20 Chapter II Literature Review II.1 Introduction This section of the paper will provide a comprehensive discussion of the theoretical foundations underpinning this research. It will begin by examining the core theories employed in this study, specifically behavioral leadership theory and experiential leadership theory. Additionally, a review of the literature pertinent to this study will be presented, followed by the development of a theoretical framework to guide the research. The keywords utilized for the literature search include leadership development, millennials, leadership theory, and publication, with a focus on works published in the past twenty years, except for seminal literature that remains highly impactful and relevant. The framework derived from this literature review will also inform the development of the research methodology. II.2 Underlying Theories II.2.1 Current Leadership Development Theories Leadership Development is defined as the process of expanding the collective capacity of organizational members to engage effectively in leadership roles and processes. It emphasizes building social capital through collaboration, trust, and shared meaning (Day, 2000; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). Leadership development focuses on enhancing interpersonal competencies and enabling individuals to navigate organizational complexity and lead through influence, not just position. In contrast, Leadership Training concentrates on human capital by equipping individuals with technical or role- specific skills such as communication, negotiation, or performance 21 management (Salas et al., 2012). It is typically programmatic, short-term, and measurable through direct performance metrics. Understanding this distinction is crucial, particularly in the context of preparing younger generations—specifically millennials—for future leadership responsibilities. While both leadership development and training contribute to overall leadership capacity, their objectives and outcomes diverge significantly. The distinction between leadership development and leadership training becomes even more critical when considering generational shifts in the workforce. Organizations must recognize that millennials are expected not only to master functional skills but also to cultivate the interpersonal agility needed to lead teams, resolve conflict, and foster innovation—competencies that are developed more effectively through leadership development rather than training alone (Day et al., 2014; Allen et al., 2014). This generational perspective calls for a differentiated approach to developing leadership pipelines. In terms of measurement, leadership development is typically evaluated using relational metrics such as team collaboration quality, trust ratings, and leadership impact assessments (Conger & Ready, 2004). Meanwhile, leadership training effectiveness is measured using more immediate, quantifiable metrics like pre- and post-test scores, knowledge retention, and observed behavioral changes related to specific competencies (Salas et al., 2012). These differences are further detailed in Table II.XX, which outlines a comparison between leadership development and leadership training across 22 several dimensions, including scope, goals, methods, and theoretical foundations. Table II.XX Comparison of Leadership Development and Leadership Training Aspect Leadership Development Leadership Training Primary Focus Building social capital, long-term capacity Building human capital, short-term competency Goal Enabling future leadership effectiveness Addressing current skill gaps Methods Coaching, mentoring, action learning, job rotation Seminars, workshops, e-learning, skill drills Scope Organization-wide engagement, peer networks Individual skill acquisition Time Horizon Long-term leadership pipeline Immediate performance improvement Assessment Behavioral feedback, leadership potential ratings Test scores, learning application Theoretical Basis Social learning theory, leader-member exchange Adult learning theory, competency modeling Sources: Day (2000); McCauley & Van Velsor (2004); Allen et al. (2014); Salas et al. (2012); Conger & Ready (2004) Building on this conceptual foundation, it is important to understand how generational characteristics influence leadership development needs and approaches. Many current literatures have discussed how different millennials (Generation Y) and baby boomers (Generation X) are, especially in their work values. There is a dramatic distinction between these two generations in the aspects of work-life balance aspirations (Twenge, 2010; Twenge & Kasser, 2013), individualism (Twenge et al., 2012), managerial support at work (K. H. Ng, 2017), and self-involvement in their jobs (Foster & Twenge, 2010; Twenge et al., 2012). 23 While millennials typically prefer a more relaxed work environment, baby boomers are generally more focused and serious in their work, shaping their leadership style and how they train others. Baby boomers' learning methods can be considered quite structured and rigorous, often emphasizing in-class projects and activities, learning by listening to a teacher figure, and absorbing information in a more theoretical manner. Unlike millennials, baby boomers are more patient in learning and do not usually mind taking long courses and attending extended classes to gain new knowledge. They are also more willing to seek help from others regarding learning (H. J. Anderson et al., 2017). To put it lightly, baby boomers are less ambitious in climbing the job position ladder. They prefer a more stable condition than the millennials, who are open to new challenges and more courageous in making out-of-the-box decisions regarding their job (Lu & Gursoy, 2016). Workers from this generation are loyal, committed, and reliable, but they usually expect loyalty from them. They have a distinctively more robust work ethic and consider their career a priority (Helyer & Lee, 2012). Baby boomers are more easily satisfied in the learning process (Prensky, 2001); they bind to textbook information and abide more by the applied rules in the workplace. This claim supports the belief that the required program for baby boomers’ leadership development is more straightforward than millennials with more complex characteristics. Also, since technology advancement was not a significant concern in their learning period when they first entered a professional workforce, their learning process and cycle are much more straightforward. Usually taking information from books, printed 24 media (Cheetham & Chivers, 2001) such as newspapers and magazines, or a sharing session with experienced people, baby boomers’ source of information was highly limited, much less than the current information available millennials possess. This situation made the baby boomers more eager and enthusiastic about structured in-class and mentored learning (Walmsley, 2012) than the millennials, who are more individualistic and directed toward self- learning. Millennials have different workplace characteristics than previous generations. These differences consist of individual characteristics, work attitudes, facing differences in the workplace, prioritizing work-life balance, and concern for the community. Individual character differences related to technological mastery (A. Harrison et al., 2017), the desire to consistently innovate (Folarin, 2021), having high creativity (Zhao, 2018), as well as how millennials judge money as not their primary goal in working (‘Azzam & Harsono, 2021; Widjaja, 2020) The work is not expected to damage the work-life balance it seeks (Galdames & Guihen, 2022). Being born in an interconnected world, millennials appreciate the diverse differences in the workplace (Folarin, 2021). Millennials are concerned for the community or society; they have behavior based on ethics and values that apply to the community (Galdames & Guihen, 2022) and have a high social responsibility to contribute positively to their community (Widjaja, 2020). Millennials are the digital native generation mastering technology development (Folarin, 2021; A. Harrison et al., 2017). The mastery of such technology influences how millennials seek sources of information. In 25 previous generations, the primary sources of information were textbooks, magazines, radio, and television (A. Harrison et al., 2017). However, nowadays, millennials have sufficient information from digital sources such as e-books, online news channels, and social media (A. Harrison et al., 2017). Based on the characteristic differences between baby boomers and millennials, a leadership shift that will occur in a few more years doesn’t seem easy. D. V. Day et al., (2014) implied in their study that the current leadership development program is “primitive,” as this field is still relatively immature despite many new understandings found within the 25 years they observed. This is supported by Riggio, (2008), saying that to prepare for the mass retirement or leadership shift in companies, it is vital to prepare a leadership development program that can better prepare their current workforce to tackle the leadership positions and make their “own” leaders. They also claimed that the current leadership development programs need to be more “theory-driven, use proven methods, be integrated into ongoing organizational processes, evaluated for effectiveness, and substantial.” In leadership shifting, C. G. Myers & DeRue, (2017) mentioned that the organization could prepare individuals and the collective form of development, especially to establish positive interactions between leaders and followers. Definition clears up the definition differences between leadership and leadership development. Leader development prioritizes human capital and is closely related to intrapersonal issues. In comparison, leadership development prioritizes social capital and is closely associated with interpersonal problems. 26 So, the discussion of leadership development does not involve leadership alone but simultaneously involves leader development. Based on research involving managers included in the C-Suite, Elkington et al., (2017) mentioned that leadership development in practice involves three main activities: enhancing productivity, facilitating corporate socialization, and performance management. To improve productivity activities, some activities that can be done are job assignments (C. Day & Dowrick, 2004; D. V. Day et al., 2014), action learning (C. Day & Dowrick, 2004; C. G. Myers & DeRue, 2017), building skills (Frich et al., 201 JEAN HARTLEY & BARRIE HINKSMAN, 2003), secondments (JEAN HARTLEY & BARRIE HINKSMAN, 2003), classroom experience (C. G. Myers & DeRue, 2017). In facilitating corporate socialization activities, some activities that the organization can offer include coaching (Carey et al., 2011; Longenecker & McCartney, 2020), mentoring (D. V. Day et al., 2014; JEAN HARTLEY & BARRIE HINKSMAN, 2003), networking (C. Day & Dowrick, 2004; JEAN HARTLEY & BARRIE HINKSMAN, 2003) , fast track cohort, succession planning, organizational development, partnership working (JEAN HARTLEY & BARRIE HINKSMAN, 2003) . As for performance management activities, activities that can be done are 360-degree feedback (D. V. Day et al., 2014; Frich et al., 201 A. Harrison et al., 2017). Frich et al., (2015) also suggested that a leadership development program requires more than a traditional classroom-type training program. It is more of a result of a series of activities organizations coordinate to develop their employees. The people in top management positions must engage in this 27 process actively. From this literature, it is concluded that a deep organizational engagement with their potential leaders is needed. Leskiw & Singh, (2007) found six vital factors for effective leadership development: (1) a thorough needs assessment; (2) the selection of a suitable audience; (3) the design of an appropriate infrastructure to support the initiative; (4) the design and implementation of an entire learning system; (5) an evaluation system; and (6) corresponding actions to reward success and improve on deficiencies. These six factors are critical to build a program that could accelerate the leadership development process in organizations. Elkington et al., (2017) mentioned that four factors that affect leadership development could run effectively, namely (1) context, (2) human capital, (3) social capital, and (4) structural capital. Context factors consist of paying attention to various things related to market forces and trends, volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity (VUCA), and systemic interdependence orientation. The second factor, human capital, comprises critical knowledge, skills, and self-leadership. The social capital factor consists of influence, impact, and collaboration. The fourth factor, structural capital, consists of leading the future. In addition to these four factors, Leskiw & Singh, (2007) mentioned several essential elements to be involved in leadership development: evaluation system, selection, reward success, need assessment, design infrastructure, and design learning system. All of them are expected to help the implementation of leadership development in the organization run well. 28 Based on the discussion above, it is concluded that good leadership development requires more than just a classroom activity; it is still needed in the program. Besides that, continuous feedback and discussion with the assessor are also deemed necessary as a part of the whole process, as Leskiw & Singh, (2007) claimed. That is why, in the hypothesized model, the onboarding program is included as a classroom activity, along with coaching and mentoring, not only as a way to provide evaluation and assessment in the learning process but also to show the potential leaders in the company that the people from higher positions are willing to help them in their learning process, hence providing an engaged feeling. II.2.2 Divergent Perspectives on Millennial Characteristics The Millennial generation, identified as individuals born between 1981 and 1996 (Carrillo, 2023), has become a focal point in various fields of research and discussion.