221 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers 1 Received: 5th January 2023; accepted: 24th May 2023 Leadership Styles and Generational Differences in Manufacturing and Service Organizations Nadia MOLEK 1 , Mirko MARKIČ 1,2,3 , Dušan JANEŽIČ 1 , Magda LUŽAR 1 , Franc BRCAR 1 1 Faculty of Organisation Studies in Novo mesto, Novo mesto, Slovenia, nadia.molek@fos-unm.si, dusan.janezic@fos-unm.si, magda.luzar@fos-unm.si, franc.brcar@fos-unm.si 2 University of Primorska, Faculty of management, Koper, Slovenia 3 mirko.markic@guest.arnes.si (corresponding author) Background and purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine generational differences and leadership style preferences in service and manufacturing organizations in south-eastern (SE) Slovenia. The focus was on preferred leadership approaches and generational differences. Methods: Quantitative research was conducted using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to collect data on a sample of 208 employees in manufacturing and service organizations in SE Slovenia. The questionnaire was distributed online and responses were analysed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Shapiro-Wilk test, and the Kruskal Wallis test. Results: The results showed that the transformational leadership style was most preferred by the respondents, followed by the transactional and the least preferred was the laissez-faire style. A significant generational difference was found in the preference for the transactional leadership style, with Baby Boomers showing the highest prefer- ence and Generation Z the lowest. Conclusion: Although the study was limited to SE Slovenia and generalizability is limited, the results suggest that organizations should provide leadership training adapted to generational preferences to promote effective leader- ship. Future research should consider longitudinal and sector-specific studies, as well as the inclusion of variables such as cultural background and organizational culture. Keywords: Management, Generational cohort, Leadership style, Leadership, Employees, Organization DOI: 10.2478/orga-2023-0015 1 Introduction Organizations face numerous challenges in a com- petitive global environment. Increasingly, organizations are becoming more age-diverse, managers are faced with leading teams composed of individuals from differ- ent generations, each defined with different experiences, perspectives, and expectations. The ageing process raises numerous questions about economic development, labour productivity, and global population trends. Individuals who work longer contribute more to economic activity, facilitate knowledge transfer, provide valuable skills, and generate their income (Deller & Walwei, 2022, pp. 25-43). However, the challenge lies in leading and engaging mul- ti-generational employees with different life perspectives, values, and needs without ignoring their uniqueness. The impact of generational differences is felt in all seg- ments of employee management and leadership styles in organizations, thus impacting the applicability and effec- tiveness of various leadership styles within organizations (Pary & Urwin, 2011, p. 80). This study aims to fill this gap by shedding light on the interaction between generational cohorts and leadership styles in service and manufactur- 222 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers ing organizations. In doing so, the results offer insights to guide leadership development and practices in age-diverse work settings. 2 Literature Review 2.1 Leadership styles Fischer and Sitkin (2023) identify eight positive lead- ership styles (authentic, charismatic, consideration and initiating structure, empowering, ethical, instrumental, servant, and transformational leadership) and two negative ones (abusive supervision and destructive leadership). A leadership style is a set of activities employed by a leader to influence interactions with colleagues (Faugier & Woolnoug, 2002, p. 28). Effective leadership styles ena- ble employees to achieve high levels of performance with minimal disruptions across various situations. Although leadership styles depend on individual leaders, they are also strongly influenced by the manager themselves or pre- determined by the organization in which they work (Heller & Wilpert 1977, p. 78). In studying leadership styles, researchers have primari- ly focused on the manager’s characteristics and behaviour, considering the impact of leadership styles on employee motivation and organizational performance (Chelladurai 1984, p. 27). The most prevalent leadership models include the personality traits (competencies) model of managers, the behavioural model of managers, the situational model, and other leadership styles such as transformational, trans- actional, and laissez-faire approaches (Howatson-Jones 2004, p. 21). The concept of transformational leadership (Bass, 1997, p. 19) has gained widespread theoretical and practical ac- ceptance (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2009, p. 421). Two types of transformational leadership are proposed: authentic and inauthentic, also referred to as pseudo-transformational or unethical leadership (Zhu, Avolio, Riggio, & Sosik, 2011, p. 802). The fundamental premise of authentic leadership is that authentic leaders respect their true values, beliefs, strengths, and weaknesses, effectively leading and follow- ing the organization by expressing their unique personal identity and style (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011, p. 1142). Authentic leadership is genuine, sincere, positive, trustworthy, and reliable (Chambers Clark, 2009, p. 19). Inauthentic leadership, on the other hand, is char- acterized by a lack of commitment to altruistic values and behavior that is inconsistent with these values. It is based on a flawed understanding of free choice, particularly for personal benefit rather than community benefit (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 181). Transactional leadership, conversely, relies on a sys- tem of rewards and punishments: employees are rewarded for their success and are either not rewarded or even pe- nalized for their failures (Van Wart, 2003, p. 214). Trans- actional leaders lead with specific incentives and motivate employees by exchanging one thing for another. Leaders exchange rewards for employee compliance (Yukl, 1989, pp. 24–25). Transactional leaders establish a foundation for employee development through communication, clar- ifying desired goals and objectives, outcomes, and con- sequently rewarding employees upon their achievement (Sosik & Goldshalk, 2000, p. 365). The laissez-faire leadership style is characterized by its highly inactive approach, as the manager avoids assuming responsibility and making decisions. Laissez-faire leader- ship is a style employed by managers who express passiv- ity or indecisiveness concerning tasks and coworkers, or who intentionally deny responsibility for specific aspects of the leadership process. Managers recognize that their primary task is to resolve problems, scandals, and crises resulting from employees failing to adequately perform their duties (Van Wart, 2008, pp. 33–34). This style is as- sociated with decision-making within a group framework (Grohar-Murray & Langan, 2011, p. 23). The diversity and multigenerational composition of the workforce challenge management to identify and manage generational differences and to change work organization and management approaches to motivate employees to stay on the job (Mahmoud, Reisel, Grigoriou, Fuxman, & Mohr, 2020, pp. 1-2). According to Wolor, Nurkin, and Citriadin (2021, p. 105), the dominant individuals of Gen- eration Y are image-conscious, highly creative, and tech- nologically advanced. Mahmoud, Reisel, Grigoriou, Fux- man, and Mohr added that they are self-confident and can offer new suggestions and ideas to management (2020, p. 7). The authors also noted that the youngest Generation Z expects financial rewards for a job well done, is digitally and technologically savvy, and is not willing to sacrifice their time for the organizations at any cost (p. 6). Souma- ki, Kianto, and Vanhala (2019, p. 7) found that Generation X and Y employees are individualistic and more likely to work in teams. Sampson (2020, p. 68) found that individ- ual consideration and ethical leadership influence employ- ee growth, success, and motivation (Valenti, 2019, p. 75). The process of developing an effective leadership theory involves recognising and transforming the various gener- ational characteristics into leadership behaviours that are adapted to the characteristics of the new generations and contexts (Putriastuti & Stasi, 2019, p. 108). 2.2 Definition and Differences of Generational Cohorts Generations are flexible social constructs and their boundaries evolve over time and space (Campbell, Camp- bell, Siedor, & Twenge, 2015, p. 325). Ažman, Ruzzier, and Škerlavaj (2014, pp. 43-44) argued that individuals are 223 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers often characterised by the traits attributed to their respec- tive generational cohort. King, Murillo, and Lee (2017, p. 94) found that the attitudes, beliefs, and values of a par- ticular generation play an important role in behaviour and attitudes toward work. According to Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak (1999, p. 30), generations are divided into: the Veteran Generation, (born between 1922 and 1943), the Baby Boom Generation, (born between 1943 and 1960), Generation X (born between 1960 and 1980), and Genera- tion Y (born between 1980 and 1995). Dimock (2019, pp. 1-7) provided a similar classification and adds Generation Z (born between 1996 and 2010), which is already entering or has entered the workforce. After 2010, Generation Al- pha has emerged, but is not yet in the labour force. Coetzee, Ferreira, and Shunmugum (2017, p. 9) found that members of the Baby Boom generation had the high- est levels of work engagement, which declined with each subsequent generation. Statnicke, Savanevičienė, and Šakys (2019, pp. 1631-1632) also found that Generation Z had the lowest work engagement of all generations. Busch, Venkitachalam, and Richards (2008, p. 55) empha- sized that Generation Y is most prone to turnover and least committed to the organization. In the business world, Gen- eration X members are satisfied, loyal, highly motivated, have respect for authority, and are able to work in the same position for many years (Serinikli, 2019, pp. 182-187). Tang (2019, p. 24) suggested that generational bounda- ries are unclear, leading to inconsistencies between differ- ent understandings of generational boundaries. Costanza, Badge, Fraser, Severt, and Gade (2012, p. 391) argued that differences between generations are insignificant, while Rudolph, Rauvola, and Zacher (2017, p. 14) cautioned that generational divisions can be dangerous because they im- ply that individual characteristics are determined solely by generation. Similarly, Baum (2019, p. 2) challenged the notion that generations share common characteristics and values that define them and are evident in the workplace. Rather, there are individuals within generational cohorts who do not fit the general observations and characteristics of their generation (Urick, 2017, p. 5). Furthermore, atti- tudes, behaviours, beliefs, and values change predictably with age and not as a result of generational effects (Ru- dolph & Zacher, 2017, p.125). People change throughout their lives, and these chang- es can be sudden or gradual, depending on environmen- tal, geopolitical, societal, economic, technological, and organizational factors. Effective employee management involves monitoring these changes and adapting policies and practices to meet the needs of individuals and groups. Salvi, Ravid, and Constanza (2022, pp. 98-113) also noted that there is no evidence that these changes can be attrib- uted to generational effects or that the currently conceptu- alized generations are functionally applicable in research or practice. Despite these arguments, numerous studies have ex- amined the influence of generations on workplace behav- ior (Becton, Walker, & Jones-Farmer, 2014; Lužar et al., 2023; Ng & Feldman, 2012; Popaitoon, 2022). A study by Urbancova et al. (2020, pp. 14-16) showed that age management has a positive impact on the strategic devel- opment of organizations, regardless of size and type. Age management can help organizations retain key personnel, attract external talent, increase employee motivation and performance, improve organizational climate and culture, and increase organizational prestige, leading to a compet- itive advantage. Integrating age management into organi- zations can facilitate intergenerational knowledge transfer, promote learning and development, and reduce employee turnover by improving self-esteem, motivation, and social status. After a thorough literature review, we formulated the following hypothesis: H1: Employees with diverse generations cohorts pre- fer a transformational leadership style. 3 Methods The study was based on a quantitative research method using an online questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of two main sections: 1) demographic information and 2) leadership style prefer- ence measurement. The demographic information includ- ed questions regarding age, gender, job role, industry, and years of work experience. The second part included the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Janet & Lidjan, 2013), which is a widely-used instrument for assessing leadership styles. The internal consistency coefficients of the MLQ ranged from 0.69 to 0.83 (Janet & Lidjan, 2013, p. 1). The ques- tionnaire had 94 statements that were rated on a Likert scale (1 - strongly disagree, 2 - somewhat disagree, 3 - neutral, 4 - somewhat agree, 5 - strongly agree). The questionnaire was distributed online to 3,549 employees who were employed in various manufacturing and service organizations in south-eastern Slovenia. The respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire themselves and forward it to their respective employees or colleagues. The questionnaire was distributed to employees because their first-hand experience and direct impact of different lead- ership styles provide important insights into leadership preferences. Asking these employees to share the ques- tionnaire with their colleagues was intended to provide a diverse and comprehensive data set. This “snowballing” strategy allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of leadership styles within organizations by including the views of a wider variety of roles and departments .A total of 208 respondents completed the questionnaire within the planned time frame. The demographic information of the respondents are detailed in the Results chapter. 224 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers Statistical analysis was performed using R and SPSS. We used the tests of normal distribution, specifically the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Depending on the results, also the Kruskal-Wallis test. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to determine the cor- relation between variables. Before distributing the survey, we conducted a pilot test with a sample of 11 respondents who were not includ- ed in the final survey. The pilot test was used to assess the survey’s reliability and validity. Cronbach alpha, a meas- ure of internal consistency, was 0.84, indicating a high lev- el of reliability for the survey instrument. Therefore, no modifications were deemed necessary based on the pilot test results. Data were collected through an online survey in south-eastern (SE) Slovenia, a region known for its high industrial activity (e.g., automotive and pharmaceutical industries). Subsequently, the collected responses were statistically analysed. The study was conducted in accordance with the eth- ical guidelines for social science research. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the volun- tary nature of their participation, and the confidentiality of their responses. Participants were also assured that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. 4 Results 4.1 Demographics The questionnaire was fully completed by 208 individ- uals, 52.4% of whom identified themselves as female (n = 109). The educational level of the respondents varied: 33.65% had a professional bachelor’s degree, 23.08% had an upper secondary education (European Qualifications Framework, EQF, level 4), 18.75% had a master’s degree (EQF level 7), and 5.77% had EQF level 8. A small pro- portion of respondents (4.33%) had an educational level below EQF level 4. The generational cohort of respondents is shown in Table 1: 52.88% of respondents belonged to Generation X, 31.73% to Generation Y , 12.02% to Generation Z, and only 3.37% to Baby Boomers. None of the respondents belonged to the veteran cohort. Of all respondents, 73 respondents (35.10%) held a leadership position, while 135 respondents (64.90%) did not. 4.2 Leadership style We examined respondents’ agreement with statements about transformational leadership styles (Table 2). Re- sponses were given on a 5-point scale, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement. On average, respondents most strongly agree with the statement that their leader makes them feel equal (M = 4.67; SD = 0.660). On average, respondents least strongly agree with the statements that their leader treats them as in- dividuals with unique needs and qualities (M = 2.89; SD = 1.320) and that their leader lets them know who has power and trust (M = 3.04; SD = 1.193). Results of the respondents’ agreement with the state- ments related to the transactional leadership style are sum- marised in Table 3. Responses were given on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5 repre- senting “strongly agree” On average, respondents strongly agreed that the leader expresses satisfaction when the em- ployee meets expectations (M = 4.65; SD = 0.671), that the manager supports the effort shown and is helpful (M = 4.61; SD = 0.665), and that the manager makes it clear what the employee can expect when the goal is achieved (M = 4.58; SD = 0.691). On average, respondents least agreed with the statement that a manager waits until some- thing goes wrong before taking action (M = 1.46; SD = 0.797). Table 1: Generational cohorts Generational cohorts Freq. Percentage Born before 1943 - Veterans 0 0.00 % Born between 1943 and 1960 – Baby Boomers 7 3.37 % Born between 1961 and 1980 - Generation X 110 52.88 % Born between 1981 and 1995 - Generation Y 66 31.73 % Born after 1995 - Generation Z 25 12.02 % Total 208 100.00 % 225 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers Table 2: Results on Transformational Leadership Style Totally disagree Almost disagree Neither agree or disagree Almost agree Totally agree Total M SD Review critical assump- tions to verify appropriateness 0 9 24 105 70 208 4.13 0.781 0.00% 4.33% 11.54% 50.48% 33.65% 100.00% Talks about values and beliefs of the organization 3 19 53 82 51 208 3.76 0.972 1.44% 9.13% 25.48% 39.42% 24.52% 100.00% Looks for different options in problem solving 1 2 7 58 140 208 4.61 0.651 0.48% 0.96% 3.37% 27.88% 67.31% 100.00% Talks optimistically about the future 0 1 12 61 134 208 4.58 0.625 0.00% 0.48% 5.77% 29.33% 64.42% 100.00% Enthusiastically talks about the goals that need to be achieved and the things that need to be done 1 3 16 79 109 208 4.40 0.736 0.48% 1.44% 7.69% 37.98% 52.40% 100.00% Emphasizes the importance of goals 2 2 13 75 116 208 4.45 0.740 0.96% 0.96% 6.25% 36.06% 55.77% 100.00% Spends time teaching and coaching 2 4 11 86 105 208 4.38 0.759 0.96% 1.92% 5.29% 41.35% 50.48% 100.00% Sacrifices own benefit for the good of the group 6 9 38 70 85 208 4.05 1.013 2.88% 4.33% 18.27% 33.65% 40.87% 100.00% Considers me as an individual and not just as a member of the group 1 3 19 59 126 208 4.47 0.761 0.48% 1.44% 9.13% 28.37% 60.58% 100.00% Acts in a way that I feel respect for him/her 1 0 11 63 133 208 4.57 0.640 0.48% 0.00% 5.29% 30.29% 63.94% 100.00% Considers ethical and moral principles in own decision making 4 4 27 65 108 208 4.29 0.904 1.92% 1.92% 12.98% 31.25% 51.92% 100.00% Lets us know who has power and trust 29 36 60 63 20 208 3.04 1.193 13.94% 17.31% 28.85% 30.29% 9.62% 100.00% Articulates a compelling vision of the future 1 4 28 81 94 208 4.26 0.800 0.48% 1.92% 13.46% 38.94% 45.19% 100.00% Treats me as a person with different qualities, needs, and abilities 43 36 58 43 28 208 2.89 1.320 20.67% 17.31% 27.88% 20.67% 13.46% 100.00% Prepares us to look at the problem from different lenses 2 3 19 84 100 208 4.33 0.781 0.96% 1.44% 9.13% 40.38% 48.08% 100.00% 226 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers Totally disagree Almost disagree Neither agree or disagree Almost agree Totally agree Total M SD Helps me to develop and progress 2 2 8 52 144 208 4.61 0.701 0.96% 0.96% 3.85% 25.00% 69.23% 100.00% Suggests new ways of accomplishing tasks 4 2 13 58 131 208 4.49 0.816 1.92% 0.96% 6.25% 27.88% 62.98% 100.00% Encourages group collaboration in achieving goals 2 3 11 58 134 208 4.53 0.748 0.96% 1.44% 5.29% 27.88% 64.42% 100.00% Trusts us to achieve goals 5 4 3 45 151 208 4.60 0.822 2.40% 1.92% 1.44% 21.63% 72.60% 100.00% Gives us a sense of being an equal conversational partner 2 2 4 47 153 208 4.67 0.660 0.96% 0.96% 1.92% 22.60% 73.56% 100.00% Note: M – mean; SD – standard deviation Table 3: Results on Transactional Leadership Style Table 2: Results on Transformational Leadership Style (continues) Totally disagree Almost disagree Neither agree or disagree Almost agree Totally agree Total M SD Doesn’t get involved in solving problems until they become serious 40 47 36 61 24 208 2.91 1.323 19.23% 22.60% 17.31% 29.33% 11.54% 100.00% Focuses his/her attention on irregularities, errors, exceptions, and deviations from the standards 53 46 48 44 17 208 2.64 1.289 25.48% 22.12% 23.08% 21.15% 8.17% 100.00% Waits for things to go wrong before taking action 143 43 16 4 2 208 1.46 0.797 68.75% 20.67% 7.69% 1.92% 0.96% 100.00% Sticks to the principle of “don’t fix it until it’s broken”. 86 49 48 18 7 208 2.09 1.136 41.35% 23.56% 23.08% 8.65% 3.37% 100.00% Waits until a problem becomes serious before addressing it 103 63 25 13 4 208 1.81 1.003 49.52% 30.29% 12.02% 6.25% 1.92% 100.00% 227 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers Totally disagree Almost disagree Neither agree or disagree Almost agree Totally agree Total M SD Focuses his/her attention on complaints and mistakes 68 62 32 33 13 208 2.33 1.255 32.69% 29.81% 15.38% 15.87% 6.25% 100.00% Remembers every mistake made 50 65 61 24 8 208 2.40 1.090 24.04% 31.25% 29.33% 11.54% 3.85% 100.00% Directs my attention to mistakes to meet standards 51 41 63 40 13 208 2.63 1.221 24.52% 19.71% 30.29% 19.23% 6.25% 100.00% Table 3: Results on Transactional Leadership Style (continues) Note: M – mean; SD – standard deviation Table 4 summarises the results of respondents’ agree- ment with statements about laissez-faire leadership style. Again, responses were given on a 5-point scale, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement. On average, respondents strongly disagree that the leader does not want to get involved in solving impor- tant issues (M = 1.70; SD = 0.983 ) and strongly disagree with the statement that the leader is late in responding to problems (M = 1.46; SD = 0.839). On average, respond- ents disagree at all that the manager avoids making deci- sions (M = 1.40; SD = 0.857), and on average, respondents disagree at all that the manager is absent when needed (M = 1.36; SD = 0.741). Prior to calculating preferred leadership style by gen- erational cohort, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests for normal distribution were performed and were sta- tistically significant (p ≤ 0.05). Table 4: Results on Laissez-Faire Leadership Style Totally disagree Almost disagree Neither agree or disagree Almost agree Totally agree Total M SD Does not want to get involved in solving important issues 117 58 15 15 3 208 1.70 0.983 56.25% 27.88% 7.21% 7.21% 1.44% 100.00% Is absent when I need him/ her 158 33 12 3 2 208 1.36 0.741 75.96% 15.87% 5.77% 1.44% 0.96% 100.00% Avoids making decisions 159 28 9 10 2 208 1.40 0.857 76.44% 13.46% 4.33% 4.81% 0.96% 100.00% Responds with a delay in solving problems 143 47 8 7 3 208 1.46 0.839 68.75% 22.60% 3.85% 3.37% 1.44% 100.00% Note: M – mean; SD – standard deviation Because leadership styles are not normally distributed, we used the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test, the results of which are presented in Table 5. The Kruskal-Wallis test is statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) only for the transac- tional leadership style, indicating that there are statistically significant differences in transactional leadership style by generational cohort. The transactional leadership style is most preferred by the Baby Boomer generation and least preferred by Generation Z, with preference for the trans- actional leadership style decreasing with younger gener- ations. There are no statistically significant differences between birth cohorts for the other leadership styles (p > 0.05). 228 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers Table 5: Kruskal-Wall test for leadership style by generational cohort Generational cohort n Mean range Mean score (stan- dard deviation) Kruskal- Wallis test (p) Transformational leadership Born between 1943 and 1960 – Baby Boomers 7 120.29 4.40 (0.23) 0.528 Born between 1961 and 1980 - Generation X 110 103.60 4.25 (0.44) (0.913) Born between 1981 and 1995 – Generation Y 66 103.81 4.25 (0.47) Born after 1995 - Genera- tion Z 25 105.84 4.26 (0.49) Total 208 Transactional leadership Born between 1943 and 1960 – Baby Boomers 7 166.86 2.95 (0.55) 8.046 Born between 1961 and 1980 - Generation X 110 104.19 2.27 (0.62) 0.045 Born between 1981 and 1995 – Generation Y 66 100.32 2.27 (0.62) Born after 1995 - Genera- tion Z 25 99.46 2.21 (0.57) Total 208 Laisse-faire leadership Born between 1943 and 1960 – Baby Boomers 7 112.00 1.46 (0.53) 1.296 Born between 1961 and 1980 - Generation X 110 107.84 1.52 (0.64) (0.730) Born between 1981 and 1995 – Generation Y 66 98.17 1.44 (0.68) Born after 1995 - Genera- tion Z 25 104.40 1.43 (0.48) Total 208 5 Discussion and Conclusion From the results presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4, re- spondents most preferred the transformational leadership style, followed by the transactional leadership style, and least preferred the laissez-faire leadership style. Transfor- mational leaders are characterized by their ability to in- spire and motivate their employees, emphasize values and beliefs, respond to individual needs, and foster a sense of collaboration and trust. These characteristics were highly valued by respondents, indicating that employees appreci- ate leaders who are proactive, visionary, and people-ori- ented. While the transactional leadership style is not rated as highly as the transformational style, some aspects were still rated positively, such as satisfaction when employees meet expectations and clear goal setting. However, it is important to note that transactional leadership aspects that focus on mistakes and errors or waiting for problems to occur before addressing them were not well received, sug- gesting that employees prefer a more proactive approach to problem solving and support from their leaders. The laissez-faire leadership style was least preferred by respondents, with most respondents disagreeing with statements describing a leader who avoids making deci- sions, is absent when needed, and is not involved in solv- ing important problems. This suggests that employees gen- erally do not appreciate leaders who lack engagement and involvement in their work. As shown in Table 5, there are statistically significant differences in preference for transactional leadership style by generation, with the Baby Boomer generation showing the highest preference and Generation Z showing the low- est preference. This may indicate that older generations are more accustomed to a transactional leadership approach, while younger generations are more likely to expect a 229 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers transformational style that emphasizes collaboration, trust, and individual consideration. The aim of our research was to investigate the differences between the different genera - tions and preference of leadership style. We used existing questionnaires to survey employees in service and produc- tion organizations in SE Slovenia. Respondents cited trans- formational leadership as the most preferred leadership style, followed by transactional leadership, and preferred laissez-faire leadership the least. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the way respondents preferred to be led. There is a statistically significant dif- ference in preference for the transactional leadership style across generations, with the Baby Boomer generation pre- ferring it the most and Generation Z preferring it the least. This difference was not observed for transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles. Most respondents prefer a transformational leader- ship style, followed by a transactional style, and the least preferred is the laissez-faire leadership style. Looking at the highest scoring responses, it appears that employees essentially prefer a combination of transformational and transactional leadership styles. The results of our study are consistent with Senica (2009, pp. 6-7), who suggested that the optimal profile of a leader is to cultivate a transfor- mational leadership style to the highest degree, a transac- tional leadership style to a somewhat lesser degree, and a laissez-faire leadership style to the lowest degree possible. The preference for transactional leadership decreases with younger generations. As Baum (2019, p. 7) explained, to lead successfully, a leader seeks to identify the qualities and characteristics of each individual on their team and to apply and integrate different leadership styles based on insights and knowledge. Based on the research findings we suggest that organi- zations train and educate leaders when to use specific lead- ership styles. Training should not be limited to traditional methods, but should also include reflection, shadowing, coworking programs and so on. Considering that the characteristics of generational co- horts are strongly influenced by the specific environment in which they live, highlights the importance of research that is based on data from the local environment. Applying results from other environments may lead to biased con- clusions. Because we did not find any research on a similar topic in Slovenia, our study makes an additional scholar- ly contribution and presents the perceptions and situation of employees in the service and production sectors in this area. We limited our study to all service and production organizations in south-eastern Slovenia. The sample size does not guarantee proportional representation within each generational cohort and is a limitation in generalising to a broader population. A longer period than the 21-day survey could have helped increase the number of completed ques- tionnaires; however, sufficient responses were received to continue the study. The survey was conducted cross-sec- tionally, in the current situation and at the current time, and shows the perceptions of respondents at a particular point in time. A survey conducted at a different point in time or longitudinally may have yielded different results. Longitu- dinal research is needed to explore how preferences may change over time as individuals progress through their ca- reers and as societal values evolve. Only three contempo- rary leadership styles were studied. Had several different leadership styles been included in the survey, the results on preferred leadership style may have been different. The use of self-report measures, such as the MLQ, may introduce response bias, as participants might respond in a socially desirable manner or may not accurately assess their own preferences. Future studies could include observational or behavioural measures to complement self-report data. The study focused on generational cohorts as the primary in- dependent variable, which may overlook other important factors that influence leadership style preferences, such as individual personality traits, cultural background, and organizational culture. Future research should consider these additional factors when examining leadership style preferences. The sample was drawn from a diverse range of industries, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to specific sectors or job roles. Further research could focus on specific industries or professions to better understand the nuances of leadership style preferences within those contexts. In reviewing the literature, we found that over the past two decades, much of the research has been conducted on the topic of age in the workplace. This is primarily due to demographic changes and the ageing population (Rudolph & Zacher, 2022). We suggest that researchers focus on the methodological gaps and understanding of age in the workplace as an equivalent or indicator of life and years of experience. In examining the work aspect of workers and ageing from a life span perspective, it would be instruc- tive to bring together research fields and seek partnerships among psychologists, sociologists, economists, and other researchers to make more progress in this area. Acknowledgment This research was supported by the European Com- mission, Erasmus+ Program of the European Union [grant number 2019-1-SI01-KA202-060391] and Management of education and employability in knowledge society P5- 0049 (A). Literature Avolio, B., J., O. Walumbwa, T. J. Weber. 2009. Leader- ship: Current Theories, Research and Future Direc- tions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. 230 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers Ažman, U., Ruzzier, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). Stere- otipna grožnja na delovnem mestu: Primer generacij. Economic and Business Review, 16, 27–47. Bass, B. M. (1997). Personal selling and transactional/ transformational leadership. Journal of Personal Sel- ling and Sales Management, 27(3), 19-28. Bass, B. M. & Steidlmeier P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic trnasformational leadership bahavior. The le- adership quarterly, 10(2), 181–217. Baum, T. (2019). A Changing World of Work. What can we Learn From the Service Sector About Employ- ing Millennials (and Gen Z)? Organ Dynamics. doi: org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2019.04.001 Becton, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Jones-Farmer, A. (2014). Generational differences in workplace expectations: A comparison of Millennials and Generation X. Jour- nal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 175-189. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12208 Busch, P., Venkitachalam, K., & Richards, D. (2008). Gen- erational Differences in Soft Knowledge Situations: Status, Need for Recognition, Workplace Commitment and Idealism. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(1), 45–58. doi: 10.1002/kpm.298 Campbell, W. K., Campbell, S. M., Siedor, L. E., & Twenge, J. M. (2015). Generational Differences Are Real and Useful. Industrial and Organizational Psy- chology. 8(3), 324– 408. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.43 Chambers Clark, C. (2009). Creative nursing leadership and management. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes and varying sports. Journal of sport psycho- logy, 6(1), 27-41. Coetzee, M., Ferreira, N., & Shunmugum, C. (2017). Psy- chological career resources, career adaptability and work engagement of generational cohorts in the me- dia industry. SA Journal of Human Resource Manage- ment, 15(0). doi: org/10.4102/sajhrm.v15i0.868 Deller, J. & Walwei, U. (2022). Workforce age trends and projections. In H. Zacher & C. W. Rudolph (Ed.), Age and work. Advances in Theory, Methods, and Practice. doi: 10.4324/9781003089674-3 Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Mil- lennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center, 17(1), 1–7. Retrieved from: https://www.pe- wresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millenni- als-end-and-generation-z-begins/ Faugier, J., H. Woolnough. (2002). National nursing lea- dership programme. Mental Health Practice, 6(3), 28- 34. Fischer, T. & S.B. Sitkin. (2023). Leadership Styles: A Comprehensive Assessment and Way Forward. Acad- emy of Management Annals, 17 (1), 331-372. Pub- lished Online:24 Jan 2023https://doi.org/10.5465/an- nals.2020.0340 Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M. in Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic Leadership: A Review of the Literature and Research Agenda. Leadership quarter- ly, 22(6), 1120–1145. Grohar-Murray, M. E. in Langan, J. C. (2011). Leadership and management in nursing. Upper Saddle River, New York: Pearson. Howatson-Jones, I. L. (2004). The servant leader. Nursing mangement, 11(3), 20–24. Janet, M. & Lidjan, S. (2013). Izbrani vprašalniki za up- orabo na področju psihologije dela in organizacije. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za psihologijo. Retrieved from: https://psi- hologijadela.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/vprac5a1al- niki-na-podroc48dju-psihologije-dela-in-organizacije. pdf King, C., Murillo, E., & Lee, H. (2017). The Effects of Generational Work Values on Employee Brand Atti- tude and Behavior: A Multi-Group Analysis. Interna- tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 66, 92–105. doi: org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.07.006 Luzar, M., Gorenc Zoran, A., Markič, M., Bukovec, B. (2023). Intergenerational Differences and Knowledge Transfer Among Slovenian Engineers. Organizacija, 56(1), 66-79. doi: 10.2478/orga-2023-0005 Mahmoud, A. B., Reisel, W. D., Grigoriou, N., Fuxman, L., & Mohr, I. (2020). The Reincarnation of Work Motiva- tion: Millennials vs Older Generations. International Sociology, 1–22. doi: 10.1177/0268580920912970 Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Evaluating six common stereotypes about older workers with me- ta-analytical data. Personnel Psychology, 65(4), 821- 858. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12003 Popaitoon, P. (2022). Fostering Work Meaningfulness for Sustainable Human Resources: A Study of Generation Z. Sustainability, 14(6), 3626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14063626 Putriastuti, B. C. K. & Stasi, A. (2019). How to Lead the Millennials: A Review of 5 Major Leadership Theory Groups. Journal of Leadership in Organizations, 1(2), 93– 111. doi: org/10.22146/jlo.46562 Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2017). Leadership and Generations at Work: A Critical Re- view. The Leadership Quarterly. doi: org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2017.09.004 Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2017). Considering Gen- erations From a Lifespan Developmental Perspec- tive. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(2), 113–129. doi: 10.1093/workar/waw019 Rudolph, C. W. & Zacher, H. (2022). Research on age(ing) at work has “come of age”. In H. Zacher & C. W. Ru- dolph (Ed.), Age and work. Advances in Theory, Meth- ods, and Practice. doi: 10.4324/9781003089674-2 Salvi, S. E., Ravid, D. M., & Costanza, D. P. (2022). Gener- 231 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers ational Differences and Generational Identity at Work. In H. Zacher & C. W. Rudolph (ed.), Age and Work. Ad- vances in Theory, Methods, and Practice. (str. 98–113) New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003089674-8 Sampson, C. H. (2020). An Assessment of Leadership Styles Which are Motivational With Millennial Em- ployees Within a Petrochemical Organisation (Doc- toral dissertation). North-West University, South Africa. Retrieved from: https://repository.nwu.ac.za/ handle/10394/35889 Senica, K. (2009). Stil vodenja in organizacijska kultura. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani. Serinikli, N. (2019). Transformation of human resources in digitalization: Y , Z and Alpha generations. V C. Akar & H. Kapucu (ur.), Contemporary Challenges in Busi- ness and Life Sciences. London:IJOPEC Publication Limited. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate. net/profile/Cueneyt-Akar/publication/334794251_ Contemporary_Challenges_in_Business_and_Life_ Sciences_Edited_by_Cuneyt_AkarHakan_Kapucu/ links/5d418d0fa6fdcc370a7003d6/Contempo- rary-Challenges-in-Business-and-Life-Sciences-Edit- ed-by-Cueneyt-Akar-Hakan-Kapucu.pdf#page=182 Sosik, J. J. in Goldshalk, V . M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received and job related stress: a conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of or- ganizational behavior, 21(4), 365–390. Statnicke, G., Savanevičiene, A., & Šakys, I. (2019). The Relationship Between Work Engagement of Different Generations and Mobile Learning. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(6), 1627–1642. Retrieved from: https://epubl.ktu. edu/object/elaba:46788591/ Tang, F. (2019). A Critical Review of Research on the Work-Related Attitudes of Generation Z in China. Social Psychology and Society, 10(2), 19–28. doi: 10.17759/sps.2019100203 Urbancová, H., Vnoučková, L., Linhart, Z., Ježková Petrů, G., Zuzák, R., Holečková, L., & Prostějovská, Z. (2020). Impact of Age Management on Sustainabili- ty in Czech Organisations. Sustainability, 12(1064). doi:10.3390/su12031064 Urick, M. (2017). Adapting Training to Meet the Preferred Learning Styles of Different Generations. Internation- al Journal of Training and Development, 21(1), 53–59. doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12093 Valenti, A. (2019). Leadership Preferences of the Millen- nial Generation. Journal of Business Diversity, 19(1), 75–84. doi: 10.33423/jbd.v19i1.1357 Van Wart, M. (2008). Leadership in public organization. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Van Wart, M. (2003). Public Sector Leadership Theory: an assessment. Public Administration Review 63 (2), 214-28. Wolor, C. V ., Nurkhin, A., & Citriadin, Y . (2021). Lead- ership Style for Millennial Generation, Five Leader- ship Theories, Systematic Literature Review. Gener- al management, 22(184), 105–110. doi: 10.47750/ QAS/22.184.13 Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. London: Prentice-Hall. Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Genera- tions at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boom- ers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York. Amacom. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/ annals.2020.0340 Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., Sosik, J. J. (2011). The effect of authentic transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. The leadership quarterly, 22(5), 801–817. Nadia Molek is an assistant researcher at the Faculty of Organisation Studies. She graduated and received her doctorate in anthropology from the Facultad de Filosofía y Letras at the Universidad de Buenos Aires. Her research interests include identity processes, migrations and mobilities, transnationalism, intergenerational relationships, sustainable development, sustainable pedagogy, sustainable tourism, heritage, diversity and inclusion; wellbeing and mental health at the workplace. Mirko Markič obtained his PhD in the field of Organisational Science in the subject of Innovation at the University of Maribor. After 12 years in the automotive industry, he joined the Faculty of Management, University of Primorska. He is a Professor of Management, Scientific Counsellor, and Leader/member of 17 research projects and initiatives in the economy. His bibliography includes over 650 publications in the field of management and organisational sciences. Dušan Janežič received his Master’s degree in Quality Management at the Faculty of Organisation Studies in Novo meseto. He is employed as head of his department at the Pharmaceutical company Krka, d.d., Novo mesto. Magda Lužar holds and MSc in Quality Management, has extensive experience in financial management in both the public and private sectors. She shares her professional experience and theoretical knowledge with college students. She is currently conducting research in the field of knowledge and knowledge transfer among employees in organizations. 232 Organizacija, V olume 56 Issue 3, August 2023 Research Papers Franc Brcar received his PhD in Quality Management and is an Assistant Professor in organization and management. He has had extensive experience working for a major automobile company. He has worked as a specialist in the field of operational systems and databases as well as worked in the introduction and maintenance of systems for computer construction and ERP solutions. He works extensively with statistical programs (R, SPSS, SAS, Lisrel) and with data coding and data analysis programs (ATLAS.ti). Recently he has been examining management, management of IT systems, management of business processes, and management of innovations and quality. Stile vodenja in generacijske razlike v proizvodnih in storitvenih organizacijah Ozadje in namen: Namen te študije je bil preučiti generacijske razlike in preference stilov vodenja v storitvenih in proizvodnih organizacijah v jugovzhodni Sloveniji. Osredotočenost je na prednostnih pristopih vodenja in na gene - racijskih razlikah. Metode: Izvedena je bila kvantitativna raziskava z vprašalnikom multifaktorskega vodenja (angl. MLQ - Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire) na zbranih podatkih vzorca 208 zaposlenih v proizvodnih in storitvenih organizacijah jugovzhodne Slovenije. Vprašalnik je bil razdeljen preko spleta, odgovori pa so bili statistično analizirani s Kolmogo - rov-Smirnovovim testom, s Shapiro-Wilkovim testom in s Kruskal Wallisovim testom. Rezultati: Rezultati so pokazali, da transformacijski stil vodenja je bolj zaželjen med anketiranci, sledi mu transakcij- ski, najmanj naželjen pa je stil vodenja brez vajeti. Pomembna generacijska razlika je bila ugotovljena v prednostih do transakcijskega stila vodenja, pri čemer so Baby Boomerji izkazali najvišjo naklonjenost, generacija Z pa naj - manjšo. Zaključek: Čeprav je bila študija omejena na jugovzhodno Slovenijo in je posplošljivost omejena, rezultati kažejo, da bi morale organizacije zagotoviti usposabljanje vodenja, prilagojeno generacijskim preferencam za spodbujanje učinkovitega vodenja. Prihodnje raziskave naj upoštevajo longitudinalne in sektorsko specifične študije ter vključijo spremenljivke, kot sta kulturno ozadje in organizacijska kultura. Ključne besede: Management, Generacijska skupina, Stil vodenja, Vodenje, Zaposleni, Organizacija