Four Generations, One Mission: A Descriptive Analysis of Leadership Styles, Employee Engagement, and Organizational Effectiveness in a Philippine Public Welfare Agency

Public welfare institutions in the Philippines now operate with one of the youngest and most generationally diverse workforces in government, yet baseline evidence describing how these employees perceive their leaders, experience their work, and assess their organization remains scarce. This study provided a descriptive profile of leadership styles, generational cohort composition, employee engagement, and organizational effectiveness among employees of the Department of Social Welfare and Development Field Office 10 (DSWD-10), Northern Mindanao, Philippines. Using a descriptive quantitative design, data were gathered from 350 employees selected through stratified random sampling and analyzed using frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. Findings revealed a predominantly young workforce, with Millennials and Generation Z jointly constituting the overwhelming majority of employees while Baby Boomers have nearly exited the agency. All four leadership styles were rated High, with transformational leadership obtaining the highest dimensional mean and the four styles tightly clustered, indicating a versatile, multi-style supervisory repertoire. Employee engagement was High overall, with dedication uniquely rated Very High and the perceived importance of one’s work emerging as the strongest single element of the engagement profile. Organizational effectiveness was likewise High across job satisfaction, workplace productivity, and service quality, with team collaboration the only sub-dimension rated Very High; however, recognition, compensation and benefits, and end-of-day energy emerged as the lowest-rated areas, a pattern consistent with the predominantly non-regular employment arrangements covering most respondents. The study concludes that DSWD-10 possesses a mission-driven, high-performing, and highly dedicated workforce whose well-being infrastructure has not kept pace with its performance, and offers an evidence-based workforce profile that public welfare agencies can use for leadership development, engagement programming, and human resource policy; the inferential questions arising from this profile are examined in separate companion papers.

multigenerational workforce, leadership styles, employee engagement

1. Akingbola, K., Rogers, S. E., & Intindola, M. (2022). Creating and sustaining employee engagement through human resource management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08469-0_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. 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]

3. Albrecht, S. L., Furlong, S., & Leiter, M. P. (2023). The psychological conditions for employee engagement in organizational change: Test of a change engagement model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1071924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1071924 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alexopoulos, A. B., & Skliopidou, E. (2024). A methodology for measuring job satisfaction in the public sector. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67702-1_11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Aniebonam, E. E. (2023). Transformational leadership and transactional leadership styles: Systematic review of literature. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8410953 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. 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]

7. 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]

8. 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]

9. 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]

10. 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]

11. 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]

12. 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]

13. Heyns, M. M., & Kerr, M. D. (2018). Generational differences in workplace motivation. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v16i0.967 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. 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]

15. 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]

16. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2019). The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective. Motivation Science, 5(2), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000127 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. McKenzie, J., & Varney, S. (2018). Energizing middle managers' practice in organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 25(6), 383-398. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-06-2018-0106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

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

20. 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]

21. Rokhim, R., Takwin, B., Basrowi, R. W., Soemarko, D. S., Rahadian, A., Ekowati, M., Samah, K., & Moeloek, N. F. (2025). Fatigue and lack of vigor's as a frequent work stress among financial workers in Indonesia. Frontiers in Public Health, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1563563 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Saadah, M., & Agustiyara, A. (2024). Transformational leadership and dynamic managerial capabilities in public sector innovation. Jurnal Bina Praja, 16(1), 201. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.16.2024.201-214 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. 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]

24. 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]

25. 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]

26. Shinde, O., & Surve, M. (2025). Understanding Generation Z in the workplace: Adapting organizational strategies for a new era of work. International Journal of Science and Research, 14(3), 790-797. https://doi.org/10.21275/sr25316115930 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Suomäki, A., Kianto, A., & Vanhala, M. (2019). Work engagement across different generations in Finland: A qualitative study of Boomers, Yers and Xers. Knowledge and Process Management, 26(2), 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1604 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. 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]

29. Tang, H., An, S., Zhang, L., Xiao, Y., & Li, X. (2024). The antecedents and outcomes of public service motivation: A meta-analysis using the job demands-resources model. Behavioral Sciences, 14(10), 861. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14100861 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. 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]

31. 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. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.6.0625.2178 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. 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]

33. 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