leadership 0.627 0.980 0.410 1 0.522 1.873
group and n = 539) Destructive leadership 3.959 1.867 4.495 1 0.034 0.019

mid-aged and older groups in all three areas. Thus, they reported less use of developmental
(transformational) leadership behaviors and more negative conventional leadership
behaviors and destructive leadership behaviors. They also presented lower self-ratings on
scales designed to measure leadership-related competencies and results of leadership. One
interpretation of these findings is that they reflect the challenges faced by newcomers in
leadership positions. Having less experience, young leaders may find it more difficult to
build trustful relationships with older subordinates and they may not yet have developed
interpersonal competencies to handle issues of communication (Benjamin and O’Reilly, 2011;
Uen et al., 2009).
The identical trend across all three measurement areas with the youngest group scoring
least favorably indicates that the results are stable. An additional possible interpretation is
that the results, which are in line with stereotype-based expectations (Bass and Bass, 2008),
reflect a lack of self-confidence in the leadership role among young leaders and, perhaps, a
self-inflicted impact of the stereotype expectations. Furthermore, how one rates oneself as a
leader might be influenced by whether the young leaders have identified themselves as
leaders or not and their experience before taking up a leadership position (Bolander et al.,
2019). As this identity grows with experience, the length of time they have been in a
leadership position is likely to affect their perception of themselves as leaders (Ibarra et al.,
2010).
A wealth of research shows that developmental and conventional-positive leadership
behaviors covary with various favorable individual and organizational outcomes (Bass and
Riggio, 2006; Diaz–Saenz, 2011). Other studies indicate even more strongly that destructive
leadership covaries with negative outcomes (Einarsen et al., 2007; Larsson et al., 2012;
Skogstad et al., 2007). To the degree that young leaders as a group act less in line with these
general research findings than older leaders (as shown in the current study), it can be
assumed that, at the group level, young peoples’ leadership behaviors have a high potential
for improvement. Organizational support in the form of development programs and
mentoring could play an important role here (Benjamin and O’Reilly, 2011; DeLong et al.,
2008).
The second aim of the study was to focus on young leaders and compare their self-rated
leadership behaviors, leadership-related competencies and results of leadership in different
types of the work environment and between men and women. With regard to the type of Comparisons
work environment, results showed that the young leaders who worked in the private sector of age groups
scored most favorably. This could be because of there being a higher proportion of
individuals working in competitive and rapidly changing environments, which foster
positive leadership development (Antonakis, 2011; Bass and Bass, 2008). Thus, it seems
reasonable that the results can be understood from an organizational culture perspective
(Brown, 1997; Schein, 1992). However, the selection hypothesis cannot be ruled out.
According to this hypothesis, certain personality types are attracted to certain kinds of jobs. 673
There was some indication in the present study (although non-significant after Bonferroni
corrections) that young leaders in the private sector have stronger leadership-related
competencies. Thus, the favorable scores of those working in the private sector could also be
a consequence of selection.
The comparison of men and women in the youngest group of leaders showed that men
reported more use of conventional (transactional) negative leadership behaviors and
destructive leadership behaviors. All other gender differences were non-significant after
Bonferroni corrections. The results on the negative scales are in line with a recent study
focusing on gender differences (Larsson and Alvinius, 2019).
The third aim was to analyze how a number of theoretically-derived predictor variables
contribute to self-rated results of leadership among younger leaders. The outcome of the
hierarchical logistic regression analysis showed that the model fitted the data well (a very
high proportion of correctly predicted cased and high Cox and Snell R2 and Nagelkerke R2
coefficients respectively). The three individual variables that contributed significantly,
social competence, developmental leadership and destructive leadership (negative), could all
be said to deal with the softer aspects of leadership. The results indicate that those who
perceived themselves favorably in these respects were satisfied with the outcome of their
leadership and vice versa. These findings are in line with the suggestion above that
organizational support such as development programs, mentoring and coaching are
important. They also indicate which such efforts should be focused on.
One of the strengths of the study is that it is based on a fairly large sample of younger,
mid-aged and older leaders and it uses a theory-based assessment tool of high reliability. A
further strength is that it compares three different types of the work environment. However,
it should be noted that the work environment categories are fairly broad and approximate.
Someone who works in a health-care organization might, for instance, be the director of a
university hospital, the head of a small ward or an Human Resources unit manager.
Unfortunately, we do not have this kind of detailed data.
Another shortcoming is that the study is based on self-ratings collected at one point in
time. Following from this, there is a risk of artificially inflated relationships among
variables, so-called common method variance [CMV, Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff
(2012), Spector and Brannick (2010)]. In particular, there is a risk of responses being affected
by social desirability in the present study. This refers to the tendency to present oneself
favorably regardless of the true position on the construct being measured (Crown and
Marlow, 1964). No markers of potential CMV influence were available. The study
participants were leaders about to attend a leadership course, which used the pre-course
questionnaire data as an important tool during the course. Thus, data collection was
restricted to the DLQ. However, each leadership course participant was also rated
anonymously on the same scales by 6 to 10 subordinates on the DLQ. A comparison
between the leader’s self-rating and the evaluations made by his or her subordinates,
constitute a core part of the course. We believe the leaders’ advance knowledge of this led
them to refrain from presenting themselves in too favorable a fashion. Thus, given this data
MRR collection procedure, we regard the impact of CMV as limited. It would be desirable to have
44,5 more objective data, as well as ratings made by superiors, peers and subordinates.
Consequently, our first suggestion for further research includes obtaining more detailed
data about the nature of the participants’ jobs within a given work sector and data from
sources other than self-ratings. A second suggestion is to conduct similar studies around the
world to explore the possible effects of culture and socioeconomic conditions. The present
674 data, set based on a well-educated Swedish sample, obviously restricts the generalizability
of the findings.
One practical implication of the study is that its empirical results could be used in
leadership development contexts and individualized coaching or mentoring programs.
A second implication is that there is a need to explore and take action against the higher
frequency of negative leadership behaviors among young leaders, especially young
men.

References
Antonakis, J. (2011), “Predictors of leadership: the usual suspects and the suspect traits.”, in Bryman,
A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of
Leadership, SAGE, London, pp. 269-285.
Åkerblom, C. (2011), “Ledarskap, makt och känsla: En narrativ studie av unga ledare. [leadership,
power and emotion: a narrative study of young leaders]”, Doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm.
Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2008), The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Applications, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Managerial
Applications, Free Press, New York, NY.
Benjamin, B. and O’Reilly, C. (2011), “Becoming a leader: early career challenges faced by MBA
graduates”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 452-472.
Björklund, C., Lohela Karlsson, M., Jensen, J. and Bergström, G. (2013), “Hierarchies of health: the health
and work-related stress of managers in municipalities and county councils in Sweden”, Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 752-760.
Bolander, P., Holmberg, I. and Fellbom, E. (2019), “Learning to become a manager: the identity work of
first-time managers”, Management Learning, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 1-20.
Brown, A.D. (1997), “Narcissism, identity, and legitimacy”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 643-686.
Corsini, R.J. (1999), “Stereotype”, in the Dictionary of Psychology, Brunner/Mazel, Philadelphia PA.
Crown, D.P. and Marlow, D. (1964), The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence, John
Wiley, New York, NY.
DeLong, T.J., Gabarro, J.J. and Lees, R.J. (2008), “Why mentoring matters in a hypercompetitive world”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 1, p. 115.
Diaz-Saenz, H.R. (2011), “Transformational leadership”, in Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson,
B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Leadership, SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 299-310.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. and Skogstad, A. (2007), “Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and
conceptual model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 207-216.
Endler, N.S. and Magnusson, D. (1976), “Toward interactional psychology of personality”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 956-979.
Fjällberg, U. (2012), “Stopp för unga i toppen [stop for the young at the top]”, Veckans Affärer,
pp. 50-52.
Franzén, C., Linghag, S., &., and Zander, S. (2002), ArbetsgläDje i Livet: om Ledarskap Pa³ 2000-Talet Comparisons
[Work Satisfaction in Life: About Leadership in the 21st Century], Näringslivets
ledarskapsakademi, Stockholm.
of age groups
Gardner, W.J., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (Eds) (2005), Authentic Leadership Theory and
Practice: Origins, Effects and Development, Elsevier Jai, Amsterdam.
Hill, L.A. (1992), Becoming a Manager: Mastery of a New Identity, Harvard Business School, Boston,
MA.
Ibarra, H., Snook, S. and Ramo, L. (2010), “Identity-based leader development”, in Khurana, R. and
675
Noria, N. (Eds), Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, Harvard Business Press, Boston,
MA, pp. 657-678.
Ipsen, C. and Jensen, L.P. (2012), “Organizational options for preventing work-related stress in knowledge
work”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 325-334.
Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. and Myers, A. (1998), “Demographics and leadership philosophy:
exploring gender differences”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 351-388.
Larsson, G. (2006), “The developmental leadership questionnaire (DLQ): some psychometric
properties”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 253-262.
Larsson, G. and Alvinius, A. (2019), “Comparisons within gender and between female and male leaders
in female-dominated, male-dominated and mixed-gender work environments”, Journal of Gender
Studies, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1080/09589236.2019.1638233.
Larsson, G. and Hyllengren, P. (2013), “Contextual influences on leadership: theoretical modelling and
empirical tests”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 19-37.
Larsson, G., Fors Brandebo, M. and Nilsson, S. (2012), “Destrudo-L: development of a short scale
designed to measure destructive leadership behaviours in a military context”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 383-400.
Larsson, G., Lundin, J. and Zander, A. (2018), The Leadership Model: The Art of Matching Individual
and Organizational Characteristics, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Larsson, G., Carlstedt, L., Andersson, J., Andersson, L., Danielsson, E., Johansson, A., Johansson, E.,
Michel, P.O. and Robertson, I. (2003), “A comprehensive system for leader evaluation and
development”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 16-25.
Ledarna (2014), En Chefsroll För Framtiden [a Manager Role for the Future], Ledarnas
framtidsbarometer.
Ligon, G., Wallace, J. and Osburn, H. (2011), “Experiental development and mentoring processes for
leaders’ innovation”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 297-317.
Lyons, S. and Kuron, L. (2014), “Generational differences in the workplace: a review of the evidence and
directions for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. S1, pp. S139-S157.
Oshagbemi, T. (2004), “Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviours of managers”, Employee
Relations, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 14-29.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Source of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 531-544.
Prensky, M. (1998), “Twitch speed”, Across the Board, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 10-14.
Rorstorm, K. (2005), “Unga chefer vill inte styra i gammal stil [young managers do not want to rule in
the old style]”, Sydsvenskan, available at: www.sydsvenskan.se/ekonomi/unga-chefer-vill-inte-
styra-i-gammal-stil/
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Skakon, J. and Kristensen, T.S. (2011), “Do managers experience more stress than employees? results
from the intervention project on absence and well-being (IPAW) study among danish managers
and employees”, Work, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 103-109.
MRR Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M.S. and Hetland, H. (2007), “The destructiveness of
laissez-faire leadership behavior”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1,
44,5 pp. 80-92.
Spector, P.E. and Brannick, M.T. (2010), “Common method issues: an introduction to the feature topic in
organizational research method”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 403-406.
Swedish Research Council (2002), Forskningsetiska Principer Inom Humanistisk-Samhällsvetenskaplig
Forskning. [Research Ethical Principles in Humanistic-Social Research], Swedish Research
676 Council, Stockholm.
Tulgan, B. (2011), “Generation Y: all grown up and now emerging as new leaders”, Journal of
Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 77-81.
Uen, J., Wu, T. and Huang, H. (2009), “Young managers’ interpersonal stress and its relationship to
management development practices: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Training
and Development, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Vision (2018), “Unga vill bli chefer [young people want to become managers]”, available at: https://
vision.se/nyheter/2018/augusti/unga-vill-bli-chefer/

Corresponding author
Gerry Larsson can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]