Beyond the Generational Myth: Democratic Leadership, Dedication, and Commitment as the Predictors of Organizational Effectiveness in a Multigenerational Public Workforce

A generational-management industry has grown around the premise that Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z must be led differently because cohort membership shapes workplace outcomes. This study subjected that premise to a direct predictive test in one of the most generationally lopsided workforces in the Philippine public sector. Drawing on data from 350 employees of the Department of Social Welfare and Development Field Office 10 (DSWD-10), Northern Mindanao, selected through stratified random sampling, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted with four leadership styles (transformational, transactional, servant, and democratic), four employee engagement dimensions (vigor, dedication, absorption, and commitment), and dummy-coded generational cohorts (with Generation Z/Others as reference) simultaneously entered as predictors of composite organizational effectiveness. Findings showed that the model was highly significant, explaining more than three-fourths of the variance in organizational effectiveness, yet only three predictors carried significant unique effects: commitment to organizational goals, dedication, and democratic leadership. Transformational, transactional, and servant leadership lost their individual significance to multicollinearity, their effects absorbed by democratic leadership given the very strong inter-correlations among the styles. Most strikingly, every generational cohort dummy was non-significant despite Millennials and Generation Z composing the overwhelming majority of the workforce: knowing an employee’s generation adds nothing to the prediction of organizational effectiveness once leadership and engagement are accounted for. The findings warrant a partial rejection of the null hypothesis and a practical reorientation for public institutions: invest in participatory leadership and in the dedication and commitment of employees, and retire cohort-based programming in favor of person-centered management.

generational cohorts, multiple regression, democratic leadership

1. AlAbri, I., Siron, R. bte, Alzamel, S., Al-Enezi, H., & Cheok, M. Y. (2022). Assessing the employees' efficiency and adaptive performance for sustainable human resource management practices and transactional leadership: HR-centric policies for post COVID-19 era. Frontiers in Energy Research, 10, 959035. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.959035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Backhaus, L., & Vogel, R. (2022). Leadership in the public sector: A meta-analysis of styles, outcomes, contexts, and methods. Public Administration Review, 82(6), 986–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13516 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2023). Job demands-resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Costa, J., Pádua, M., & Moreira, A. C. (2023). Leadership styles and innovation management: What is the role of human capital? Administrative Sciences, 13(2), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13020047 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Deepalakshmi, N., Tiwari, D., Baruah, R., Seth, A., & Bisht, R. (2024). Employee engagement and organizational performance: A human resource perspective. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(4), 5941–5948. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i4.2323 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fischer, T., & Sitkin, S. B. (2023). Leadership styles: A comprehensive assessment and way forward. Academy of Management Annals, 17(1), 331–372. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0340 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Garzón-Lasso, F., Serrano-Malebrán, J., Arenas-Arango, S., & Molina, C. (2024). Full range leadership style and its effect on effectiveness, employee satisfaction, and extra effort: An empirical study. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1380935. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1380935 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Grobler, A., & Flotman, A.-P. (2020). The validation of the servant leadership scale. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 46(0), a1754. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1754 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hutama, A. A., Noermijati, N., & Irawanto, D. W. (2024). The effect of transactional leadership on employee performance mediated by job satisfaction, job stress and trust. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 13(3), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v13i3.3297 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Construct validity of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(3), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000113 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Pažur, M. (2020). Development and validation of a research instrument for measuring the presence of democratic school leadership characteristics. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220937312 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2023). Labor force survey. Republic of the Philippines. https://psa.gov.ph/statistics/labor-force-survey [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Pietrantonio, F., Brunelli, G., Vassallo, G., Moriconi, L., Signorini, A., & Moriconi, A. (2025). Age diversity management in healthcare: Leveraging generational differences with an inclusive approach. Italian Journal of Medicine, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/itjm.2025.2074 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Reed, C., & Thomas, R. (2021). The generation game: Governing through bio-politics. Management Learning, 52(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507620938926 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Saks, A. M. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 6(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Sansa, A., K'Obonyo, P., Muindi, F., & Munjuri, M. G. (2024). Do nuanced perspectives of diversity management practices warrant inclusivity in multigenerational organizations? A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 9(5), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2024.9.5.2414 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte, H. (2019). An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000430 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology: How to choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(2), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. van der Vaart, L., & Linde, B. (2021). The performance measurement conundrum: Construct validity of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 24(1), a3581. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v24i1.3581 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Varshney, D., & Goel, D. (2025). The impact of work engagement on job satisfaction among employees teaching in the university. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 6(6), 5036–5047. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.6.0625.2178 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Yusof, N. M., Zawawi, A. A., Khan, H. H. A., & Anuar, A. (2025). Generational differences and organizational behavior: Mapping trends, gaps, and future directions. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(10), 2818–2827. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.910000229 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Zahri, T. A., Lubis, A. R., Djalil, M. A., & Syafruddin, S. (2023). Analysis of service quality factors of the Regional Planning Agency of Aceh. Emerging Science Journal, 7(5), 1723. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2023-07-05-017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Is Strike Relevant in the Modern Era? Evidence from Indian Manufacturing, IT/Ites, FMCG, Electronics and Emerging Sectors
• A Qualitative Exploration of Work-Life Balance Among Private Universities Lecturers in Klang Valley
• Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation: Examining the Impact on Job Satisfaction and Turnover
• Human Resource Management, Organizational Culture, and Good Governance Practices: A Structural Equation Model on Service Orientation among Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation in Davao Region
• Cost of Silence: Exploring the Impact of Organisational Silence on Employee Engagement